Bayswater’s battle against concrete batching plant goes on

BAYSWATER City council continued its five-year battle against a concrete batching plant with a fencing proposal rejected this week.

Council knocked back WA Premix’s proposal to install a 2.1m security boundary fence around the future plant at Collier Road in Bayswater.

The company and City of Bayswater are currently in negotiations with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) over the development.

In March, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) refused to assess environmental impacts of the plant because the overall environmental impact of the proposal was “not so significant as to require assessment by the EPA”.

However, following appeals from residents, the appeals convenor will advise Environment Minister Albert Jacob whether he should force the EPA to carry out the assessment.

Councillor Sally Palmer it did “not make sense” to oppose a concrete batching plant but approve the surrounding fence.

“It’s a bit like a naughty child saying ‘I’ll just eat that one lolly’ and you can have the bag; once you open the bag, that’s it, he’ll have the lot,” she said.

Cr Palmer said the dust emissions from the plant would go to adjoining Joan Rycroft Reserve and into Bayswater Brook and the Swan River.

“It won’t go away, it will compound daily over months and years,” she said.

“What would happen to Joan Rycroft is criminal.”

Cr Chris Cornish said everybody was “sick and tired” of the ongoing saga surrounding the plant.

He said SAT used discretion to approve the development, but did not meet the two main discretionary requirements.

Cr Cornish said non-compliance should not adversely impact residents – which it would – and traffic coming through the suburb to access four large silos was not a “preservation of locality”.

Resident Barry Kramer queried whether the City had enlisted the Town of Bassendean’s help in fighting the development, as they were only 92m away.

Mayor Barry McKenna said Bassendean was aware they were in close proximity.

It is estimated it would cost $40,000 to defend council’s decision in a SAT appeal.