THE fight against the proposed concrete batching plant at 277-279 Collier Road continues for the City of Bayswater and its residents.
Bayswater councillors rejected WA Limestone’s original application in 2011 after strong opposition from residents with concerns about noise, heavy vehicle traffic, proximity to homes and health risks from pollution.
Since then the matter has gone back and forth between the council and the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), with amended plans submitted to the council for its August meeting.
The council unanimously voted to defer consideration of the proposed amendments until concerns – including environmental matters raised by the City’s environmental consultant and the buffer around the plant – had been addressed.
Jamie Petrovic, who worked in the concrete industry for 14 years, is one of the residents opposed to the plant.
“Because the SAT is involved, anything could happen,” he said.
“If the SAT let this go through it’s going to be an environmental disaster. The buffer zone is meant to be a 300m radius, but there are companies right next door.”
Resident and former councillor Sally Palmer said it was an absolute dilemma to think that parcel of land could be used for dust and dirt.
“There’s no such thing as a clean concrete batching plant,” she said.
“They should never have it so close to the buffer zone of that location, it is absolutely criminal.
“The buffer zone should be a minimum of 500m and even if it was a minimum of 300m, it’s still not enough.”
According to the council agenda, if rejected it could cost the City and its residents up to $140,000 to legally defend council’s decision.
Councillor Terry Kenyon said despite the city being threatened with costs by the SAT, the council was “110 per cent” behind the residents’ fight against this plant.
On September 2, Cr Chris Cornish posted on Facebook that he had spent three hours at an SAT mediation meeting on the proposed concrete batching plant.
“Thoroughly boring, but at least I was able to put forward the concerns of the residents who live around the site,” he said.
“This will either come back to council for reconsideration or progress to a SAT hearing where SAT will have the ultimate say – not the community and not the council.”