HANSON CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PTY LTD and TOWN OF VINCENT
[2009] WASAT 138
•14 JULY 2009
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005 (WA)
CITATION: HANSON CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PTY LTD and TOWN OF VINCENT [2009] WASAT 138
MEMBER: MR M SPILLANE (MEMBER)
HEARD: 30 MARCH 2009
DELIVERED : 14 JULY 2009
FILE NO/S: DR 405 of 2008
BETWEEN: HANSON CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
TOWN OF VINCENT
Respondent
Catchwords:
Town planning - Development application - Proposed additional silo - Orderly and proper planning
Legislation:
City of Perth Local Planning Scheme No 26
East Perth Redevelopment Scheme 1992 (WA), cl 2.9
Environmental Protection (Concrete Batching and Cement Product Manufacturing) Regulations 1998
Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997
Metropolitan Region Scheme
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 245(2), s 252(1)
Town of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No 1
Result:
Development approval for additional silo granted until 26 June 2012
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr S Allerding (Representative)
Respondent: Mr SJ Bain (Representative)
Solicitors:
Applicant: Allerding & Associates
Respondent: SJB Town Planning & Urban Design (Town Planners)
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
BP Australia Pty Ltd v City of Perth [1994] WATPAT 2; (1994) 10 SR (WA) 110
Cemex Australia Pty Ltd and Town of Vincent [2008] WASAT 153
Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd and Town of Vincent [2008] WASAT 71
Moore River Company Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission [2007] WASAT 98
Ocean City Ltd, Azore Ltd and Scarborough Hotel Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission, unreported; TPAT No 64 of 1986; 11 August 1987
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Summary of Tribunal's decision
Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd applied for development approval for the installation of an additional storage silo for fly‑ash at the Hanson batching plant in East Perth. The silo is proposed to be located adjacent to the existing silos and to be identical in colour and size.
The additional silo would add approximately one to two extra truck deliveries to the site per week. The Town of Vincent refused the development application and Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd sought a review of that decision by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal determined that the planning framework for the site and the locality had not significantly changed since the Tribunal had determined previous planning applications in respect of the site and that the proposed development is consistent with orderly and proper planning.
The Tribunal set aside the Town of Vincent's decision to refuse the development application and granted a conditional development approval until 26 June 2012.
Introduction
These proceedings involve an application brought by Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd (Hanson) under s 252(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (PD Act) for review of a decision of the Town of Vincent (Town or Council) to refuse development approval for an additional storage silo for the storage of fly‑ash, which it is proposed to incorporate into concrete mixes as a substitute for cement.
The approval is sought until 26 June 2012, which is the date on which development approval authorising use of the site as a concrete batching plant expires.
Site and locality
The plant is located on the corner of Edward Street and Lord Street, East Perth, and abuts Graham Farmer Freeway on the southern boundary.
The site has no direct vehicular or pedestrian access to Lord Street or to Graham Farmer Freeway and the site's two vehicle access and egress points are on Edward Street.
Lord Street is reserved as a regional road under the Western Australian Planning Commission's (WAPC) Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). A traffic assessment performed on Lord Street in 2004 found that it carried approximately 16,500 vehicles per day.
The batching plant currently contains four cement storage silos which are visible from Lord Street and the Graham Farmer Freeway. The proposed fifth silo will abut the southern most existing silo and will be of the same scale and appearance of the existing silo.
The site is located in Precinct 15: Claisebrook Road North (Precinct 15) under the East Perth Redevelopment Scheme 1992 (WA) (EPRS).
Both planners dealt only briefly with the immediate locality. However, the Tribunal is satisfied the position is substantially the same as at the time of previous findings of the Tribunal in Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd and Town of Vincent [2008] WASAT 71 (Hanson), which was an application for review in respect of an extension of hours of operation in which this Tribunal found:
… [T]he overall configuration of land use activities in the immediate locality [of the site] is predominantly of a commercial/light industrial or non‑residential nature. …
There is only limited residential development either in existence or under construction in the immediate locality [and vicinity] of the site. Furthermore, the amenity of the residential properties in the vicinity of the site is significantly affected by the major transport infrastructure. The existing, approved concrete batching plant on the site … also forms part of the amenity of the locality.
There was some limited evidence put before the Tribunal of some additional residential development in the area, however, there was certainly no evidence sufficient for the Tribunal to change its view from that outlined above, and the Tribunal accepts and adopts that description of the locality as still being correct and relevant.
Background
Mr John Symonds, Metropolitan Operations Manager for Hanson, gave evidence that the batching plant has operated on or in the vicinity of the current site for in excess of 40 years. The plant's current location was approved in the mid‑1990s as a result of the resumption of the greater part of its original site for the construction of the Graham Farmer Freeway and feeder roads. The site of the plant originally fronted onto Parry Street, east of Lord Street, but with the truncation of this street and the allotment of land on which to relocate the plant, new access was provided on Edward Street in 1996.
The plant, as it now stands, was constructed in 1996/1997. It is designed with a dry dust extraction system in the loading bay, underground and enclosed aggregate receiver bins and enclosed conveyor systems.
The plant is the largest in output capacity of Hanson's six metropolitan plants. It manufactures pre‑mixed concrete for the construction industry. The manufacturing processes involve the receipt and storage of raw materials, water, chemical additive, cement and the combining of these constituent products in a controlled manner into the truck mixers for mixing and delivery. The plant has two loading facilities on the site to allow for the high demand of pre‑mixed concrete in peak production periods and for the larger concrete orders that are typical for the client's construction sites in the CBD and surrounding areas.
In 2000, an application was made to EPRA to enable the plant to open outside of the then approved hours of operation, with subsequent approval granted for a 12‑month period. Similar applications were submitted on an annual basis and approved by EPRA, and then by the City of Perth (City) when planning responsibility was transferred to it.
In July 2007, Precinct 15, which the plant is located within, was transferred from the district of the City to the district of the Town.
In November 2007, the Town rejected an application to remove the restriction on operating hours and an application was made to this Tribunal to review that refusal.
In its decision of 2 April 2008, the Tribunal granted consent for an extension of hours subject to conditions, which approval is to expire on 26 June 2012.
The current application for the addition of a storage silo to the existing plant was made to the respondent by application of 12 August 2008, and was refused by a decision of 23 September 2008.
The report to Council, dated 23 September 2008, described the current proposal in the following terms:
The proposal involves an additional cement storage silo. There are currently 4 other storage silos operating on‑site. The proposed silo will be identical and located adjoining an existing silo and be painted in an industrial matching colour to the existing structures. Provision has been previously made to accommodate the new silo and there will be no need to undertake any civil work for the structure.
The new silo will be fitted with appropriate dust filtration and high level alarm systems. The new silo will increase storage capacity and is not designed to increase the production output of the plant. The proposal was originally included in a development application submitted to the then local authority, the City of Perth, in 2005 to obtain planning approval to construct the second load out bay.
Further advice in part from the applicant is in verbatim below:
'The silo would assist Hanson in being able to store a product called Fly Ash which is a by product of coal fired power generating plants. To further elaborate on the primary environmental benefit of incorporating Fly Ash into our operations is that it is essentially a product that would ordinarily be discarded as waste at the generating plant but with modifications to our processes we can incorporate this product into our concrete. Furthermore[,] utilising Fly Ash in our concrete mixes reduces the amount of cement required which[,] being an energy intensive manufacturing process[,] directly reduces the amount of carbon dioxide emissions released into the atmosphere.'
Applicable local planning framework
In Hanson, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicable local planning framework is contained in the EPRS.
At [39] of Hanson, the Tribunal found:
… [T]he clear intention of Sch 3 is that development in Precinct 15 is to be regulated by the EPRS and, therefore, following the transfer of planning responsibility over Precinct 15 to the City, to incorporate the EPRS text into [City of Perth City Planning Scheme No 2 (CPS 2)] in relation to the Precinct. The statement that land in the Precinct is within the boundaries of the East Perth Redevelopment Area is not strictly incorrect, because Precinct 15 is identified in the EPRS as within that Area.
The incorporation of the EPRS text into CPS 2 in relation to Precinct 15 is understandable, because, when CPS 2 was gazetted on 9 January 2004, the effect of reg 7(2) of the [East Perth Redevelopment (Subtracted Area) Regulations 2002 (WA) (SA Regs)] was that the SA Regs - including reg 5 which had the effect that the EPRS continued to apply to the site - would expire on 24 January 2004. As it happens, the expiry date for the SA Regs was extended to 24 January 2007 by amendment to the SA Regs published in the Government Gazette on 23 January 2004. However, the ultimate expiry of the SA Regs on 24 January 2007 did not amend or reverse the local planning framework put in place on 9 January 2004 by Sch 3 of CPS 2.
In respect of the City of Perth Local Planning Scheme No 26 (LPS 26), Mr Bain for the respondent stated:
The City of Perth Scheme covering this area still applies and is implemented by the Town of Vincent until such time when the Town has finalised a review of its Town Planning Scheme No 1.
In Hanson, the Tribunal found in respect of that issue at [42]:
Although LPS 26 was intended to apply to the site when it was formulated and approved by the City, it cannot apply, because the site was not within the City's municipal area by the time LPS 26 was gazetted. However, because the planning framework for the site envisaged by LPS 26 is substantially similar to the planning framework for the site under the EPRS - via CPS 2 - the result in this review would be no different if LPS 26 did apply, which it does not.
Mr Bain confirmed that the subject land is not included under the Town of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No 1 (TPS 1).
In the circumstances, the Tribunal remains of the view that its reasoning in respect of the local planning framework in Hanson is correct and adopts that reasoning in this matter.
Proposed local planning strategy
In Hanson, the Minister made a submission under s 245(2) of the PD Act in the form of a letter, dated 28 February 2008, set out at [33], which stated:
I consider the application involves matters which may have a substantial effect on the future planning and development of the area in which the land is situated, including the adjoining Perth Central Business District (CBD) and the wider regional area.
And later:
… I do however respectfully request that the Tribunal also gives due regard to the broader issues of our State's long-term economic and environmental sustainability when making its decision on the subject application.
It was clear from this that the Minister recognised the batching plant as important from a State perspective.
In Cemex Australia Pty Ltd and Town of Vincent [2008] WASAT 153, (Cemex) delivered on 30 June 2008, which concerned another batching plant in close proximity to the Hanson plant, the Tribunal stated at [101]:
Finally, the town planning evidence suggests that it will take between two and three years for a new local planning framework to be brought into effect in relation to the locality. The approval of extended hours of operation until the underlying development approval for the plant lapses in 2012 will enable the Town and relevant State authorities to develop, in consultation with CEMEX and the community, an appropriate strategic planning framework for future development of the site, having regard to its locational characteristics and local and regional planning considerations. It is in the interests of orderly and proper planning, both at a local and regional level, that the new planning framework is in place well before the development approval for the current use of the site expires.
At the hearing of this matter, evidence was given by the Mayor of the Town, Mr Nick Catania, who submitted a copy of an in‑house memorandum from the Town's planning department that referred to a new Draft Local Planning Strategy (Draft LPS).
Mr Catania confirmed that the Draft LPS was scheduled to be considered at the ordinary meeting of Council to be held on 12 April 2009 for endorsement and to then be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for their consideration.
Although the Tribunal has received no further notification of whether Council considered the matter on 14 April 2009, and what then transpired, it is clear that the respondent is in the early stages of preparing a strategic planning framework for the area which is a positive development and in line with orderly and proper planning.
For the purposes of the current application, the Tribunal must consider whether the proposed Draft LPS is a seriously entertained planning proposal and should be given weight.
In Moore River Company Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission [2007] WASAT 98 at [159], the Tribunal summarised the principle in respect of when a draft planning instrument or policy constitutes a seriously entertained planning proposal and stated:
In Nicholls and Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 40; 149 LGERA 117, the Tribunal analysed the authorities dealing with the extent to which planning proposals should be considered and what is generally referred to as the 'Coty principle' ‑ see Coty (England) Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council (1957) 2 LGRA 117. It is not necessary to repeat the helpful analysis there set out. In short, the principle is that where a draft planning instrument or policy has reached a stage that it constitutes a seriously entertained planning proposal, it becomes a relevant matter for consideration as to orderly and proper planning, and should be given such weight as is appropriate having regard to the four principal criteria identified at [59] of the decision in making a planning decision to which the draft instrument or policy relates.
And at [168] continued:
A seriously entertained planning proposal is one that has a real likelihood of being adopted ‑ see Agnew Clough Ltd v Town Planning Board (Unreported, WATPAT; No 1 of 1979; 1 May 1980). …
In the present case, what is before the Tribunal is the first draft of a draft local planning strategy prepared by the Town's planning officers which states in respect of the subject property:
The property has been identified as being within an area of proposed Transport‑Orientated Development, being within 400 metres of the Claisebrook Station. It recommended that a mixed zoning of Residential/Commercial R80 ‑ R100 is to be encouraged and that the establishment of the new general industries uses is discouraged to facilitate the progressive removal of such activities, including the concrete batching plants, in cases where they present a negative impact on the proposed and existing amenity of the area.
The time line for the adoption of the Draft LPS was that it was to be considered at an ordinary meeting of Council on 14 April 2009 and from there be submitted to the WAPC for comment, approval and advertising.
It is clear from the intervention by the Minister in previous applications in respect of this site referred to above, that the WAPC will give careful consideration to a Draft LPS dealing with an area with important locational characteristics and local and regional planning considerations.
In all the circumstances, the Draft LPS could not at this point in time be regarded as having reached the stage of a seriously entertained planning proposal to which weight would need to be given.
In any event, the overall approval for the use of the site as a batching plant expires in June 2012 by which time it is likely that the relevant authorities will have decided the future direction of the area for planning purposes.
Issues raised by the respondent
The Town's vision for the area
The respondent, through the Mayor, suggested that the proposed development is contrary to the Town's 'Vision' for the area. However, as outlined, that vision has not yet progressed to the stage of being a seriously entertained planning proposal.
As stated above, there is no doubt that the location of the batching plants in their current position will be something that will be considered in great detail by both the respondent and the relevant State agencies over the coming months. However, in the context of the current proposal, the vision as referred to remains only a vision without any structured planning policy as yet attached to it.
Need
The respondent also argued that there was no demonstrated need for the expansion of the operation of the plant.
Aside from the fact that the respondent furnished no evidence that the current application is an expansion of the operation of the plant, the applicant is in any event not required to demonstrate a need for the additional silo in order to obtain development approval: BP Australia Pty Ltd v City of Perth [1994] WATPAT 2; (1994) 10 SR (WA) 110 at [118] (BP Australia Pty Ltd).
Amenity
Although offering no evidentiary basis for its contention, the respondent made several assertions that there would be an increase in such things as traffic, dust and noise based on what it claimed was an intensification or expansion of the operations of the plant.
Mr Bain, the planner called on behalf of the respondent, relied in large part to support his contentions in this regard, on a letter from the Department of Environment and Conservation's (DEC) Manager of Environmental Regulation and Response, dated 15 February 2008.
That letter, however, had been received in respect of the earlier Hanson decision, and Mr Bain, apart from referring to it and the fact that the DEC did not support 24‑hour usage, which was the subject of the previous review, did not explain how the letter related to the present application.
In the earlier Hanson decision, the Tribunal, for the reasons outlined in that decision, was not convinced by the arguments put forward by the DEC in the letter referred to, and in the present case the letter is entirely unrelated to the proposal before the Tribunal.
As the respondent's evidence in respect of the amenity issues of traffic, noise and dust relied almost entirely on the letter of 15 February 2008, the Tribunal is left with no relevant evidence on which it can make findings in respect of the assertions on traffic, noise and dust raised by the respondent.
In any event, both experts agreed that the operation of the plant would be covered, in respect of dust, by the Environmental Protection (Concrete Batching and Cement Product Manufacturing) Regulations 1998 and, in respect of noise, the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, and Mr Symonds, on behalf of the applicant, confirmed the silo would be installed and operated in compliance with the relevant regulations.
Objections
The Town undertook appropriate advertising for public submissions and consultation in accordance with cl 2.9 of the EPRS. By letter of 13 March 2009, a copy of the submissions received, all of which appeared to be pro forma tick box‑type forms, were collated and furnished to the Tribunal. In all, there were two supporting submissions and 57 objections, including a petition consisting of 41 signatures.
However, none of the objectors, nor any resident of Precinct 15, was called to give evidence.
In Ocean City Ltd, Azore Ltd and Scarborough Hotel Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission, unreported; TPAT No 64 of 1986; 11 August 1987, the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal observed:
As this Tribunal has pointed out before there is a need for caution in assessing the weight to be given to petitions. Jobalin Pty Ltd v City of Subiaco (Appeal 24 of 1979); Tang v City of Stirling (Appeal 27 of 1981). Whilst a petition is some evidence of the attitude of those who sign it, the signatures are not to be regarded as impressive evidence because there is no way of checking the authenticity of them or the extent to which the signatory had been informed of relevant facts concerning the particular development. See also M.E.M (Malvern) Pty Ltd v Brighton City Council (1977) 12 VPA 192.
In BP Australia Pty Ltd at [124] the Tribunal found:
Petitions and unsworn statements usually hang in the air and do not represent substantive evidence that may be used by the Tribunal in assessing the issue of preservation of amenity of the locality.
The only evidence before the Tribunal in respect of what was actually proposed, and the impact it would have, was given by Mr Symonds on behalf of the applicant at para 3.8 of his statement of evidence, where he stated:
The installation of a cement storage silo will enable the storage of Fly Ash. Fly Ash is a by‑product from coal power stations that can be incorporated into certain concrete mixes as a substitute for cement. The cement manufacturing process (By Cockburn Cement Kwinana) is energy intensive and high in carbon dioxide emissions and by reducing cement content where possible in concrete mixes and replacing with Fly Ash assists in the reduction of these greenhouse gas emissions. It is not proposed to increase the production of concrete at the Plant as a result of the additional silo. The estimated net result of installing the silo in terms of truck movements is anticipated to be between 1 ‑ 2 extra trucks per week delivering Fly Ash to the Plant. This is because it is not a direct one for one replacement in the concrete mixes. The proposed silo shall be of identical size and colour to the adjoining silo and located within the same building structure and no civil work would have to be undertaken to erect the silo. The installation would take less than one week and the same amount of time to remove it if required to. In terms of cost it represents less than 2.0% of the total plant and equipment value. The silo and its use is consistent with the existing operation and shall be installed and operated in compliance with the West Australian Environmental Protection (Concrete Batching) Regulations 1998.
Consideration
As outlined earlier, there have been a number of applications in respect of the batching plant, the subject of this application for review.
The area in which the plant is located only came under the respondent's jurisdiction in recent times and although the respondent is developing a vision for the area, which it hopes to establish over the next few years through its Draft LPS, it is clear that the location is seen by the State Government as strategic and the proposed Draft LPS is something which will be given careful consideration by the relevant State bodies.
The current proposal merely seeks to add one additional silo to the four currently on site. No increase in production of concrete at the plant is anticipated and the estimated net result of installing the silo, in terms of vehicle movements, is an anticipated one to two extra truck movements per week to deliver fly‑ash.
Although fears were expressed by the respondent in respect of traffic, dust and noise, no relevant evidence was called to support such a proposition and the Tribunal was left only with general statements regarding possible impacts without any actual basis for the assertions made. Furthermore, evidence was given that the plant would be installed and operated in compliance with the relevant regulations.
It is important to note that the development approval to use these premises as a batching plant expires in June 2012, and the addition of a silo for fly‑ash, which, on the evidence of the applicant, will take approximately one week to erect and another week to take down, will have little or no impact on the ongoing operation of the plant. Indeed, it may even have a beneficial effect from an environmental perspective by a reduction in carbon emissions as referred to by Mr Symonds.
In all the circumstances, therefore, there is no good planning reason why the current application should not be approved in line with orderly and proper planning. However, the approval will expire at the same time as the other approvals on the site, being 26 June 2012.
Conditions
By letter of 20 February 2009, the respondent provided the Tribunal with 'Without Prejudice' draft conditions if the Tribunal was inclined to approve the application for review. The conditions were:
(a)prior to the commencement of the operation of the new silo, an updated management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Town, which includes addressing the following matters:
(i)noise management for on‑site activities;
(ii)dust and cement waste management including regular washing down of trucks before exiting the site, dust control on‑site and regular sweeping and cleaning of materials spilled on surrounding roads;
(iii)a traffic management plan with regard to all vehicles entering and exiting the site, including vehicles delivering raw materials, Monday to Saturday, driver education in regard to truck routes, vehicle speeds, and operations to minimise disturbance and public safety concerns;
(iv)methods for notifying affected properties along Claisebrook Road, Edward Street and other internal streets used to access Lord Street on occasions when unusually high truck movements are likely to occur Monday to Saturday;
(v)the implementation of a complaint handling system that includes a procedure to log and deal with complaints from residents and owners allegedly affected by the concrete batching plant's operations, including a manned compliant line, details of which is to be annually forwarded to the Town of Vincent for consideration; and
(vi)a review of the above management plan after the first 12 months of operation;
(b)no special one off applications for extended operating hours shall be applied for on Sundays and public holidays;
(c)there shall be no increase in truck movements as a result of the proposed additional silo; and
(d)the above use shall cease operations as of 26 June 2012.
In response to those conditions, the applicant confirmed that they have no objection to conditions (a)(i) ‑ (vi) as they are in essence the conditions attached to the approval for the extended operating hours already in place.
In respect of conditions (b), (c) and (d), the applicant stated as follows:
Condition (b) should be omitted because we are not in a position to absolutely commit to no exemption applications going forward. Circumstances may well prevail whereby it is advantageous for all parties to permit operation on a Sunday or Public Holiday.
Condition (c) should be omitted because:
(i)[a]lthough there will be a reduction in truck movements associated with the delivery of cement to the plant there will be deliveries of flyash. A more detailed explanation of additional truck movements is provided for in the application; the increased movements (1 to 2 per week) will be negligible; and
(ii)it is impractical to determine what any additional truck movements may or may not be attributed to i.e. Normal market conditions.
Condition (d) should be omitted because application to extend the development approval has not yet been considered and will be determined at that time. It is unreasonable to commit to it now.
The Tribunal is of the view that conditions (a)(i) ‑ (vi) are reasonable and in line with orderly and proper planning and will be imposed as conditions of approval.
However, there appears to be no good planning reason why conditions (b), (c) and (d), as proposed by the respondent, should be imposed.
In respect of an application which merely allows an additional silo for the storage of fly‑ash, the Tribunal fails to see the relevance of condition (b) to the present application.
In relation to condition (c), the respondent has confirmed that there will probably be one to two extra truck movements a week and the Tribunal can see no good planning reason to impose condition (c) in the circumstances.
In respect of condition (d), this application is not an application for use of the premises and the proposed condition (d) is not a proper condition to impose.
However, as with previous approvals, the Tribunal will confirm by way of a condition that this approval is granted for a term expiring on 26 June 2012 in order to keep this approval in line with other approvals for the site.
Orders
The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1.The decision of the respondent made on 23 September 2008 to refuse development approval for an additional storage silo to the Hanson concrete batching plant is set aside.
2.Development approval is granted for the additional storage silo, subject to the following conditions:
(a)prior to the commencement of the operation of the new silo, an updated management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Town, which includes addressing the following matters:
(i)noise management for on‑site activities;
(ii)dust and cement waste management, including regular washing down of trucks before exiting the site, dust control on‑site and regular sweeping and cleaning of materials spilled on surrounding roads;
(iii)a traffic management plan with regard to all vehicles entering and exiting the site, including vehicles delivering raw materials, Monday to Saturday, driver education in regard to truck routes, vehicle speeds, and operations to minimise disturbance and public safety concerns;
(iv)methods for notifying affected properties along Claisebrook Road, Edward Street and other internal streets used to access Lord Street on occasions when unusually high truck movements are likely to occur Monday to Saturday;
(v)the implementation of a complaint handling system that includes a procedure to log and deal with complaints from residents and owners allegedly affected by the concrete batching plant's operations, including a manned compliant line, details of which is to be annually forwarded to the Town of Vincent for consideration; and
(vi)a review of the above management plan after the first 12 months of operation.
3.This approval is granted for a term expiring on 26 June 2012.
I certify that this and the preceding [72] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR M SPILLANE, MEMBER
2
4
7