RANSBERG PTY LTD and CITY OF BAYSWATER

In the recent case of Ransberg Pty Ltd and City of Bayswater, the parties were contesting the approval of a development application concerning a concrete batching plant. The proposed site is located in an industrial zone that borders both a residential area and a recreation area, raising concerns about potential dust impacts on these adjacent areas. The City of Bayswater initially refused the development application due to these concerns, and Ransberg appealed this decision to the Planning and Environment Court of Western Australia.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the proposed concrete batching plant would pose a danger to public health and if the application of the precautionary principle justified the refusal of approval. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the recommended buffer zones should be adhered to, given the expert evidence on the potential risks to public health from dust. A further issue was whether the use of new wet-mix technology would mitigate the risks sufficiently, considering that this technology had been approved by regulators elsewhere in the metropolitan area.

In its decision, the court recognised that the proposed concrete batching plant was a permissible land use under the local planning scheme. The court also acknowledged the significant concurrent regulation of the facility by the Department of Environmental Regulation. The court emphasised that the measurement of dust and its potential exceedances were crucial factors. Given the lengthy adjournment of the hearing to facilitate accurate dust measurement and modelling, the court was satisfied with the evidence presented. There was significant agreement among environmental experts on the potential risks to public health from dust, but the evidence also suggested that dust exceedances from national standards would be infrequent and generally capable of management. The court concluded that necessary measures for ongoing dust management and temporary cessation of activities were sufficient to mitigate the risks. Therefore, the application of the precautionary principle did not warrant the refusal of approval. The tribunal permitted the development on the basis of amended conditions, including specific measures for dust management and the establishment of buffer zones.

Ultimately, the court allowed Ransberg's appeal and granted approval for the development, subject to the amended conditions. The decision underscored the importance of balancing permissible land uses with the need to protect public health and amenity, particularly in areas bordering residential and recreational zones.