Petitions and Deputations

On this page we detail the petitions and deputations made to council with regard to the illegal Permacast facility in Cardup

© Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale 2023

Mr Henry Dykstra, Executive Director / Manager of Planning - Harley Dykstra, regarding item 10.1.2 - Lot 60, 394 Robertson Road, Cardup - Proposed Retrospective and Prospective Concrete Product Manufacturing Facility General Industry (PA23/198) on 21 August 2023

Good Evening Councillors,

I am here on behalf of the owners of Lot 60 Robertson Road, Cardup, who have made application for the concrete manufacturing industry, which is also on your Agenda (item 10.1.2) this evening.

I would like to clarify that I am not here in a position to speak on behalf of the owners and operators in regards to past or present activities on the land, rather I am here to represent the current planning application that is before the Council and ultimately before the Development Assessment panel, and to demonstrate to Council that the application, the operations and the management measures are able to comply with the amenity requirements of the area in particular in relation to noise and vibration impacts.

Councillors, in the report that is on your Agenda this evening regarding this matter, you will note that there are matters associated with bush fire management, storm water management, dust management and the management of potential impacts on the Bush Forever site nearby and that all these matters have been worked through with the specialist subconsultants and the Council’s technical staff and a number of state government agencies. It is agreed, and I believe that Council staff also agree, that these matters have reached a point of demonstration that they are able to be appropriately managed through suitable conditions on a planning approval.

Noise and vibration impacts are the key impacts in this particular development application, and as part of our planning application a specialist noise and vibration consultant undertook extensive on-site testing as well as modelling to determine whether it would be possible for the development to comply with the noise and vibration thresholds under the relevant regulations.

The specialist noise and vibration consultant has also undertaken some further updates on the report, and the modeling, as a consequence of matters that were identified in the referral application to other government agencies. The consultant has recommended a number of management and mitigation measures that will be implemented as part of the development and operation and concluded that with the implementation of these measures the development would be able to meet the noise and vibration threshold requirements of the regulations.

I now understand that the Shire has obtained advice from another noise and vibration specialist in the form of a Peer Review of the work that our consultants have done, and that this Peer review has raised a number of question marks and further suggestions that would need to be taken on board in order to ensure that this development is able to comply.

Our noise and vibration specialist has now reviewed the assessment and comments that have been provided by the Shire’s specialist and is confident that responses and some further mitigation measures can be provided to ensure that the ultimate operations and operation measures comply.

Councillors, my request to you is that rather than recommending refusal of an application for an industry that is capable of complying with the regulations in terms of noise, vibration and dust, that you rather recommend that the outstanding matters identified in the Peer review in the Noise and Vibration reports be addressed further to the satisfaction of the Shire specialist consultant, and that appropriate mitigation and operation requirements be incorporated into an updated management plan that is reinforced by an appropriate condition on the planning approval.

Councillors, this application is capable of complying with the required amenity expectations and regulations of the locality, it is an industry that is permissible within this industrial zone, and it all comes down to appropriate operation and management measures being required and regulated under an approval.

In the event that as Council you do not think you can make that decision this evening, then I request that you defer the consideration of the application to allow the noise and vibration matters to be appropriately address and resolved between the specialist subconsultant for the applicant and the shire so that the final management and mitigation measures that achieve compliance are able to be included in an updated report and recommendation to the Council.

Councillors, thank you very much for your audience this evening and I wish you all the best for the remainder of your meeting.

Ms Karen McEwan, regarding item 10.1.2 - Lot 60, 394 Robertson Road, Cardup - Proposed Retrospective and Prospective Concrete Product Manufacturing Facility General Industry (PA23/198) on 21 August 2023

Introduction

I am here in opposition to the proposed retrospective and prospective approvals at 60 Robertson Road. Permacast has acted with absolute impunity for the Shire, DWER, our community and our laws.

They have illegally built an entire plant on a prescribed premise. They have done so in a manner that does not allow the local residents or greater community to have any choice in the kind of development that is taking place in our area. They act with absolute disdain for the local residents.

Their proposal should not even be considered, let alone approved.

Permacast’s proposal finds that all their activities and proposed activities comply with noise, dust, water and traffic regulations. Our experience is very different. It was a relief to find that the independent studies conducted by the Shire also differed in their findings, and we very much appreciate that they undertook these.

Noise

I did a bit of research on noise in preparation for this meeting. I have embedded some of the sites that I looked at.

High vs Low-Frequency Noise: What's the Difference? - Technicon Acoustics

What is the relation between sound (loudness) and frequency? - Quora

All noise can’t be treated the same and just lumped into one basket. We hear noise at different frequencies differently. Frequency is measured in Hz. Medium frequency is 200 to 2000 Hz. Low frequency is less than 200 Hz. We also hear it differently, so a 40 dB sound at mid frequency is actually equivalent to 50 dB at 200 Hz and 60 dB at 100 Hz. The noise emitted by the Permacast stress beds is a low frequency noise. Low frequency noise has longer wavelengths, can travel long distances and has high endurance. This basically means that it is going to reduce in loudness by distance at a lower rate than mid frequency noise.

Frequent exposure to low frequency noise can cause a variety of negative reactions such as headaches, increased heart rate, anxiety, vertigo and fatigue. That explains exactly what our neighbours and we feel. One of the stress beds was run for about an hour and a half on Wednesday the 16th of August. I got a headache almost immediately and felt nauseous. This did not go away for hours after the noise stopped.

I also reference DWER Prevention Notice 202307, which specifies that noise from the stressing beds caused physiological health impacts to DWER Inspectors.

All the fancy measurements and modelling aside, anyone that spends a few minutes at one of our homes when just one of the stressing beds is operating, would agree that the noise is absolutely horrendous. I don’t even want to imagine what it would be like when the others are operating simultaneously.

The stressing beds are not the only noise, there is a kind of stretching metal on metal noise, the closest I can come to describe it is a very loud version of running your fingernails against a blackboard.

Vehicle reversing alarms you are all familiar with, except imagine what it is like when these continue unceasing for hours and hours. All of the above accompanied by the usual banging and hammering industrial noises.

Dust

Stand in front of our gate over Summer and you will see the clouds of dust coming out of the Facility, or check out our swimming pool. Unfortunately, over that period we did not realise what was coming our way and did not take any photographs. We know now, and have photographic evidence of the dust this operation creates in Winter with hardly any wind.

This facility is a Prescribed Premise, no dust is permitted to leave the premises.

Traffic

In their Traffic Impact Assessment, Permacast advised that there would be a total of 128 trucks movements to and from the Facility a day. With 29 trucks in and out in the am and pm peak hours. Assuming am peak time as 7 am to 9 am and pm peak hours being 4 pm to 6 pm. This means that there will be a truck either entering or leaving the premises every 4 minutes during peak hours. During non-peak hours a truck will enter or leave every 6 minutes. These are large, heavy trucks and they will most definitely impact local road condition, traffic and road safety. This does not include other vehicular movement; they have estimated 100 employees.

The Permacast proposal states that trucks would be accessing the facility via South Western Highway, Norman Road and Robertson Road. We have photographic evidence showing trucks regularly, several times a day, accessing the site via Bishop Road or Karboro Road and Soldiers Road. Another act of disregard for the community, including the local school.

Water management

This facility is a Prescribed Premise, no water is permitted to leave the premises.

In their Stormwater Management Plan, Permacast claim that they have a 16,500 m3 basin, which is sufficient to hold their drainage water as well as storm water.

Lot 60 has a total 12.27 ha sub catchment area. Using a mean rainfall of 600 mm from the BOM Jandakot weather station (1972 to 2023), over April to September, they require a capacity of 73,620 m3. This does not account for the 1:100 year storm event.

The laydown area, Lot 21, is 21 ha, this would need a storm water dam with a capacity of 126,000 m3.

This is why, over the entire Winter, all stormwater from the site has been discharged into the local unlined storm water drains that eventually flow across Soldiers Road and onto private land.

From the start of the operation truck and plant wash water is being collected in the unlined basin. Basically there has been nothing to prevent any contaminants leaching into our ground water.

Some 26 or 29 sensitive residents were identified within a 1 km radius of the Facility, however any of you that use the ground water is a sensitive user. Any of you that water your gardens using ground water is a sensitive user. Any of you that fill your swimming pool using ground water is a sensitive user. Any of your children or grandchildren that play on the grass at the local schools or ovals is a sensitive user.

Historical behaviours

None of the complaints I have made to date are anything new, we have looked at previous applications and submissions in relation to Lot 60 Robertson Road. The following submission was made in 2012 by D & L Schoof:

“We have no objection to the development that is taking place, but request or maybe a stronger word ‘beg’ that they be required to keep the grounds wet. If you live in this Shire, you know well and truly what the east winds are like. Since they have taken down trees and cleared some land and we live in the direct wind path, we are eating, breathing, sleeping and swimming in sand. Especially if the winds have been strong at night, I have to wait some time before I can hang washing out.”

This is just an example. The other submissions from 11 years ago were concerned about the same things as we are – noise, dust, traffic, water.

In 2021 the residents’ submissions were a re-iteration of these same issues.

All these concerns were brushed off by the Facility representative, Harley Dykstra, by referencing dust, noise, traffic and water management plans.

Clearly these plans are not effective, because we made our submission in 2023, with the same concerns, except that as the Facility has grown, the issues have escalated.

Conclusion

Let me put the entire situation into perspective.

The application seeks approval for the production of around 73,000 tonnes of concrete product a year, around 300 tonnes / day. While maintaining this rate of production, they will have trucks moving into and out of the Facility at a rate of 1 every 4 to 6 minutes. This does not include service vehicles or the movement of 100 employees.

The recommended buffer zone for this Facility is 500 m to 1 km (averaged to 750 m). This does not exist. Due to their proximity to residences they are only allowed to operate from 7 am to 6 pm, 5 days a week, excluding public holidays. They have been breaching these operating hours and have operated 7 days a week until just a few weeks ago. This was without the production pressures that I have just sited.

This operation is too big to be able to control its emissions. It adversely affects the local community and potentially the greater community. The proponents have shown a lack of social responsibility and have displayed no regard for rules and regulations.

By building the entire operation without any approvals they are trying to force the regulatory bodies into granting them authority to operate.

Please select Option 1 and recommend that the Metro Outer Joint Development Panel REFUSE DAP application.

Finally, I would like to thank the Shire and DWER for carrying out their investigations, they gave us hope that we could get back our lives and listened when we were tired, desperate and hopeless.