Submissions

Contained below are submissions from Cardup residents, and other concerned parties, demonstrating irrefutably how people feel about having a massive polluting and noisy factories operating in their once quiet rural suburb.

Some submissions were made to the Serpentine-Jarrahdale council and released for public review via their inclusion into the February 2024 meeting agenda available on the SJ Shire website.

We thank the SJ Shire for making this documentation available.

As a Concerned Citizen I object wholly to the presence of Heavy Industry in Cardup.

The Permacast concrete works on Robertson Road should be forced to relocate to a more appropriate location away from people’s homes and schools. It pollutes our environment and has a detrimental effect on everyone’s health. The SJ Shire should do all in its power to ensure that this illegal facility does not receive the retrospective development approval that it seeks.

Having stayed with family in the affected area regularly over the last 12 months, we have witnessed first-hand the level of disruption and stress this facility causes to residents in the local area. Combined with the lack of response or support from the SJ shire, who are apathetic at best about residents' concerns, we have completely reconsidered our plans to move into the area to be closer to family. It is simply not worth the risk to our health and wellbeing to willing relocate into an area that has so blatantly disregarded the interests of its people for the sake of ease, and perhaps the odd backhander?

If the Shire had the guts to follow through with its decisions, to back its residents ahead of corporations, the support of DWER may have been solidified. Instead, every party involved in this sorry affair has thrown up their hands and claimed ‘not our job’.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

Perhaps Permacast’s operations are not evil, simply self-serving. Yet the damage they have caused to the environment and people of Cardup was preventable, had due planning and environmental protection process been followed prior to expansion. Further damage is still preventable, by denying retrospective permission, and having the facility relocate to a more suitable, industrial-zoned area. No-one affected by this issue is seeking to destroy this business, just to see it limited from destroying the wellbeing of Cardup.

Thank you for your consideration of my submission.

                                                                                     ********************************************************

                                                                                                 Submission to the Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire

                                                In relation to Concrete Manufacturing Facility at Lot 60 Robertson Road, Cardup Reference Number PA23/198

                                                                                    (Revised to reflect Harley Dykstra submission 14 Dec 2023)

Introduction

The Collins dictionary defines Heavy Industry as follows,

“…Heavy industry is industry in which large machines are used to produce raw materials or to make large objects…”

Irrespective of whatever dictionary you choose, all describe Heavy Industry in a similar manner.

Permacast talk on their website of producing vast quantities of prestressed concrete products.

Some examples include,

Gateway WA Project

228 Prestressed Bridge Planks (15-24m Long)

4 Post Tension Wing Beams (110 Tonnes each)

578 Precast Parapet Panels

Southern Seawater Desalination Plant

Culverts weighing up to 15 Tonnes each

W2W Alliance Black and Veatch Thiess JV

60 Post Tension Roof Panels – 9 Tonnes each

36 Post Tension Roof Panels – 11 Tonnes each

2 6.5m Dia Inner Ring Beams- 26 Tonnes each

4 Epoxy Lined Roof Covers – 8 Tonnes each

The list goes on. Given the quantities produced, the size and weight of the items, the materials produced and the market Permacast serve, it is, without doubt, a Heavy Industry. No question.

Is Cardup zoned for Heavy Industry? The answer is no.

The land on which Permacast (and its affiliated companies) operate is NOT zoned heavy industrial.

On the above grounds alone, this operation should not be allowed to continue.

Turning to the updated retrospective development approval as submitted by Harley Dykstra.

Cover Letter

Development Site Plan Updates

The increase in parking bays on site to 250 whilst stating that staff levels will not increase is totally illogical. The explanation given, and the statement that tired staff will leave their cars on site and catch taxis home, is bizarre and laughable.

With the Court Grammar School just over a kilometre away and with children and mums frequently moving around the area, one would have thought that council would do all in its power to discourage any additional traffic in the area?

With a near fatal traffic accident on Soldiers Road only recently in the news, and if the illegal concrete plant is allowed to continue and grow, the number of deaths and injuries on nearby roads is only likely to increase commensurately.

Does council intend to counter the increase in the number of local trucks and cars with any traffic calming measures?

It is only a matter of time before a child is killed as a result of the massive increase in traffic from this illegal concrete plant.

The “Enveloped” stressing beds, as they are euphemistically referred to in the Harley Dykstra cover letter, are in fact a pile of old sea containers stacked on top of one another and slapped with a bit of green paint. They have already fallen down once due to strong winds and that event triggered a WorkSafe enquiry. It is only by sheer chance that no one was killed.

For a company that claims to manufacture “sound walls” it is both intriguing and laughable that council should accept such an ad-hoc measure as a form of supposed noise attenuation.

In a peer review report to council by Reverberate Consulting dated 31 July 2023, Martti Warpenius stated the following in regard to using sea containers for this purpose;

Shipping containers used as noise barriers

The use of 40ft storage containers as the prime method of shielding noise to surrounding residential areas is questioned. Acoustically they have been shown to be insufficient to control noise. We remain concerned about non-acoustic issues. The following list is not considered comprehensive, and we recommend other expertise be consulted:

• The shipping containers appear to be located so as to interfere with normal Permacast operations. This may cause their relocation to alternative locations, potentially compromising the noise control

• shipping containers, by their design, may be considered temporary and liable to be removed.

They are designed to be transported. This means that they may not form a permanent solution

• Shipping containers may corrode more than a permanent, purpose-built noise barrier

• It is unclear if shipping containers can withstand high winds, especially when stacked

• The stacking of containers may create additional workplace hazards

We recommend that the applicant justify the use of these shipping containers to the satisfaction of the Shire, otherwise an alternative permanent solution is to be implemented.

Harley Dykstra also says that by painting these old sea containers ‘pale eucalypt’ in colour that they will “… blend with natural tones of the bush and sky…”. We have yet to witness a green sky.

Dust management is also unlikely to display any marked improvement with regard to local pollution of adjacent properties. The statement by Harley Dykstra that “…there is no mixing of cement or concrete…” is untrue. Cement is mixed with aggregate in the batch plant to make the concrete. The concrete slurry is then poured into the moulds or stressing beds as the case may be. It appears that they are intending to hide behind different corporate identities (e.g. Permacast, Polevine, Permapole, WA Remix etc) to obfuscate matters. If WA Remix are identified as a separate company then their Category 77 (W6658/2022/1) – Concrete batching or cement products manufacturing, from DWER shall apply.

Both DWER and Council are fully aware of all the noise, vibration and pollutants that emanate from Lot 60 and as such are obliged to monitor, control and respond accordingly.

Aside from the Stressing Beds, general factory noise and the noise from the vapour generator is in the background and levels vary with wind and whatever particular activity Permacast/Polevine are doing. That noise is very loud for those living in close proximity to the plant. Some residents say that it sounds like an airport runway and it is considered that this sound would come from the high velocity air movement of plant machinery.

Trucks are always going to be an ongoing issue and it is expected that it will get a lot worse. Permacast/Polevine know that there will be a lot of noise from their lay down / load out area and surrounding roads when they ramp up production. They have added paperwork to their development submission and when one reads it one immediately senses that it will affect all locals in the area. Permacast/Polevine have even mentioned that Karbro Drive is not to be used which of course is totally impossible to control – there is no way to control or stop drivers from taking any route to and from the plant that they choose. Most truckies would choose the quickest.

Appendix 1: Development Application Site Plan (Updated)

The site plan, updated or otherwise, provides unashamed visual proof of a Heavy Industrial operation squeezed onto land with inappropriate zoning and with residents’ homes clearly visible only a short distance away on the western (left) side of the plan. No buffer zone here.

Of further concern is the large area of natural bush (part of the Bush Forever area) that originally had a big red label in capitals that read “SUBJECT TO CLEARING PERMIT”. It is intriguing to note that this label has mysteriously disappeared from the latest site plan. Given the deceptive tactics and total disregard for the environment displayed by Permacast/Polevine in the past and the polluting behaviour reported by former employees, that, irrespective of council, or the appropriate authority’s approval, more trees will be cut down, ground cleared and all flora and fauna annihilated in this illegal operation’s lust for more space. Council may wish to carefully review, consider and comment on this.

Appendix 2: Updated Dust Management Plan

It is assumed that a lot of the cement dust that blows on the wind from Lot 60 may emanate from the WA Remix area of the site. However, we note that this facility has conveniently been excluded from the DMP for obvious reasons.

Furthermore, residents have been prevented from observing the origin of the cement dust due to the erection of the wall of old sea containers supposedly established as a “sound wall” or “envelope”. Although having little or no effect on sound and vibration, this dangerous structure does provide an effective “privacy screen” that allows the facility to continue its illegal operations in secret.

The original DMP talked in part about this facility being a “land development site” and even quoted DWER’s own guidelines in this regard. But the reality is that this is an operating heavy industry plant producing hundreds and thousands of tonnes of concrete per annum. It is not a building or construction site where work will finish and the original environmental conditions will resume. And if “land development” is or was occurring, then surely no approval was granted by the Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire for this to take place and basically constitutes yet a further admission of illegal activity on the Lot 60 site?

This, so called, updated DMP also states that the existing development has two Stressing Beds (the major source of noise pollution in the area) and the following paragraph talks about adding one more. The reality is (and as shown on Permacast’s own site plan) that this plant already has a total of FOUR Stressing Beds whose sole job is to VIBRATE and remove air pockets from setting concrete. Are Permacast unsure what equipment is already installed on site?

In essence, the updated DMP is a highly superficial document basically telling council what they want to hear and containing very little detail. A lot of it appears to have been a “cut & paste” exercise form similar generic documents and is unlikely to provide any comfort or reassurance to Cardup residents that the ongoing cement dust, dirt and detritus that has rained down upon their properties in the past will not continue into the future should this illegal operation be allowed to continue.

The DMP also contains contradictions that bring into question the veracity of the whole document. For example, on page 3 it talks about installing a “…100 bay carpark…to facilitate increased staff numbers…” However, in the cover letter it says, “…there will not be an increase in staff numbers…”. Which one is the reader supposed to believe?

Note also that the Development Site Plan (Amended) attached to the DMP as Appendix B (and also in Appendix C) clearly shows a red label on the Bush Forever vegetation that says SUBJECT TO CLEARING PERMIT. It is therefore obvious that Permacast/Polevine intend to encroach into this area of native bush once the current attention focussed on them declines.

We look forward to reading the peer review of the Permacast Dust Management Plan.

Appendix 3: Updated Noise and Vibration Report

This first document appeared to be basically a rehash of the original report produced by Lloyd George Acoustics and rejected by council following a peer review earlier in 2023.

This latest version is very similar but suspiciously no longer contains the words ‘predicted’ six times, ‘assumed’ three times, ‘may’ six times and ‘possible’ three times. I say “suspiciously” as the use of these words were flagged in my original submission but have now disappeared from this latest effort by Permacast.

One could deduce from this fact that person or persons unknown at the SJ Shire may have provided a copy of my original submission to Permacast / Harley Dykstra thus assisting them to ‘massage’ the current document to remove doubt and ambiguity from it. Details of this issue, which constitutes a breach of confidentiality and potential corruption, has been passed to the CCC for their consideration.

Irrespective of the above, the testing method and criteria used is still very intriguing and appears to have been selected and manipulated to produce the best possible outcome for the LGA client.

No longer is the use of the ISO 9613 standard for testing mentioned as this was questioned by the peer review in the original submission where it stated,

“Noise modelling in Western Australia, as stated by DWER, is commonly undertaken using the CONCAWE algorithm 7. In fact, the meteorological conditions used by LGA were developed for the CONCAWE algorithm.

Where LGA uses ISO 9613, they need to justify its use as outlined by DWER. LGA also needs to compare the forecast results with CONCAWE as part of that exercise.”

We can see no such justification for using ISO 9613 in this revised LGA report.

An internet comment with regards to the use of ISO 9613 states,

“…The weakest parts of this method are its vagueness, and doubts about its accuracy. A lot of modelling input parameters is based on the user’s judgment rather than a standardized procedure. This weakness could be an argument against the method to be considered as a standard. For example, the user decides, material reflection properties, how to use foliage, site and housing attenuation factors, and whether ground reflections for vertical diffraction paths are important or not. The other weakest part of 9613-2 is doubts about its accuracy.”

Numerous calls have been made to the DWER environmental hotline with regard to the noise and vibration emanating from the Lot 60 heavy industrial plant. These calls and the log thereof should be taken into account when assessing this factor.

In real world conditions people can hear the low frequency droning noise and feel the ground propagated vibrations some considerable distance from the plant. As far as we know, no testing of any form has ever been conducted on any of these more distant properties.

The effects of this ongoing noise pollution have been multi-faceted but there are documented and recorded incidences amongst residents of the following,

 • Depression

 •  Anxiety

•  Mood Changes

 • Suicidal Ideation

 • Insomnia

Those who can no longer stand the noise and vibration are sadly forced to sell up and move away from the area.

Heavy industry that has such a marked effect on people’s health should not be allowed to exist in the Cardup area.

As the SJ Shire have stated previously, these latest submissions will be subject to a peer review by a suitably qualified noise and vibration expert. It will be interesting to read this review which will hopefully dissect the methodology employed by LGA to produce this report. To the layman it appears to have been an exercise in obfuscation and whilst it runs to 35 pages and contains a lot of verbiage, the actual finite detail and the recognised methods and standards used for the testing appear to be missing.

It should also be noted that the Permacast Operational Noise Management Plan, submitted as part of this most recent revision, relates only to Lot 21 which is situated adjacent to South Western Highway. This area does not contain the noise and vibration generating equipment that has caused so much distress for local residents and, aside from vehicular noise which is of concern; it’s inclusion herewith is somewhat puzzling.

Appendix 4: Updated Stormwater Management Plan

The general consensus with regard to this latest stormwater management plan is best summarised in an email from XXXXXXXXXXXX to Stuart Barter of DWER on 15 November 2023 which said,

“…Currently the management plans are very generic … with no clear objectives with regards to human health and or ecological risk. There are no details on roles, responsibilities, action criteria or even monitoring programs (seasonal at best).

All parties (employees of Permacast, receptors and the Shire) will need to know exactly how and when to apply any prescribed measures. Currently it has a ‘she’ll be right approach’ and as concerned receptors we would very much like DWERs input and review of these plans…”

This plan, again prepared by Rob Smith of McDowall Affleck Pty Ltd, is yet another revision to an earlier plan that was subsequently rejected by council.

Of major concern is the fact that the dams, where most stormwater is to be directed, are not apparently going to be lined. This is despite earlier assurances from Andrew Trosic of the SJ Shire that this was to happen. In the minutes of a meeting dated 10 October 2023, Mr Trosic stated,

“…the Dams are to be lined. The Prevention Notice says they have six months to rectify – that means that the dam has to be lined within six months. Andrew said the plan was they are not allowed to discharge water, it needs to be pumped out…”

However, in an email from Stuart Barter of DWER to local resident John McEwan dated 14 November 2023, he states,

“…The existing dam is no longer being expanded or lined. Permacast intend to construct a secondary dam as mentioned above. Neither dam on the premises will be lined, however all wastewater will be treated to remove cement contaminants prior to being discharged. Permacast have stated that water within catchment ponds/dams will be regularly tested and testing data will be shared with DWER and the Shire…”

This means that all water that flows into the dams and contains cement dust will contain traces of Chromium VI, a known carcinogenic.

With no liner, these contaminants will subsequently leach down into the water table, pollute the groundwater and will be drawn up though the bores of the properties on the other side of Soldiers Road to be consumed as drinking water by the residents who live there.

This situation is wholly and totally unacceptable and we trust that the SJ Shire will reject the SMP on these grounds also?

Appendix 5: Bushfire Management Plan

This report, compiled by Smith Bushfire Consultants Pty Ltd, appears generally acceptable. However, under Section 2 (Environmental Considerations) a few lines are intriguing,

Subsection 2.1: Native Vegetation – modification and clearing

The site is already cleared of vegetation and no additional clearing is required associated with this development. There is virtually no vegetation on the development site.

Subsection 2.2: Re-vegetation/Landscape Plans

There are no re-vegetation or landscape plans for this development.

If “no additional clearing is required” then why do some versions of the site plan as previously mentioned show an area with the label “subject to clearing permit”?

Furthermore, why does this plan state, “There are no re-vegetation or landscape plans for this development” when the Harley Dykstra cover letter under section 5 states,

“…Additional landscaping is proposed at the western edge of the Permacast development area of the site, on the bund edges of the drainage basin and on the existing bund located immediately west of the western most acoustic barrier on the site plan. This landscaping will include screening by way of a mix of trees and shrubs…”

This brings into question the veracity and reliability of the entire submission. One of the statements is obviously incorrect, but which one? How many others are blatantly wrong? How can the reader separate fact from fiction?

It should also be noted that within Appendix 2 of this report it states,

“…even the cleared areas within the development site are now declared as an environmentally sensitive area…”

This is verifiable via mapping from the Department of Lands and Heritage. How then can council support the existence of heavy industry on such a site?

Appendix 6: Statement from Permacast – Fumes and Odour

This final appendix in the form of a somewhat rambling letter by Permacast’s MD, Alberto Ferraro and is regarded by all who have viewed it as odd.

It talks of “fumes and odours” which, to the best of our knowledge, have never been an issue for any residents in regard to the emissions from Lot 60. The only reference we can find is in the minutes of an SJ Shire meeting when a resident complained of emissions from a plastics factory at an entirely different location.

However, the stand out line from Mr Ferraro’s letter is, “…No cement or concrete production is occurring as part of Permacast’s activities…”, which begs the question, “What do they make behind the wall of old sea containers then?”

Apologies if the previous paragraph appears flippant or sarcastic but, as any reasonable person would agree, it is a very odd statement to make.

The remainder of the letter goes on to provide a potted view of basically ‘how to make concrete’ and adds little or no value to the overall submission. As such, we believe 

that this document should be struck out and not form part of the submission.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion therefore, the Cardup people are wholly and totally of the opinion that the heavy industry located on Lot 60, Robertson Road, Cardup needs to relocate and should no longer be allowed to operate from these premises.

The operation has grown from humble beginnings to an enterprise of massive proportions and for that they may well be applauded. We also appreciate the government and private sector’s thirst for concrete products to support the various ongoing resource and infrastructure projects.

However, it is situated on land that is classified by the WA government as environmentally sensitive.

The land is too small, too close to people’s homes and the operation has been proven to damage the surrounding environment repeatedly.

It is noisy. It is dusty. It is polluting. Numerous dangerous heavy trucks fill the roads surrounding the plant.

It has operated for many years under the noses of local council and never received development approval. Thus, it has been operating illegally.

A previous application for retrospective development approval was rejected unanimously by council. This revised “third bite of the cherry” by Permacast should be similarly rejected.

The documentation submitted by Harley Dykstra on behalf of its client has been padded out and still lacks detail, contains numerous errors, contradictions and utilises testing regimes that are, to be polite, highly questionable.

It represents what is basically an exercise in telling council what they want to hear but contains no substance to support its affirmations, either now or into the future.

Heavy Industry has no place in Cardup.

Given the confusion generated by the council over the closing date for these submissions and the inference that Polevine/Permacast intend to submit further information, I reserve the right to append further to this document if and when required.

Thank you for your time in reading this submission

                                                                                             **************************************

1. Increase in heavy vehicle traffic of local road that I use multiple times a day.

2. The emissions from such plant will include pollutants like particulate matter and chemicals, which will pose respiratory and health risks to people living in close proximity. A health and safety case that can and will be studied over time and action taken further if impacts negatively weight on local residents health.

3. The noise and dust generated by the plant will disrupt the quality of life for residents and impact property values.

                                                                                               ******************************

I have already put in my submission on this matter and wasn't going to bother to comment on the last lot of information submitted by Permacast.

However since January the 6th we have been subjected to more noise from the above site particularly in the early hours of the morning of 6th Jan again on the morning of the 7th Jan and again on the afternoon of 8th Jan . On the 16th Jan we were woken at 7.30 by a noise that sounded like a truck engine revving without a silencer fitted accompanied by the normal vibration associated with the operation of the stressing beds. On this occasion the noise was reported to DEWA, who indicated a number of complaints had been received regarding the same noise According to the noise survey submitted by Lord George Pty Ltd in which it states that the current noise levels being generated by the operations at the Permacast site comply with industry standards. Such being the case why are local residence still finding it necessary to have to complain about noise levels that are making their lives unbearable.

It would appear that Permacast and Harley Dykstra are so full of promises suggesting that they have implemented measures which will reduce noise level and keep them reduced are just that, 'promises'. Our experience over the last few weeks indicates that they are not capable of operating such a heavy industrial facility, without generating noise and other pollutants.

Permacast have one goal, to make as much profit as possible. To achieve this they have secured government contracts for the Metronet project.

They have constructed a heavy industrial site despite having no planning approval to do so. This action in itself would suggest they are reasonably confident that support from within the government at all levels can be relied upon when required.

                                                                            ************************************************************

(Affected Local Resident).

I object to the development application.

I will not delve into test results and noise prediction figures because I think that there is already enough feedback from peer reviews and affected peoples including myself regarding the integrity of selective bias results and predictions.

Today 16 Jan 2024 is a perfect example of extreme levels of noise and vibration. It was enough to make me physically ill this morning and I have a headache from constant low frequency tones and vibration which are ongoing and the intensity levels vary as I write this.

Regardless of the paperwork Permacast has submitted with their lies, proposed and existing noise and vibration mitigation measures – The negative effects on locals is clear and there are plenty of complaints and testimonials to support that.

It is clear that the operation of this type of heavy industry creates excessive negative impacts on the surrounding area and the physical and mental wellbeing of the locals. This type of industry normally requires a substantial buffer zone between the site and noise sensitive premises.

Somehow the lawyers of Permacast has influenced the DWER that such a regulation does not apply to them because they deny that Permacast falls under a Prescribed Premise producing over 1000t of concrete products per year.

Permacast produces more than 1000t per year so I still don’t understand how Permacast has been given an exemption from having to adhere to regulations for such a prescribed premise. How this happened will remain a mystery until the end of time because DWER will not release information regarding how they reached this conclusion.

The entire site has multiple sources of noise and vibration that Permacast cannot control such as:

Vapour Generator, stressing beds, factory noise, banging and screeching, machine alarms, excessive heavy vehicle traffic on site and on the residential roads (which are in poor condition and getting worse).

All of these disturbances will only increase as the operation continues to grow. They are not able to be controlled effectively which is why Buffer Zones exist in the first place.

Regarding the PMC_HSE_PLN_003_Noise_management_Plan (Lot 21 Robertson Road hardstand storage area).

The below statement in red is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. I live on Karbro Drive and the heavy vehicles going to and from Permacast is excessive and continues to get worse.

Even their own employees that drive the agitators (WA PREMIX) don’t care and use Karbro Drive because it will save them a few minutes rather than using the Southwest Hwy or Mundijong Road.

There are semi trailers with concrete products, maintenance contractor trucks, supplies trucks such as mesh and steel etc going to and from Permacast regularly that are using this rat run to save a little time. 3rd party drivers will NOT change the way they drive and Permacast has no authority over the drivers to enforce it. If I was a driver delivering goods then I would choose the shortest effective route regardless of having received a memo from Permacast. Another semi trailer with steel reinforcements for Permacast just went by as I write this.

▪ Vehicle routes to and from site will be selected to minimise impact to neighbours as far as practicable. Truck drivers will also be advised of using good driver technique when driving through residential areas, in particular to limit engine braking noise. Truck drivers will be informed to avoid using residential roads such as Karbro Drive. Information will be sent to delivery personnel.

The ONLY way to stop this continuing and getting even worse is to CLOSE the Norman Road to Soldiers Road intersection at the rail crossing. ONLY then will 100% of the Permacast associated heavy traffic actually use Southwest Hwy. Like they are supposed to do.

The hardstand area where final works and load outs are going to take place WILL undoubtedly be noisy and disruptive and Permacast know this which is why the document is worded the way it is.

For example,

▪ As part of the site induction and training, all team members will be advised that work is in proximity to noise sensitive premises, and they have a role in minimising the impact, this will include the revving of cars early in the morning and no loud music to be played. The induction is to also include advice on courteously dealing with any direct approach / complaint from community members, either by referring them to the site supervisor or providing them the relevant contact number;

Considering that the site induction will include advice on how to deal with community members affected by noise shows that Permacast expect noise levels to be disruptive enough for community members to complain and possibly even approach the site.

The section 5.0 COMPLAINT RESPONSE are just words on paper to get this through the DAP. I have tried to complain to Permacast on multiple occasions. They promise to refer the complaints to the correct person and I would be contacted shortly thereafter. I have only been called back ONE time and I doubt that the complaint ever made it onto a register. They don’t care about the locals wellbeing whatsoever.

In conclusion: (as the concrete trucks continue to roll on through)

I still can’t understand why Permacast continued to develop the site when the operation was deemed to be illegal and no decision had been made whether or not Permacast can continue to operate legally on that land. I certainly wouldn’t continue to develop a site if I wasn’t already sure of the development application decision.

All of the issues that Permacast pretend to mitigate and control would not even exist if they had legally built the premises in a suitable heavy industry industrial area (such as Mundijong industrial zone). There would be zero complaints from people whom just want to live in a peaceful semi rural area where they have invested their money into their homes.

Please consider all of the resident’s feedback as if it was you and your family that live in this area and suffer.

Permacast need to pick up and move their infrastructure and give the locals of Cardup a chance at enjoying their semi rural quiet lives. 

Thank you for your time.

                                                                                     *****************************************************

1. Ongoing factory, mobile plant and machinery noise - a wall of sea containers is not an effective solution;

2. Excessive low frequency noise and vibration;

3. Extreme increase in heavy vehicle traffic;

4. Devaluation of my property;

5. Pollution - air, noise and water pollution which will affect residents, stock and wildlife;

6. Heavy industry placed in a rural/semi-rural area which is unsightly;

7. We did not buy in this area to live in a heavy industrialised, populated and polluted area;

8. Facility was placed illegally to start with.

                                                                                  ***********************************

BARRIERS

Acoustic walls (shipping containers) as predicted, a section has already toppled over due to high winds. Was the shire made aware of this proposed addition prior to its installation? Were any engineering specifications offered to the shire for review to ’ensure the containers were placed on a suitable foundation and secured to ensure they stayed in place?

A lot of heavy work place fatality before the relevant authorities take notice as to the dangers?

Permacast promote in their company profile they are leading experts when it comes to concrete acoustic sound insulation solutions, and this is the best they can come up with?

As a rate payer if I put up a shade sail over my swimming pool which didn’t have the appropriate council approval or offended the neighbours, you would insist it be removed. It would seem there is one rule for an individual rate payer, and no rules for a company that sets up and operates illegally.

Covering Letter

The covering letter indicates there will be 250 parking bays provided, for a work force of less than 100? The letter suggests the extra spaces were due to a DEWA requirement? and parking for visitors and special projects. The letter also goes on to say there will be no increase to production or staff numbers. The fact special projects are mentioned and knowing Permacasts track record, I would suggest we can expect production to increase, and operate beyond the suggested operating hours of 07.00am to 06.00pm Monday to Saturday, they have acted with impunity in the past and will continue to do so in the future. They have become a" protected species"

HOURS OF OPERATION

There should be no operating of machinery whatsoever before 7am. Recently we have been experiencing noise and vibrations all hours of the day and night which have been reported to the Shire and DEWA. A representative from DEWA suggested the vibrations were coming from remedial work being carried by Permcast in an attempt to suppress the dust issues that effected the site. I asked if this fact had been verified by any official from DEWA, or were they relying on the information being fed to them from Permacast and if in- fact Permacast were operating in the PWN restricted area. To date I have not received a reply to this question.

Reduction in vibration time - there should be no vibration AT ALL in this rural area.

WATER MANAGEMENT

Is Permacast’s water consumption recorded? In view of the fact that bores in the surrounding area have been drying up recently, and as you are aware the ground water is our only source of supply (apart from rainwater), this is of great concern.

Draining basin and drains - where does this water go to - into our ground water?

The proposal states there are no dust issues BUT then goes on to suggest that when dust issues do arise they will put water sprinklers on in an effort to suppress this issue. Will this be an automatic system triggered by? Or will it be left up to an individual that may or may not react to the situation?

Has any consideration been given to the effects of placing and compacting the reconstituted asphalt throughout the site and what effect this will have on the ground to absorb excess water run off? Is this surface impervious, if so, such a large area and heavy downpours of rain are more than likely going to swamp any dams or containment ponds which will see water escaping the boundaries of this facility?

On the site map it indicates a red highlighted area in the Bush Forever zone, indicating further clearing of the Bush Forever site is required. We live on a Bush Forever block, my understanding was Bush Forever was exactly that. BUSH FOREVER. Not to be bulldozed because some illegal organisation wants to make further expansions to their process.

Permacast & WA Premix also draining into historic draining line in a south westerly direction. This drain has been there since 1984 BUT Permacast and WA Premix have not and so why are they allowed to use this when it goes in a south westerly direction towards Bush Forever?

’CONTEMPLATES’ moving this from Bush Forever and join western drainage basin?

This proposal contains a number of words which are not defined such as, ’Contemplates’, ’Possibly’, ’Unlikely’ etc etc. It is all very wishy washy.

1.0 Intro

1.1 Background - 2 Stressing Beds?? Don’t they mean 4??

2.2 Climate - Gusts from the East - Don’t you mean GALES. Enough to

push over stacked shipping containers!?

3.1 Dust sources - air blasting - this dust has been proved to cause cancers.

3.2 Low Risk Dust - BUT water sprinklers will be installed along traffic-able

areas. More of our water being taken?

When?

Every day?

6 Wind Roses - February 1989 - August 2021 - CALM!?

Have STRONG GUSTY SUMMER EASTERLIES been taken into account?

NOISE & VIBRATION & HUMAN ANNOYANCE

Due to the proximity of our premises to the Permacast site, underlying noise was our initial concern and still remains so. We have been subjected to low frequency noise and vibration which at times is so severe it makes our ceilings shake and the pressure waves associated with the vibration actually make you start to feel physically and mentally unwell.

According to the sound survey carried out as part of this proposal it was stated that it was difficult to achieve true noise samples due to the fact of background traffic noise, lawnmowers and even a school siren. (And music!) None of these factors effect us in any way but the noise and the stressing bed operation certainly does. We have no fancy measuring devices that have been calibrated and comply with whatever Australian Standards. All we have is a body to tell us that our life style, health and mental well being is being put at jeopardy because of the illegal operation of this facility.

The proposal mentions that because of the noise emitted by the stressing beds, only one will be allowed to operate at one given time. Are we to assume that on the completion of the first stressing bed the next one will be brought into operation and then again the third and then the fourth and back to the first if required for eleven hours a day?

So in essence the duration of this noise will be extended over a much, much longer period. Why was only a short noise survey carried out at the recent testing conducted on 1st November 2023? when local residents will be subjected to much longer periods of saturation?

The report also suggests the upper limits will be applied to the stressing beds presumably to reduce the noise and vibration levels currently emitted. Who or what governing body will ensure that these limits remain or will they be ’production driven’ and raised or lowered to meet demand.

As mentioned in our previous submission regarding the Retrospective Approval dated March 2023, noise being emitted from this particular facility was variable The vibration fluctuated from being a nuisance level to being completely unbearable, suggesting that human intervention can be made at any time to raise or lower said vibrations. During the recent testing carried out, on the 1st December we contacted DEWA to submit a noise complaint, again on the 15th siting vibration levels at 07.45 very loud vibration from 08.50 until 09.05 and again from 09.25 until10.00am. The next test was carried out on the 20th December. We didn’t notice any vibrations on that occasion but a very strong North Easterly wind was blowing for most of the day. The strange thing is on the 21st and 22nd heavy vibrations were felt on both morning and on several occasion since.

If, according to DEWA the recordings taken on the 20th were of a low magnitude and complied to the relevant noise criteria, why have I had to

again complain to the Pollution Watch Hotline because of unacceptable vibration levels being omitted from Permacast on the above dates??

STRUCTURAL DAMAGE

In view of the vibrations that we have been subjected to to date, I cannot see why the report can suggest it is unlikely that any structural damage has or will occur.

FRIDAY 10th NOVEMBER 2023 & MONDAY 13th NOVEMBER 2023 –

Complete house shuddering making us and the house vibrate - very frightening and stressful. Worse than an earthquake.

Previously vibrations and thumping all hours of the day and night. Dates and times listed on DWER report and website.

Roof shudders and ceiling fans rattle.

Taking readings right by stressing beds is not proof of noise and vibration effecting all the local residence.

CONCLUSION

Fundamentally we are talking about a heavy industrial concrete manufacturing plant which basically shouldn’t be in its current location.

The residents of Cardup have had no opportunity to express their opposition to the facilities construction knowing that it would have a detrimental effect to their quality of life.

Unfortunately, the fact that the facility has grown to such a size without any planning approval from the Shire remains a mystery. The fact that everything they do, is done after the event, so that they have to seek retrospective approval. This clearly demonstrates their utter contempt for any rules, they do what they want when they want with no consideration to the consequences.

The fact they constructed the proposed modifications while seeking retrospective approval to justify the existing operation highlights this point.

Unfortunately as the facility is now built and are manufacturing concrete components for the Metronet project it will be difficult to shut it down and have it removed. Although an illegal operation, this is adversely effecting local residents with noise, water, dust and pollution which is effecting them both mentally and psychically. Some will see this facility as an employment opportunity, others as a provider of components required for a range of different projects.

The fact remains it is an illegal operation. The residents and rate payers of Cardup have not had the opportunity to object to the plant being built because it has been done so illegally. Noise has been an issue since the installation of the first stressing bed. Dust has been an issue. Contamination of the ground water on which we rely on has been proven. While some attempt to reduce these levels has been made, there is no clear plan on who will be responsible to ensure these measures will be adhered to. Relying on the Permacast management to self regulate their own operation would be tantamount to courting a monumental disaster!

Since 2006, Permacast has been allowed to illegally grow to its current size, in part, due to the actions or in-actions of the Shire of Serpentine. It has granted retrospective approval and rezoning which has allowed the company to flourish and expand, while suggesting it wasn’t aware of Permacast’s operation. Now we have a situation where, if the majority of councillors are opposed to the Permacast proposal, MODAP will make the final ruling. As previously stated, the fact that this is not a Green Field site, the facility already exists and it is there for all to see.

The local council has a responsibility to the ratepayers effected by this issue and needs to work closely with DEWA to ensure Permacast are held to account over their past and future actions. Joint measures need to be put in place to further mitigate all of the polluting issues which have only been partly addressed. This may go part way to establishing some confidence back to the rate payers and the Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire hopefully has their vested interest at heart!!

                                                                         ******************************************

As a Cardup Resident / Concerned Citizen* I object wholly to the presence of Heavy Industry in Cardup.

The concrete product manufacturing business operated by Polevine Pty Ltd trading as Permacast (Permacast), in the southern portion of 394 (Lot 60) Robertson Road, CARDUP WA 6122 (the Premises) has since 2006, grown to a gigantic size without any permission what so ever to do so.

Application was recently made for retrospective permission to expand, after already having done so without any permission from the shire.  

This residential area is not zoned as heavy industrial, and the residents are suffering greatly from all manner of disturbances emanating from Permacast.

Issues include the horrendous & extreme noises of many varying kinds from machinery, vehicles, both small and large and other equipment in use, in conjunction with the heavy vibrations from stressing beds running at all hours without any regard for the residents of Cardup.

The low frequency noises that reverberate through one’s body causing headaches and disrupting one’s whole being. This has been going on for far too long, and has been causing massive disturbance and distress to all concerned. As recently as January 16th this noise level and heavy vibration has disrupted residents greatly, making several, feel physically ill. There is enough evidence in testimonials on the website to support that fact.

There are a whole gambit of incidences happening, regulations literally being conveniently changed, that smack of corruption, but that does not alter the fact that the Concrete Manufacturing Facility at Lot 60 Robertson Road, Cardup, is heavy industry, and should not be situated where it currently operates, by the residents.

Therefore, that Manufacturing Facility at Lot 60 Robertson Road, Cardup, should definitely be denied a retrospective licence, cease operation immediately, and be forced to relocate to a more appropriate location (Heavy Industrial) away from people’s homes and schools. It pollutes our environment and has a detrimental effect on everyone’s lives and health.

The permacast operation is literally driving people mad with all of the many pollutants it is emitting from the premises. Residents can’t sleep, can’t concentrate, are feeling ill, suffering respiratory issues, the list goes on. That in itself is a mental issue. The mental health of the residents does matter.

Stop this rot, and out of control behaviour, where companies can build without permission, and do as they please, and instead of their greed, consider the residents of Cardup.

The SJ Shire should do all in its power to ensure that this illegal facility does not receive the retrospective development approval that it seeks. Spare a thought for the many ratepayers in the immediate area who have been suffering every day for far too many years, and still continue to do so today.

                                                             *************************************************

Have felt and heard the thrum / vibration from the operations being conducted earlier in the year do not want this to recommence as it impacts health. In addition concerned about the impacts on water collected in rainwater tank due to easterly winds blowing from that direction. Water tank is our only source of water. Experienced an increase in traffic flow along Karbro Drive in the early morning and evening from the workforce using Karbro as a rat run when operations were running earlier in the year. Karbro is not designed for increased traffic and speed. Visual impacts along Soldiers Road and Norman Road, this affects the visual amenity of the Cardup area and subsequently affects land values. 

                                                                           ********************************************************

We have reviewed the updated management plans which form part of the retrospective Development Approval (DA) for Permacast.

We provide the following comments and concerns with regards to the updated management plans.

Overall, the provision of select information prohibits the ability to review, assess and consider the DA in its entirety. For example, operational hours which would impact noise and dust impacts. 

Dust Management Plan 

The area applicable to the Dust Management Plan (DMP) is unclear and not shown, this creates uncertainty and should be clarified.

Additionally, the laydown area to the west of the facility should be included as part of the DMP strategies and management approaches, as dust from this area has been observed in November 2023 and will continue to be generated. The DMP should be prepared in accordance with state regulation and legislation rather than the Shire’s dust requirements due to the potential contaminating activities.

The objectives of the management plan are missing detail, there is no clear objective and identification of potential receptors, insinuating that there is only one human health receptor within 100m of the land parcel, which is not correct. The DMP makes no consideration to environmental receptors such as Bush Forever (which is listed in the existing environment section of the DMP).

Wind data obtained during the preparation of the DMP is inaccurate and not reflective of the actual site conditions. Wind data obtained from Jandakot at 9am and 3pm is not an accurate representation of wind speeds or intensity.

• Residents who reside along the Scarp experience very strong prevailing easterly winds which intensify between midnight and 5am during summer season. An alternative data source or the data available should be considered as opportunistic and rather conservative. The impacts of dust (in terms of particle size and source – PM2.5 to PM10) should be more carefully considered within Section 3 of the DMP to inform the overall risk assessment and management approach. The risk assessment conducted during the preparation of the DMP is not reflective of the site conditions including:

• Topography and protection – this site has screening (excluding the laydown area) however based on prevailing winds and wind data (the DMP also describes the winds as prevailing), the score should be amended to ‘Little Screening’ at best and ‘Exposed and wind prone’.

• Inconsistency between management plans on the distance of receptors. DMP says > 100m but the noise management plan identifies receptors ‘within’ 100m – which is it? As the risk assessment (and management) for DMP will change depending on the distance adopted. • Total score for Part A should be amended to 30.

• Effect of prevailing wind – should be amended to sensitive land uses due to the source of potable water (ie not scheme) for sensitive receptors

• Total score for Part B should be amended to 24.

Site classification is required to be amended to 720 and therefore the management plan updated to reflect these risks. The management procedures and process are insufficient and un-clear, it creates ambiguity for all parties including stakeholders. How will the Shire enforce this management plan, if the measure aren’t clearly defined? For example:

• No visible dust beyond property – How will this be measured? When will this be assessed? The greatest risk to sensitive receptors is the summer prevailing easterly winds (midnight to 5am) which will transport and deposit dust onto residential roofs and contaminate portable water supplies with by-products, but also stripped and vulnerable surfaces. Management measures need to consider how Permacast will manage this risk at this time? Nobody is going to ‘see’ this dust as its dark, but that doesn’t mean the risk is not present.

• A water cart is the only management strategy. Is Permacast going to drive the dust cart around at midnight to keep the dust suppressed before the prevailing winds start? It is not a practical or viable solution.

• Address all complaints - How do we contact the site? This is a management plan but no details are present.

• A complaints register - What will happen to this register? Will it be reviewed and operations assessed after a probation period? What action will be taken once someone has made a complaint? How many complaints need to be made before a site review is completed or do they just write a book with them? Theres is no action or responsibility stated beyond Permacast and this needs to be escalated to ensure appropriate action is taken and implemented.

• The responsibilities in the contingency and corrective actions need to be elevated and reported to other parties, keeping the responsibilities inhouse merely provides a blanket over the issue, with no solutions.

Stormwater Management Plan.

The layout of the Permacast site indicates the facility is not a closed system, with potential for discharge during peak winter periods (or emergency overflow as its identified).

It is my understanding that the facility must contain all run-off, effluents and discharges on-site, as outlined in the EPN provided by DWER. The figure shows potential overflow to Robertson Road drainage system and subsequently to the creek line to the north (under railway line) and continues through private residential properties. The connection between surface water flows and groundwater has not been established or ascertained to assess this risk to human health (groundwater is source of drinking water for residents) or environment.

Effluent not able to be contained onsite should be disposed off-site via formal documented liquid waste disposal. No discharge of run-off, stormwater or ‘emergency overflow’ should be authorised for this facility. Due to proximity of receptors and uncertainty of the quality of the discharges, a conservative approach should be adopted to protect human health and environment. The discharge plan allows for off-site discharge which is unacceptable given the reliance residents have on the groundwater on an un-regulated basis. DWER provides a list of possible contaminates via the land uses completed on Lot 60 – as there appears to be no segregation of specific effluents and therefore all effluent must be treated as contaminated from wood preservation processes, concrete batching etc.

Noise Management Plan.

The ability to review and comment on the noise management plan cannot be completed until the residents have received the formal DWER noise and vibration monitoring data and report. Noise is still heard and noted at our property approximately 500m from the stress beds. 

Overall 

We oppose the Permacast facility and support the refusal of the Development Approval on the basis that this facility has no regard for the residents. This is evident from the numerous attempts to deceive and manipulate the development process, continuous illegal operations, and clearly average attempt to prepare updated management plans, which don’t manage or take responsibility for pollution and impacts to residents.

Furthermore, Permacast continue to develop the Site with complete disregard for the community. The presence of a totally illegal sea container wall to mitigate noise and vibration to squeeze past the DWER requirements and then seek retrospective DA for the existing infrastructure (and a new sea container wall) is totally absurd and highly inappropriate. Permacast has had sufficient attempts to prepare an adequate case and demonstrate they can manage the site effectively, it’s time to listen to the residents, decline and move on.

Finally, and I say this with the best of intent. The Shire needs to ensure they understand and are able to implement and regulate these operations at the facility. Currently, the management plans are vague and not enforceable, the plans have no specific measurable actions or responsibility other than that of the Site Manager and will not afford the Shire with the ability to regulate, investigate and request action to appease receptors including residents in the long term.

                                                                                             ***********************************************************

Noise, increased traffic, devaluation of property, environmental degradation, personal stress due to noise and vibration .

Trucks and high traffic volumes will further damage roads that are not fit for this traffic, it is meant to be peaceful country living not industrial living.

                                                                                  ************************************

We object to the retrospective planning application.

First of all the way the company have proceeded to expand the facility without actual proper avenues shows the lack of care for the community around the facility.

The current increase in noise levels, higher levels of traffic, increased amounts of dust pollution in the air, which ends up in our homes, yards, air conditioners and pools, is of great concern, not just for the environment, but more importantly it poses health risks.

Also the waste water from this facility is, from what we understand, being allowed to drain into the ground water, which is what a lot of residences use for drinking and for their livestock.

We will also see the devaluation of our properties as no one wants to move into an area that has this type and scale of manufacturing.

Please reconsider allowing this company to proceed with this application as it will have a detrimental affect on our beautiful community.

                                                                          ***************************************

We strongly object to the application.

When were we as residents of the Shire approached to have the zoning changed to

Heavy Industrial?

Please relocate these works to the correct Heavy Industrial area, it does not belong on the doorstep of the semi/rural –residential area. Going by everything we have witnessed, it appears that this is not a company that has the Shire residents /environment as its best interest.

Please note: we are not against progress in our Shire; we’ve lived in the Shire for about 31 years and at this address for the past 23 years and have seen much positive development. However, this company has destroyed our lives, our peaceful neighbourhood and devalued our property.

As to the “testing days” (to see if things comply) – everything is suspiciously quiet on those days, even from the sister company next door. Our gut feel is that someone is not being above board in order to paint a better picture than what it really is.

Come on Council – please show some pluck and stand up for the residents – not just around voting day.

                                                                                        *****************************************************

The illegal extension has ruined our lifestyle with the noise and vibration.

I am a shift worker so need to sleep during the day and this is not possible when they are vibrating the concrete out of the moulds. This will have a great impact on my physical and mental health due to lack of sleep if the business increases production as planned.

We paid good money to live in a quiet area and this concrete plant will devalue our home and take away the environment we should be living in as a Special Rural area.

If this is approved then Permacast should be compensating all the nearby properties for the loss in value of their properties. The truck traffic will increase on the road which adds more noise.

They have installed a wall of sea containers which I believe will not make a difference and it is an eye sore in our natural environment.

                                                                               *****************************************************

Regarding the continuing development in Cardup by Permacast.

> Information distributed has stated Permacast were given additional time to come up with retrospective modifications for their plant to meet requirements.

Instead of quoting verbatim from lengthy documents my main questions are why was this built initially and why hasn’t it been stopped?

> SJ shire seems very blasé about why this was ignored and why they have allowed a heavy industry with potential for many aspects of pollution to operate ILLEGALLY?

> For a shire that boasts about the beautiful landscapes, pristine countryside and a variety of fauna and flora why are they allowing industry next to the bush forever site?

> Anyone who has built a new house or shed or extended their current home is well aware of the time and meticulous planning this takes. Even the medical surgery extension to Byford Medical Centre had to submit detailed garden plans, while Permacast and Wormalls appear immune to everything that should be approved or not at the very beginning of the application process.

> The health and well being of residents is another matter which is being brushed aside, strange considering the shire is boasting about the new wellness centre being built in the area near the new railway.

> There is no transparency regarding these issues and a complete lack of confidence in the shire to uphold the law and work for the people who, pay the rates. I would expect any ethical, professional shire to respond to this email. Will you?

                                                                          ***************************************

And another thing. 18 months to two years ago, please check, reported a high noise level on a Saturday or Sunday morning about 7am from the Permacast facility. I went and had a look, they were casting the concrete beams and using the vibrators that are part of the complaint.

SO MY POINT IS THE SHIRE, OR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PEOPLE IN THE SHIRE HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THIS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY BY PEMACAST FOR AT LEAST THIS TIME.

SO YOU THE SHIRE ARE EITHER COMPLICIT OR, WELL, STUPID.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER THOUGHT IT WAS OK, ASKING ME TO TAKE DECIBEL LEVELS - REALLY?

COLLECTIVELY, YOU HAVE ALL BEEN BLISSFULLY UNAWARE THAT PERMACAST ARE WORKING ILLEGALLY. NOBODY IN THE WHOLE OF THE SHIRE THAT SIGNS OFF ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS NOTICED THERE WAS HEAVY INDUSTRY OPERATING IN THE SHIRE ILLEGALLY.

I THINK IN LEGAL TERMS ITS:

IGNORANCE IS NOT A DEFENCE.

I have been in the shire since 1991, your current conduct is beyond disgusting.

                                                                               ************************************

To whom it may concern.

The bottom line is this facility is operating ILLEGALLY, and has been for months, years?

1) Permacast think the LAWS do not apply to them (as Wormalls also do totally flouting the system).

2) The Shire should have stopped Permacast operations until they had applied, and this would be knocked back.

3) This sets precedents that, companies can do whatever they like then ask for a rubber stamp’ after they have been operating. The same with Wormalls.

It’s easier than applying and being given a set of criteria, standards etc to conform to.

And you the Shire are actually now condoning this as a system. Otherwise you would have stood your ground, pursued and prosecuted, as you would an individual or small operation.

So, the only logical conclusion to come to is that The State Government has actually overruled everything and bastardised the system. Have made if not officially yet, the Permacast operation legal.

4) As there has been a deathly silence from YOU AT THE SHIRE, it can only be surmised that We don’t need you, that all decisions can be made by State government, that you are an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Why haven’t we heard from you?,

5) If Permacast were making Widgets for whatever maybe you would have done something, then even as I wrote that you have/are doing the same for Wormall.

So if what I’ve written is all wrong give me a call, or reply to this email.

**PERMACAST ARE OPERATING ILLEGALLY AND YOU THE SHIRE ARE CONDONING IT

                                                                                ****************************************

I am writing to voice my objections on the Permacast operations and the impact they are having on my family and my local community.

We moved to Cardup for peaceful, country living and for a natural tranquil atmosphere.

I am surprised the council have allowed for this chemical operation to setup an operate on our doorstep.

We are now faced with constant noise, vibrating and chemical dust polluting the earth around us.

I myself have experienced shortness of breath, eye irritation and anxiety when at home caused by the dust pollution and noise.

The trucks now using our local roads are dangerous as the roads are not wide enough and they do not leave enough room for vehicles to drive safely and co-exist.

I work from home and find it very difficult to conduct my work with the beeping and banging from the Permacast operations. This is having a significant financial impact on my work life and mental health.

I would appreciate the council raising my concerns and standing up to protect their local community.

This cannot be left operating to pollute our waterways and devalue our local area.

                                                                     *******************************************************************

Concerned about the value of property decreasing with plant this close.

Not a greenbelt as the Shire originally planned between Byford and Mundijong when I purchased my home.

                                                                        **************************************      

I hereby submit my opposition to the proposed retrospective and prospective planning approval for a concrete product manufacturing facility at (lot 60) 364 Robertson Road, Cardup.

We, as a family reside on Cardup Siding Road and are concerned about fumes and dust produced from this facility.

I have been under treatment of a Respiratory Specialist Professor Allan Jones for many years until his retirement and currently I am being treated by Respiratory Specialist Dr. Jack Philpott.

My diagnosis of COPD causes me respiratory distress and I sleep each night with oxygen.

Concrete dust will be very detrimental to my health.

My daughter and my son both suffer allergic reactions to chemicals. Fumes coming from this plant would undoubtedly affect them both.

My grandson who spends time here with us and with his father in a shared parental arrangement has Congenital Disorder of Glycosylation Type 1a which compromises his immune system and he is susceptible to lung infection.

Fumes and dust carried by strong Easterly and definitely South Easterly wind would affect us greatly.

Apart from the health aspect, I believe Byford is a growing Residential Community and should not be considering such industry on our doorstep.

We currently have large trucks using Cardup Siding Road as a short cut through to Tonkin Highway. Noise from these vehicles is quite excessive at times. We don’t want more trucks.

It will be quite a while yet before Tonkin Highway Extension comes to fruition.

                                                                           *********************************************

We vehemently oppose any further developments submitted by the concrete manufacturing facility at 394 Robertson Road, Cardup.

We urge the SJ Shire to monitor all ongoing production at 294 Robertson Road.

                                                                                ****************************************************

1. Our first concern is the vibration monitoring. The application states that the stressing beds will only be operated during specific hours and for a nominated period within these hours. Who is going to monitor this, and should it be found that the beds are operating for an extended period and outside of nominated hours, who should we report this too?

2. Ground water is our second concern. This has not been addressed in the updated submissions. Our property along with many others rely on the supply of groundwater for consumption and irrigation. We have recorded our supply, and should this deteriorate due to Permacast operations, does S.J. Shire have compensation available for our loss?

3. Third concern is the increase in heavy haulage traffic on Karbro Drive. We have a noticeable increase in traffic which appears to be mainly suppliers and employees of Permacast. Karbro Drive is now used as a thoroughfare and have many speeding vehicles using it daily and have also noticed the deterioration of the road surface from the heavy haulage.

We object to the Permacast application for retrospective approval and increased manufacturing based on the factors outlined below.

We maintain that the Permacast yard is inappropriately located and we are impacted by their current operations therefore an expansion would not be appropriate and detrimental to our health and amenity. Furthermore, a heavy industrial facility in a semi-rural area will devalue property values.

The current Permacast activities and proposed expansion do not align with the rural values and natural beauty of the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale. This operation belongs in an industrial area ie Kwinana/Henderson with appropriate buffers not in a rural environment like Cardup.

                                                                      *****************************************

I am very against the development because I remember when this area was a quiet and peaceful place to live before Permacast.

Noise, vibration and traffic are my main concerns.

Noise and vibration – Since the CONCRETE BATCHING FACILITY was built there has been noise (low tone humming sound) and vibration coming from there most days and sometimes for excessively long periods caused by when they use their machinery such as crawler/walker cranes, loaders and other engines/motors associated with their daily activities.

FURTHER EXPANSION to this facility for MASS production will certainly  increase the frequent disturbances mentioned above affecting residents in the surrounding semi-rural suburb (a once quiet place to live). Manufacturing noise will begin at 6am and continue until 6pm.

There is no doubt that the noise and vibration comes from PERMACAST because I have driven to their gates to verify the source of noise and vibration.

Heavy vehicle traffic – Karbro drive is already a very busy road because it is a “RAT RUN” for heavy vehicles to avoid using the South West Highway or Mundijong Road which are designed for heavy vehicles. The noise from trucks going to facilities on Robertson Road can at times be continuous,  from early morning to nightfall particularly if they are busy, perhaps loading out their product etc.

Karbro Drive road surface is in poor condition and continues to degrade rapidly with so many heavy vehicles.

A truck bouncing on the bumps and potholes creates loud thumping, shakes the windows in my house and caused the gyprock ceiling cornices to crack and fall away.

FURTHER EXPANSION for HIGH CAPACITYPRODUCTION will definitely exacerbate this problem. I consider the FURTHER DEVOLEPMENT  of the site should be classed as heavy industrial and will ruin this area more than it already has been if this goes ahead Nobody wanted the Concrete Batching Facility in the first place yet it still went ahead ignoring concerns from local residents.

                                                                       *******************************************

We are in the unfortunate position of living on Soldiers Road, directly across from the above-mentioned concrete manufacturing facility.

We purchased our home in early 2001. Our goal was to live as much of our lives as possible in our semi-rural home. Before purchasing, we enquired at the shire office about the type of industry planned for the area. We were assured it was all zoned for light industrial development.

Presently we find a huge, heavy industry developing on our doorstep.

We raised our children in our beloved home and have lived here for the past 23 years. We are now nearing retirement and we find that our semi-rural home is now bordered by a huge heavy developing industry, rubbish, noise, dust and a recent increase in early morning traffic.

The Permapole Wood Company was the only industry that existed on the site when we first acquired our home. This same site was expanded to accommodate the Permacast company.

During the initial years of operation, the industrial noise level was acceptable, dust has always been a problem blowing from the site onto our property and rubbish frequently blew onto the fire breaks and bushland.

From around 2021, the company seemed to acquire new machinery, which emits a noise that is grating and difficult to bear. This noise together with other noisy equipment, vehicles emitting alarms are loudly audible throughout our house, including all our bedrooms. We were woken up yesterday (Saturday 22/04/2023) shortly after 6 am, to hammering against metal. Today (Sunday 23/04/2023) we woke at 6 am to a continuous beeping alarm noise coming from the Facility. This level of noise is not acceptable at any time or day of the week.

All types of rubbish (papers, boxes, plastic, large nylon-type bags) has increased, some is caught on the Facility fences, most is strewn across the neighbouring land, some get caught against our own fence. The bush land now reminds us of areas we have visited in third world countries.

We have a collection of large, white nylon-type bags, collected over the last few years. In the early days, we tried to pick up the rubbish that spews out of the Facility grounds.

We can no longer keep up and there is rubbish permanently around the site.

We have witnessed Facility personnel clearing the area near the gates of the Facility, but any areas beyond the Facility appears to be not considered their responsibility and is also not controlled by the Shire.

We witness (and hear) facility personnel or visitors driving on Robertson Road with no regard to speed limits or safety, uncontrolled by either the Shire or the Facility.

Dust from the Facility now streams uncontrolled across the road onto our property, when it is windy, particularly during the summer months. This dust is particularly noticeable in our swimming pool, which we have to back-wash, at best every few days. The dust also gets into our house. We are concerned about our drinking water tanks, as water is collected from the house guttering.

The Facility already operates 7 days a week from 6 am to 6 pm including public holidays.

We have many, many concerns regarding the “proposed” increase in operations at the Robertson Road Facility.

You are requesting our comments on the “RETROSPECTIVE” approval for the increased size and operation of this Facility, what does this mean?

Have we been asked to comment on something that is already going ahead? Please advise.

We have not as yet been consulted by MODAP, although we are only 99 metres from the Facility, boundary to boundary.

Has the Shire altered the zoning of this site to enable this sort of heavy industry to operate? Please advise.

What is the minimal permissible distance of this type of development to residential areas?

What are the EPA recommendations? Please advise.

There is a “bush forever” region allocated to one border of the site, why have the residences on Soldiers Road been excluded from this type of protection? Please advise.

The residences in our area do not have scheme water and rely on rain water and ground water. How much ground water has been allocated to the Concrete Manufacturing Facility operation and what effect does this have on the resource? Please advise.

What are the legally permissible operating hours, noise limits and dust limits for a Facility that is circa 100 metres from a private residence?

What are the EPA and legislative recommendations?

What measures have been taken to monitor and record these levels over time? Please advise.

The rubbish from the Facility has never been monitored or controlled. Will the shire be taking any action in this regard?

This Facility sets a precedent for the industrialisation of the area. Please advise of the Shire’s plans for the nearby sites.

Our home is not the semi-rural home, that we were assured it would remain, and that we subsequently purchased and planned to live in for as much of our lives as physically possible.

Furthermore, I am sure that the value of our property is considerably reduced due to the industrial monster that you are allowing to spread and grow.

                                                                        ***********************************************

Additional noise, there is already very loud noise coming from there and some days almost unbearable all day

2. Karbro Drive will not withstand extra concrete trucks coming, there is already a lot coming and we feel will destroy this road.

                                                                        ******************************************

Attachment to Comments Form Regarding Concrete Manufacturing Facility on Lot 60, 394 Robertson Road, Cardup:

Dear Sir/ Madam.

In reference to your letter, we have the following concerns regarding the proposed extension to the concrete facility in question.

You letter states that the application is seeking for retrospective approval for the current facility, apart from the approved batching plant. Are we to assume that the current facility has been operating without any environmental impact study being carried out, which would have addressed the impact it may have had on the environment and the well being of the rate payers in the affected area. Are we also to assume the facility in question has been allowed to expand to such an extent over a number of years under the nose of the SJ Shire. Why has something not been done sooner? If I wanted to put up a shade sail on my property, I would have to seek shire approval, if not, you would request it be removed!?

You go on to mention the proposed expansions are going to include a below ground stressing bed and an above ground stressing bed and further drainage. Being no expert in the field, what are the stressing beds, what mechanical components are attached to these which would generate noise or vibration likely to be heard outside the confines of the facility?

We have already complained to Serpentine & Jarrahdale Shire Environmental Officer regarding the loud noise emanating from the industrial facilities in Robertson Road, all hours of the day.

During our phone conversation with the Environmental Officer, he suggested that the noise was more than likely coming from the Concrete Manufacturing facility on Robertson Road, Cardup.

If this proposal goes ahead and the size of the facility is increased by 50% we can therefore assume that the noise levels will also increase by 50% which would make living conditions intolerable. If the size of the facility is to increase, will compensation be provided for damage incurred to buildings, or necessary alterations, such as double glazing for noise reduction, be provided by the facility?

The Environmental Officer and a co-worker, attended the boundaries of the facility following another telephone complaint from myself regarding the noise.

Unfortunately/fortunately, by the time they attended, the noise had stopped.

During this period of time, at the Shires recommendation, I compiled a log of dates and times and noise issues which was subsequently submitted to the Environmental Department.

However, as we have learnt over the years, SJ Shire is not the best with communication. It seems to be one sided as we have yet to have received any reply regarding the documented complaint.

Apart from noise pollution, we would also like to be informed of the assessment of dust and environmental pollution that is created by this facility, including water run off into the ground water, which many of the local Cardup residence rely on for a clean water supply.

Why has this facility been allowed to grow to such an extent in a sensitive rural environment and why is it not in a dedicated zoned heavy industrial area away from people’s properties and sensitive native flora and fauna reserve, zoned Bush Forever.

Perhaps if we were black, red tailed cockatoos, rather than human beings, something might be done about the matter.

I look forward to receiving your reply regarding our concerns, no later than 16th May 2023.

I would also like to note it is our intention to contact local and national media, as well as state government officials, to draw attention to this issue on a broader scale.

                                                                                 ****************************************************************

We would like to object to the proposal.

I have the following concerns about this proposal:

• Noise pollution. We currently hear a lot of machinery noise, very loud banging, vehicles beeping and alarms. These noises are present very early in the morning (before 7am sometimes) and frequently on Saturdays.

Dust pollution. We have noted a significant increase in dust on our property since the concrete site was developed. This has impacted on our pool requiring the use of extra chemicals and increased cleaning.

Our alfresco area is also always coated in dust reducing our ability to use it and the outside of our home is also coated with dust.

• Hours of operation. This site is close to residential homes and should not be able to commence operation at 6am and close at the time of 6pm. Other trades and industry need to obey laws restricting the commencement of work until 7am.

I realise it is extremely unlikely that our significant concerns will prevent this development from occurring. However, we sincerely request that conditions are placed upon this site to limit both dust and noise for nearby residents. And in the event that the company does not meet these conditions, they must rectify/recompense affected landowners.

                                                                     ************************************************

We object to the Permacast application for retrospective approval and increased manufacturing based on the factors outlined below.

We maintain that the Permacast yard is inappropriately located and we are impacted by their current operations therefore an expansion would not be appropriate and detrimental to our health and amenity. Furthermore, a heavy industrial facility in a semi-rural area will devalue property values.

The current Permacast activities and proposed expansion do not align with the rural values and natural beauty of the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale.

This operation belongs in an industrial area ie Kwinana/Henderson with appropriate buffers not in a rural environment like Cardup.

Noise and vibration

Presently loud noise is received at my premises from the applicant during daytime hours and after 7pm. The current noise is equivalent to a helicopter with grinding and humming sounds and vibration felt like an earthquake shaking my house.

I hear beeping, alarms and am subject to noise, vibration and grinding and this is starting to impact my, my family’s and other residents’ health.

The modelling report states that the operation will only comply with the noise regs during 7am to 7pm and if all of the stressor beds are not in use.

Modelling explains that noise will be less than 48dB and this is equivalent to a library, however that is currently not the case. I do not have access to expensive noise monitoring equipment however would assume the current operations exceed 48dB and is equivalent to approximately 70-80dB inside our residence (equivalent to traffic and alarm clocks).

The operation is also exceeding the noise regulations by operating outside the prescribed hours and by operating multiple stressor beds. Increase traffic proposed for the expansion is unlikely to be supported by our rural roads.

Dust emissions

During prevalent winds concrete dust blows onto my property. The dust is starting to impact my time that I spend outdoors.

The application claims that dust emissions will be appropriately managed and compliant with the concrete batching regulations however visible dust from the premises frequently blows in my direction.

I am also concerned that the dust will impact the water quality of my rainwater which I and all other residences of Cardup use for drinking and other domestic use.

Light emissions

Light from the cranes is visible from my residence and is affecting my visual amenity and enjoyment. We have bought in a rural zone and are subject to lighting that would be expected from heavy industry.

This is impacting our use of our land and we are concerned about future development and land values.

Additionally, when driving on Soldiers and Norman Roads, and South-West Highway the lights are visible and could cause a traffic incident.

Visual Amenity

Permacast cranes are visible from our residence blocking the view of the Scarp. The view is dominated by construction plant and does not align with the rural outlook of the Shire.

The concrete structures are visible from our rural road.

We maintain that the operation should be relocated to a heavy industrial area ie Kwinana/Henderson with appropriate buffers separating residences and schools.

This is evident by the number of complaints I have recently lodged with the Shire regarding Permacast and their inappropriately located operations.

                                                                                ********************************************************

We are concerned with the significant detrimental impacts this facility is likely to have on our properties, the surrounding community and future development of the locality, we strongly object to the proposal. A summary of the significant issues with the proposal underpinning our reasons for objection are provided at the conclusion of this letter, with further detail provided herein.

INCREMENTAL EXPANSION & DISREGARD OF THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK

The proponent, Permacast, has been operating at the site since 2006 (17 years) without approvals for their operations.

The buildings and some infrastructure included in the current application were existing on site prior to an application being made for the Mobile Concrete Batching Plant in 2021 yet were not included in that application. If they were, the full scale of the proposal could have been appropriately assessed.

Although we understand a Mobile Concrete Batching Plant was approved by the Shire (under a State Administrative Tribunal Section 31 reconsideration) at its 13 December 2021 OCM and that proposed PA23/198 is a retrospective application seeking approval to existing

unauthorised development on the site, we are very concerned the facility has not been properly assessed given the ad-hoc nature of its applications.

When the proponent lodged DA PA21 in early 2021 seeking support for the Mobile Batching Plant, many of the facilities included in this current DA (PA23/198) were already existing on site, including the office structures, the concrete manufacturing shed, stressing beds 1 and 2, gantry cranes and various other infrastructure. Why were these elements not included in PA21 so that the proposal could be considered in its entirety, and more clearly depicting the large scale of this facility?

In our view, the separation of the applications has resulted in confusion or misinformation (whether intended or perceived) around staffing numbers, traffic generation, hours of operation and operational scale (which directly impacts separation distance considerations). The proposals presented in these applications indicate a large-scale concrete manufacturing facility which will have a significant impact on its surrounding environment, of which our property and many others with urban residential uses are close neighbours.

The current application states “development approval of the retrospective application will formalise the existing use”, however, consideration needs to be given about the appropriateness of this use for both the site and the locality. The notion of simply ‘formalising’ an un-approved activity of this scale is non-sensical. The fact that it already exists, without all necessary approvals, should not prejudice this decision-making process.

Aerial photography from 26 August 2010 (attached) shows a large portion of the western half of Lot 60 as heavily vegetated. Part of this area was included within Bush Forever Site 361.

Aerial photography from 17 December 2011 (attached), a little over 12 months later, shows the whole of this bushland area cleared to the firebreak running along the northern edge of the remaining Bush Forever Site 361 area.

The boundary of Bush Forever Site 361 was amended by the ‘South East and South West Districts Omnibus Amendment No. 1380/57’ in mid-2022 to exclude this cleared area, however the clearing occurred more than a decade earlier and some 5 years after Permacast commenced operations on the site.

Given the potential for a substantial operation such as this to have significant detrimental impacts on surrounding properties (and in fact large proportions of future residential development within Mundijong) it is highly concerning that this proponent appears to be one to consistently ask for forgiveness rather than permission. With such disregard for due process and statutory approvals in relation to such a major facility, what confidence can the JDAP, Shire or EPA have that various operational and management plans will be implemented appropriately, if at all.

INCOMPLETE PLANNING CONTEXT

The applicant of the DA report (and previous DAs for the proponent) also prepared the ‘Cardup Business Park Local Structure Plan’ (LSP) in 2018. This LSP includes requirements which the proposed concrete manufacturing facility does not comply with, as detailed further herein.

The MRS Zoning (Figure 1), TPS2 Zoning (Figure 2) and LPS 3 Zoning (Figure 3) diagrams in the DA report show very limited context for surrounding land uses. There is no description of any zoning and land use applicable to abutting sites, notwithstanding the nature of the proposed facility and its likelihood of creating significant impacts on neighbours. In contrast the plans provided in the Cardup Business Park Local Structure Plan show extensive zoning and land use information, clearly indicating how close this facility is to future residential development.

The large landholdings directly south and south-west of the Permacast facility are both identified as future urban residential areas, being Lot 29 Robertson Road, Whitby and Lot 30 Soldiers Road, Cardup.

Lot 29 forms part of the Whitby residential project and is zoned ‘Urban/Urban Deferred/Parks & Recreation’ under the MRS and ‘Urban Development/Rural/Parks & Recreation’ under TPS 2.

Lot 30 is currently zoned ‘Rural’ under the schemes, however, forms part of Development Investigation Area No. 1 in both the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale Local Planning Strategy, endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission on 18 March 2022, and the Mundijong Structure Plan (July 2021). Lot 30 is also identified as ‘Urban Expansion’ under the South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework.

Lot 30 is currently subject to a proposed MRS amendment to facilitate residential development in accordance with its classification under the WAPC and Shire Policy Frameworks. In September 2022, Council resolved to provide preliminary support for the WAPC to initiate the proposed MRS Amendment.

The future residential development of these parcels, together with the Cardup Rural Residential area, is well established within the planning framework. From our research, it appears the proponent’s development applications do not reference these future residential development areas.

CARDUP BUSINESS PARK LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN

The Cardup Business Park Local Structure Plan (LSP) was approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in March 2019. This LSP makes the following statements with regard to the ‘Application of EPA Guidance Statement to Cardup Business Park’, being:

“It is not necessary to specify particular separation distances at the local structure planning stage as it will be the responsibility of the future operators to ensure that the lot is suitable for the proposed activity, and to demonstrate that emissions are managed and do not extend outside the boundary of Cardup Business Park, and where relevant, that the required separation distances to sensitive land uses are achieved.”

And,

“Since existing sensitive land uses are situated in nearby proximity to the local structure plan area, the Guidance Statement provides that it will be the responsibility of the future operator to ensure that the relevant separation distances are achieved.”

These requirements are clear and pre-date both development applications submitted by the proponent. The Cardup Business Park LSP is a contemporary planning document and should be seriously considered when making planning decisions. The planning framework has been based on this principle, how can one landowner simply ignore this and put legitimate planning in jeopardy? Landowners have made investment decisions based on the planning framework.

Given the above and clear onus on the proponent for its operations to contain their own emissions and ensure relevant separation distances are achieved, Land Group WA is seeking litigation advice regarding any potential adverse impacts from the facility on its future residential project.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION INCONSISTENCIES

The submitted DA report is deficient about key elements that require consideration in issuing any approval of this nature, being:

• Through-put;

• Staffing levels;

• Days of operation;

• Traffic generation; and

• Commentary on separation distances.

The application is described as needing to further develop the site to allow for “increased manufacturing” due to “unprecedented demand” and that “Permacast is looking to increase there (sic) manufacturing capacity.”

The following inconsistencies or lack of information are identified:

• There is a 120 bay car park to facilitate increased staff numbers but no final staff numbers are provided in the planning report.

• Many of the facilities (office/lunchroom/stressing beds) are described as being “existing” and “to be retained” whereas they are subject to this DA application as part of its retrospective nature given none had previously been approved.

• The manufacturing process describes the need for agitator trucks to move the concrete to the stressing beds and for significant storage, however, there is no detail provided.

• The DA planning report does not refer to Lot 21 to the immediate east, however, the Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) attached at Appendix C attaches at its own Appendix B a ‘Site Plan’ that refers to a “Proposed Hardstand Storage” area of some 21.31ha that is required for laydown of the manufactured products. Has this hardstand area previously been given approval or is it properly intended to form part of this proposed DA?

• There is no detail on through-put as “it is dependent on market demand”, apart from a reference to being able to produce 200 tonnes of concrete product per day. This would be less than 73,000 tonnes per annum if the plant operated 365 days per year which is a gross understatement considering the DWER Works Approval (Ref: W6658/2022/1 dated 21 June 2022) provides a design capacity of 280,000 tonnes per year with expected actual production of 150,000 tonnes per year. As such, the DA report makes a gross

• understatement of the proposed capacity of the site which then influences the associated technical reporting about traffic generation and environmental impacts.

• The movement of materials to site to make the concrete (sand/aggregate/cement etc) to facilitate this level of throughput would be considerable and is not addressed in any of the technical reporting associated with this proposal (for example the TIA suggests only 6 semi- trailer trips to Lot 60 per day).

• The DA report describes the operating hours as “dependent on market and customer demand” and “typically” production will be from 6am to 6pm. It does not advise how many days per week the facility is anticipated to operate. The DWER Works Approval ‘Decision Report’ states “the applicant proposes to operate the concrete batching plant 6 days per week from 5am to 6pm (Monday – Saturday), with operation on Sundays or public holidays subject to demand.” It also states, “occasional operation outside of these hours may be required.”

• The DA report describes the access within Lot 60 as being “constructed of a hardened gravel sub-base material”, however, the Works Approval ‘Decision requires “all surfaces within the concrete batching plant operations to be sealed with concrete/asphalt.”

SEPARATION DISTANCES

Figure 1 ‘Site Extent’ of Appendix D ‘Dust Management Plan’ is grossly over simplified showing a very limited extent of mapping with regard to surrounding ‘Sensitive Receptors’ land uses.

Figure 1 of the Dust Management Plan submitted in the 2021 application for the Mobile Concrete Batching Plant (Ref: PA21) showed a far greater extent of impacts upon ‘Sensitive Receptors’ and included mapping 500m, 1,000m and 1,500m buffers.

However the 2021 report is also deficient as it did not recognise Lot 30 Soldiers Road or Lots 26 & 29 Robertson Road, Whitby, all proposed for future residential development, as ‘Sensitive Receptors’ even though the EPA Guidance Statement specifically states that buffer definition studies are needed where “a new industrial land use is proposed near an existing or proposed sensitive land use.”

Moreover, the EPA Guidance Statement states as follows:

“To ensure an appropriate level of environmental protection, the EPA expects that individual industrial developers will take all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise emissions from their premises.”

“Wherever practicable, it is expected that adverse environmental impacts should not extend beyond the boundary of a particular industrial site.”

“Generally, protection of sensitive land uses from industrial emissions is assisted by the identification of suitable buffers at the strategic and structure planning stages of the land use planning process, and in the early project formulation stages in the case of individual projects.”

“Where the separation distance is less than the generic distance, a scientific study based on site and industry-specific information must be presented to demonstrate that a lesser distance will not result in unacceptable impacts.”

“If the distance from the industrial land use to the sensitive land use is less than the recommended separation distance, and it cannot be demonstrated that unacceptable environmental impacts are likely to be avoided, then other options should generally be pursued.”

“These may include

• modifying the project to reduce emissions via engineering controls such as process design, process enclosure or other means; and

• pursuing land use planning and management controls (e.g., land acquisition, rezoning) to reduce environmental impacts to acceptable levels.”

“Where a separation under consideration is less than in the table, it is recommended that a new project does not proceed in the absence of site-specific investigations and a report demonstrating that the separation distance will meet acceptability criteria and that enforceable management techniques will be applied to ensure an appropriate environmental outcome.”

As described previously above, the Cardup Business Park LSP includes specific reference to this EPA Guidance and imposes specific requirements on proponents to meet these standards.

We are very concerned that the Dust Management Plan does not properly consider the scale of the proposed facility, nor the proper extent of sensitive land uses within close proximity of the subject land and as such that the proposal does not meet the requirements of the LSP with regard to containing its own impacts/emissions.

The focus of the technical reporting within the DA (and more broadly within both the Amendment 180 documentation and Mobile Concrete Batching Plan DA Ref: PA21) being on a facility that produces between 5,000 tonnes and 150,000 tonnes has potentially influenced the assessment(s) of this facility.

The EPA buffer guidance recommends a generic separation distance of 500m to 1,000m for a facility producing less than 150,000 tonnes per annum and the applicant has previously stated:

“The minimum distance between the proposed location of the concrete casting shed and any residential dwelling is approximately 465m. This is only marginally below the suggested 500m separation zone. Hence, such a discrepancy can be mitigated by limiting the scale of the operation and ensuring acceptable air quality standards via any development application and/or works approval licence.”

(ref: summary of submissions on Scheme Amendment No. 180, March 2013)

The above is particularly concerning given:

1. The facility is a ‘Cement product manufacturing works’ which has a DWER Works Approval to produce up to 280,000 tonnes of concrete or cement being mixed, prepared or treated, which under the Environmental Protection Authority ‘Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors – Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses No. 3 of 2005’ requires a buffer distance of 1,000 to 1,500 metres ‘depending on size’.

2. Plan 1 shows our properties at Lot 30 Soldiers Road and Lot 29 Robertson Road being significantly impacted by any buffer beyond 500m from the Permacast facility, potentially jeopardising the Whitby Town Centre and over 1,000 future housing lots as depicted in the Strategic Planning Framework for the locality.

3. Court Grammar School on Bishop Road is also located within the 1,500m sensitive land use buffer.

As such, have previous proposals been, and is this proposed DA being, assessed based upon inaccurate information that could well influence whether this facility should have any approval status whatsoever?

DUST MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Dust Management Plan attached as Appendix D specifically excludes reference to the Concrete Batching Plant located in the centre of the Lot 60 operations, as it was approved as part of a separate application process (PA21).

It is considered deficient to not include the Concrete Batching Plant so that the cumulative effects of the whole facility can be properly assessed – particularly as the majority of infrastructure subject of the current DA ‘retrospective’ proposal is existing.

We also note that although the Dust Management Plan included within the DA for the Mobile Concrete Batching Plant did indicate a 1,000m to 1,500m buffer, it showed only the special rural land to the west and the Court Grammar School to the south-west as being Sensitive Receptors. The future residential development projects on Lot 30 Soldiers Road and Lot 29 Robertson Road were not shown, nor included within that environmental assessment.

BUSH FOREVER SITE 361

We acknowledge that a portion of the subject land has been previously cleared by the proponent and the boundary of Site 361 amended (retrospectively?) under the MRS, as outlined above.

However, it should be further acknowledged that this is a sensitive area.

In their submission on Scheme Amendment No. 180, the EPA stated that “the vegetation complex within these areas is poorly represented (3% remaining) and there are mapped Threatened Ecological Communities.”

Although now separated by a fence and firebreak, has the impact of cement dust and other dust particles on this vegetation been properly assessed.

Should a land use with such potentially significant environmental impact be permitted to operate next to an area of land specifically identified for high level environmental protection?

In our view, an independent flora study of Bush Forever Site 361 should be commissioned to review any impacts this facility is having on the existing vegetation.

PARKING

The planning report for the DA states that “currently there are between 60-70 staff associated with the overall operations.” The report then goes on to state that “staffing is expected to increase gradually over the coming years.”

These broad statements do not assist the assessment process.

ACCESS

The DA report describes the access within Lot 60 as being “constructed of a hardened gravel sub- base material which allows for heavy vehicle movements without destruction of the driveway” and “during summer, a water cart frequently waters the driveway and yard to appropriately manage all dust generated on site.”

However, it is well known that the supply of materials to, and the manufacturing process of, a facility like this produces dust. The Works Approval ‘Decision Report’ includes an ‘Applicant Control’ measure to address ‘Concrete Batching Regulation 3: Minimisation of dust’ which states, “all surfaces within the concrete batching plant operations to be sealed with concrete/asphalt” and “road sweepers and/or watering will be employed as necessary to clean dust causing material from yard surface.”

A condition to seal all plant operation areas (i.e., including accessways) should be imposed on any approval for this facility in this regard.

TRAFFIC

The movement of materials to site to make the concrete (sand/aggregate/cement etc) to facilitate the high level (280,000 tonnes per year) of throughput would be considerable – and yet is not addressed in any of the technical reporting associated with this proposal (for example the TIA  suggests only 6 semi-trailer trips to Lot 60 per day).

On page 20 of the TIA, there is a statement that “…it is highly unlikely that two 19m trucks would enter and exit Norman Road simultaneously.” We assume this statement is made because the swept paths show conflict between vehicles if they were entering and exiting Norman Road/South West Highway together.

However, given the Works Approval for an anticipated 280,000 tonnes per year throughput, it may well be likely that a high volume of truck movements would cause such conflict.

The importance of safety on country roads, particularly where heavy vehicles are involved, cannot be understated. If road intersections require upgrading to avoid such conflicts, these upgrades should be a condition of any approval.

Further, the traffic movement data within the TIS is unclear.

The report states that “Lot 60 is currently operational and the trips generated from the site is included in the existing traffic count survey data.”

Notwithstanding the high throughputs outlined in the DWER Works Approval and the capacity for 100 staff on site (and growing), the TIA suggests only 30 passenger cars and 6 semi-trailers will visit Lot 60 on a daily basis.

This again appears to be grossly deficient.

Moreover, as is suggested in the TIA, heavy vehicles should be directed towards South West Highway to avoid conflicts with the future residential areas abutting to the west and south.

For safety reasons we strongly suggest the proposal be conditioned to achieve this important health and safety outcome – with heavy vehicle traffic being required to access South West Highway rather than the more local road network to the immediate west of the site.

HOURS OF OPERATION

The DA report, it’s appendices and the DWER Works Approval outline differing hours of operation. The DA report describes the operating hours as “dependent on market and customer demand” and

“typically” production will be from 6am to 6pm. It does not advise how many days per week the facility is anticipated to operate.

The TIA (Appendix C) says “general operations are (Monday – Friday, 6am to 6.00pm). However, during night works… may be required on a 24 hour basis to meet project demand.”

However, the Works Approval ‘Decision Report’ states “the applicant proposes to operate the concrete batching plant 6 days per week from 5am to 6pm (Monday – Saturday), with operation on Sundays or public holidays subject to demand.” It also states, “occasional operation outside of these hours may be required.”

The volume of operations and suggestion that even 78 hours per week (per Works Approval) may not be sufficient given project demand, confirm this is a very significant facility that must surely be considered high impact.

Producing the tonnage approved in the Works Approval for the duration of operating hours outlined in the Works Approval suggests the ‘size’ of this facility would require the larger buffer separation distance required under EPA Guidance.

DWER WORKS APPROVAL

The DWER Works Approval (Ref: W6658/2022/1) dated 21 June 2022 provides a design capacity of 280,000 tonnes per year. Although it notes an expected actual production of 150,000 tonnes per year, it is fair to assume given the scale of the facility and the intention of the proponent to respond to ‘market and customer demand’ that the fully capacity of operations is likely.

The DWER Works Approval Decision Report was assessed on that basis and the DA should also be considered in this regard.

In the ‘Decision’ (Part 5) section of the DWER ‘Works Approval ‘Decision Report’ the following advice is provided:

“The delegated officer has determined the proposal to construct and operate a concrete batching plant at the premises, with an assessed production capacity of 280,000 tonnes per year, poses a low level of risk of impacts to public health and the environment, subject to regulatory controls. This determination is based on the following:

• the proposed plant is to be constructed within a pre-existing industrial premises;

(we note the pre-existing nature of the facility was un-approved)

• proposed construction works are minimal with short time requirements due to the portable nature of the plant;

(the plant is described a mobile, however, was always intended to be fixed, plus this statement doesn’t appear to recognise the other substantial infrastructure existing and proposed for the site)

• the applicant has undertaken a noise impact assessment which indicates the operation of the premises will comply with the Noise Regulations; and

• the applicant has demonstrated operation of the premises and proposed controls will comply with the Concrete Batching Regulations.

(based on or in consideration of any separation distance?)

The delegated officer notes that although the premises is predicted to meet the assigned noise levels prescribed in the Noise Regulations, there is potential for community complaint if noise levels increase significantly during the early morning (prior to 6:00am). If this occurs, the applicant may be required to change the hours of operation to ensure compliance with the assigned noise levels in the Noise Regulations.

Based on the assessment in this decision report, the delegated officer has determined that a works approval will be granted, subject to conditions commensurate with the determined controls and necessary for administration and reporting requirements.

Following construction, the applicant is required to apply for a Registration for the ongoing operation of the premises.”

This decision is based upon the plant being constructed “within a pre-existing industrial premises” yet this activity was unauthorised and operating without any approvals. Moreover, the risk analysis seems to have focused on only one residence to the east of the site and not with any consideration to the future residential development areas located on properties directly opposite the western and southern boundaries of the subject land.

Our concern is that the applicant/proponent provided a very limited suite of information to DWER for the Works Approval assessment, much as it has done in submitting this DA.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT CONTEXT

The submission does not specifically address Clause 67 Deemed provisions (Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015) which requires the local government (decision makers) to have due regard to a number of matters. It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that these matters are appropriately addressed, which clearly is not the case with this proposal. For example, the DA does little to consider and address:

(a) the aims and provisions of this Scheme and any other local planning scheme operating within the Scheme area;

(b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed local planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving;

(h) any structure plan, activity centre plan or local development plan that relates to the development;

(m) the compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including,

(n) the amenity of the locality including the following -

(i) environmental impacts of the development;

(ii) the character of the locality;

(iii) social impacts of the development.

As outlined in the DA planning report, the subject land is zoned ‘Industrial Development’ under draft Local Planning Scheme No. 3 (which is seriously entertained). ‘Industry’ is an ‘A’ use under this zoning, which “means that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting development approval after giving notice in accordance with clause 64 of the deemed provisions”.

Approval is thus discretionary.

We consider the ad-hoc assessment of this facility has potentially diminished the significant impact an operation of this size will have on the locality, including not only dust and noise but also considerable heavy vehicle movements.

The communities of Mundijong and Cardup have been the subject of extensive strategic planning for many years and represent the future residential lifeblood of the area. We are very concerned that the initial and ongoing impacts of this facility will be a blight on the Shire’s vision for its municipality for years to come.

Land Group WA and Golden Group believe that the Shire and JDAP must direct the applicant to update the DA and associated technical reports to accurately and holistically detail the Permacast activities and their impacts with regard to the planning framework. To enable an informed planning assessment, the DA must directly reference how the operations interact with the existing and future residential uses of the locality. This information should be re-advertised to the surrounding community and relevant authorities to ensure all parties can make an informed assessment of the impacts.

Should the Shire and JDAP find any scope to support the application, we request both the Shire and EPA monitor the facility very carefully and take any actions necessary to protect the community from adverse environmental impacts emanating from the site.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

1. The proponent, Permacast, has been operating on the site since 2006 (17) without all necessary approvals.

2. Aerial photography shows a portion of Bush Forever Site 361 within Lot 60 was cleared by the proponent in 2011 a decade before MRS Amendment 1380/57 was approved to amend the boundary of this important environmental asset.

3. The Cardup Business Park Local Structure Plan requires operators to ensure that their lot is suitable for the proposed activity, and to demonstrate that emissions are managed and do not extend outside the boundary of Cardup Business Park, and where relevant, that the required separation distances to sensitive land uses are achieved.

4. The deficiency and inconsistency in information provided across the reporting seems to seek to diminish the overall impact of the facility and does not enable an informed assessment against the planning framework.

5. With a history of disregard for due process and statutory approvals, what confidence can JDAP, the EPA or Shire have those operations will be managed in accordance with any approvals issued?

6. The proposal seeks approval to access and driveways via a hardened gravel sub-base material that will be watered however, the DWER Works Approval requires all surfaces within the operations to be sealed with concrete/asphalt, which infers that the subject application is not in accordance with the DWER Works Approval.

7. Landowners in the area have made investment decisions made on the planning framework. Lot 30 Soldiers Road and Lot 29 Robertson Road, abutting to the south (being earmarked for future residential development and including parts of the Whitby town centre and a future TAFE site) will be adversely impacted by activities on Lot 60 which permeate beyond the site boundaries, especially if they impact beyond 500m from the concrete manufacturing facility.

CONCLUSION

Land Group WA and Golden Group are very concerned about the negative impacts this existing yet un-approved facility may have on our residential projects. We oppose any form of approval that will result in the proposal being detrimental in any way to properties located beyond the boundary of the Cardup Business Park, as required in the Cardup Business Park Local Structure Plan.

Approvals to the site appear to be predicated on impacts/emissions from the facility being contained either on site or within 500m of the site, based upon the submitted technical studies. It is essential that any prospective approval for Lot 60 is only valid on the basis that impacts/emissions are strictly contained within 500m of the facility.

Given uncertainty around the full extent of the impacts and emissions associated with the facility, we strongly object to the proposal.

                                                                                      ***********************************

Hi, I am a resident of Cardup siding road. We do not want the extra noise and smell from a concrete plant this close to our house.

It has also increased our dermatitis.

Also the fact that our council allows a company to do as it please but will fine and control it residents to a closer degree is criminal. Shame on you.

                                                                                      *********************************

Strongly against them operating or expanding due to excessive noise sand vibration and our health.

Not the right area for this kind of industry and devaluing our homes significantly.

                                                                         *****************************************

As a Cardup resident I’m opposed to the retrospective planning application for Permacast.

                                                                          *******************************************

As a resident of Cardup to say how a business of this size and footprint can be operational illegally in Cardup is outrageous.

Noise pollution, dust pollution , environmental pollution , low frequency noise etc , the list goes on .

As a crow flies my property is approx 1.5 klm west from this site The noise from there activities at 10pm -3 am is ridiculous.

                                                                    **********************************************            

A few times I thought it was rock blasting/ explosives at Hanson quarry.

                                                                     *******************************************

My three young daughters also attend Court Grammar school which this illegal business has set up nearby. I’d like to point out that the closest point of this school to Permacast is the early learning centre 3 to 7 year old children. Thus my 4, 6, and 8 year old daughters do not escape this low frequency pollution / Cement / Clinker dust is also carcinogenic

                                                                 ********************************************

There is enough noise now without the company getting bigger.

Plus run off into our water supply.

                                                             **********************************************

7 A Landgate aerial photograph from 12 February 2023 shows that both of those proposed stressing beds are already in existence –

Acoustic and Vibration Report

8 We note that the more recent acoustic report has been prepared by a different acoustical consultant. This report focusses on the stressing beds and other plant onsite.

9 In relation to vibrations, it is not clear whether all stressing beds are usually operated simultaneously – if so, the assessment in the Lloyd George Acoustics report seems to be deficient in that it appears that measurements of vibration were not taken with all stressing beds in operation.

10 No vibration testing has been undertaken in relation to the land to Lot 29 to south which is owned by Gold Fusion. While it is recognised that there is currently no noise sensitive premise on Lot 29, the southern part of Lot 29 is identified in the Whitby Local Structure Plan as Residential R15-R30.

11 The report appears to rely upon what is characterised as a ‘New Process’ which allows the stressing beds to operate for a shorter period of time, and with less vibrators operating at once. This has allowed the re-calculation of the representative period of time under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (Noise Regulations) from an LA10 to an LA1 noise level for Stressing Bed 1.

12 It is not clear how these operational limits could be adequately policed by way of planning condition, and indeed, until the additional testing referred to in the Dykstra covering letter has taken place, it would be premature to approve this application, as it would not be able to be adequately conditioned.

13 There remains no indication of the impact of noise by the loading and delivery offsite of large infrastructure components, which according to the Stantec Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) (dated 2 February 2023) ‘nightworks for various major infrastructure projects, delivery of bridges or other deliveries may be required on a 24 hour basis to meet project demand’.

14 These deliveries are to be effected by using ‘specialised trucks under escort pilot vehicles….(and) are normally scheduled at night which falls outside the normal peak and business hour traffic’. While we accept that traffic noise falls outside of the remit of the Noise Regulations, while these vehicles are being loaded and while they are on the Subject Land, they should form part of the noise measurement and modelling.

15 Finally, noise measurements taken by DWER at a noise sensitive premises, on 14 July 2023 and 4 August 2023 were in excess of assigned levels prescribed by the Noise Regulations. Apart from the proposed ‘New Process’ and a yet to be designed or located acoustic barrier, there does not appear to be any changes proposed to the operations at the Subject Land which suggest that noise standards can now be reached.

Acoustic barrier

16 We submit that it is inappropriate to use sea containers as an acoustic barrier.

17 If located in the area proposed on the revised site plan, the sea containers will be visible from Soldiers Road. We note that sea containers are not a permanent solution for noise mitigation.

18 Should an acoustic barrier be required, it should be designed to be installed permanently and be consistent in its appearance with the proposed urban development proposed for the surrounding area.

Traffic

19 The amended plans show additional car parking areas such that the total number of car bays is 250.

20 Notwithstanding the explanation given in the Dykstra covering letter dated 30 October 2023, it is hard to reconcile 250 bays now proposed with the 100 existing employees, and 15 additional employees proposed in the TIA (page 33).

21 It is not clear how it could be possible that 115 employees could require 250 bays. If, as the Dykstra covering letter suggests, it is to manage additional visitors for ‘project milestones’, then this traffic should be included in the TIA.

Environmental approvals

22 We note that an Environmental Protection Notice (EPN) was issued to the operator of the Subject Land on 14 November 2023 (copy enclosed). This EPN requires the cessation of the use of at least one of stressing beds with vibrators and steam curing of concrete within the stressing beds unless written evidence is provided to the CEO of DWER that suitable emission control measures are in place.

23 The EPN also requires further noise and vibration testing to be undertaken and provided to DWER by early January 2024.

24 It concerning, in our submission, that the whole of the site is operational without a development approval, and according to DWER, is not complying with relevant environmental standards.

25 Until these matters are resolved to the satisfaction of DWER, this development application should not be considered for approval.

Change in planning framework

26 Finally, I note that there has been a significant change in the planning framework for this area since this application was first considered by the Metro Outer Joint Development Assessment Panel.

27 On 22 September 2023, the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3) became operative. LPS3 identifies the Subject Land as Industrial Development, and assigns an ‘A’ use permissibility to the land use class of ‘Industry’.

28 As you would be aware, extra care and consideration must be given to land uses to which an ‘A’ permissibility has been assigned. This is because there are potential impacts which should be the subject of advertising and consultation before a determination is made.

Conclusion

29 We submit that this facility (already operating without either development approval or environmental approval) is inconsistent with the existing and proposed urban residential development within the immediate locality, and approval of the proposal would be inconsistent with orderly and proper planning because it would entrench an incompatible land use in this locality in perpetuity.

30 Given the uncertainty which still exists in relation to the impact of noise, vibration, vehicle movement volumes, and stormwater emissions (and its resultant impact on the existing and future amenity of the locality), it is our submission that notwithstanding this additional information, the Shire should maintain its position to recommend refusal of the application to the JDAP.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOTIC

I would like to object to this application for the below reasons.

This type of industry should not be located so close to a residential area.

Industry regulations stipulate a minimum distance of 750m.

My property is within 200m-300m of this development and there is no way Permacast can completely mitigate its impact on us.

If Permacast is allowed to continue its operations, will the SJ Shire accept responsibility for all environmental and health damage to residents living within a 750m radius? There are numerous journal articles advising of the negative health impact caused by the inhalation of concrete dust. This dust settles all over our property including in our pool and on our roof - from where we collect our rainwater that we drink.

This company has deliberately and knowingly conducted the following illegal activities.

• Cleared vegetation.

• Constructed business premises without planning permission.

• Released noise, water, dust and vibration pollution into the surrounding areas.

• Demonstrated threatening behaviour to local residents.

• Operates an unsafe workplace for its employees (eg: exposure to pollutants without protective measures, workplace safety incident of sea container wall collapsing on Saturday 11th November).

• Works outside of business hours (all through the night and weekends).

This company also recently implemented the use of 'site sentries' and despite being informed of the ongoing outrageous noise pollution they caused to nearby residents, it took over 3 weeks and police involvement for them to be turned off. This is another example of their blatant disregard for nearby residents that are negatively impacted by their actions.

The approval of this development will reduce the amenity of the area. Cardup is a peaceful area, home to many native animas. This business will increase noise pollution, increase traffic numbers, has a negative visual impact and will reduce the property values of Cardup residents.

We genuinely hold the belief that if Permacast receives approval, they will completely disregard any conditions that the SJ Shire may place on them. Their past behaviour certainly supports this view.

                                                          *********************************************

We have lived in Karbro Drive now for 30 years and it used to be dead end road.

Thed Industrial Park on Robertson Road did not have a concrete facility back then.

This was a very quiet rural area. One person has already put their home on the market which was supposed to be thrie dream retirement home due to the whole business of Permacrete being unbearable.

The industrial area there was LIGHT Industrial and to the best of our knowledge has never been re classified to HEAVY Industrial. So how can this happen and how can a business grow so large without the shire knowing and questioning where was there application for the business to commence.

We do not see what is happening at that facility to be light industrial given what is produced there. So why has this been allowed to get to where it is now when the whole facility has never been approved. Illegal business.

We are concerned about the increase in traffic if the parking bays are to be increased to 250. And as for saying people will leave cars there if tired and get taxis. It doesn't happen now so if they are not increasing staff levels why does the car park need extending to 250. Absolute load of rubbish.

There are enough concrete trucks and also other trucks going up and down our road (Karbro Drive) now. It was never built for the traffic that comes through now. So if Permacrete increase production it will only get more heavy traffic on it.

This section of road where we live was a dead end road only serving 17 houses when we moved in 30 years ago. It was built for light vehicles not concrete trucks and delivery trucks delivering very heavy goods to Permacrete and elsewhere. It is going to have devastating effects on the people in this road. Lots of horses are ridden down this road and a lot of truck drivers just don't give a damn. Someone will get seriously hurt or killed if the amount of vehicles increase to and from Permacrete and in general.

There is Court Grammar down the road and a lot of children bike to school.

What about their safety.

The hideous sea container wall they put up has made no difference to anything. And maybe it would have not collapsed if it had been built correctly with locking nuts and to the best of our knowledge they are supposed to have some sort of weights in them (maybe sand) to stop them blowing over in the wind. The only thing the wall of sea containers are doing is stopping people seeing the Illegal things they are doing.

How can the sea containers stop the annoying droning sound that comes through the ground when the stressing beds are being used. I have a small registered business I run out of my garage so I hear all the time banging and clanging of machinery and the annoying noise when stressing beds are used. We live less than a km away and we can hear it very clearly.

On windy days with easterly winds blowing the dust from the facility is very bad. It needs some sort of attention to keep it down. Why should all people downhill from them cop all that dust.

With the amount of water being used by them what effect is that going to have on our bores as we are downstream from them. The amount of sealed ground now up near South West Hwy stops it seeping naturally into the ground and underground streams. The stormwater from the large sealed lay down area is sent to their dam which currently is supposed to be sealed but they say now will not be sealed plus putting in a second dam. So are they going to empty the current dam and unseal it. Or is it not sealed to start with. They then will have two unsealed dams. As we have no scheme water here this could have a devastating effect on the properties around here who rely on their bore water.

And as the water from two unsealed dams will have cement dust in them and leech into the ground there could be traces of a carcinogenic element in it. So once again where does that leave everyone west of the facility.

We were also very upset when we heard about the bush forever section being cleared without a permit. It seems they just do what they like to suit their business. We also noticed when driving up Norman Road that there appeared to be a lot of trees pushed up at the north end of the sealed lay down area so was that allowed.

There are too many differences in what is being said and done there.

Like the bushfire consultant's report that the site is cleared (which it certainly has been) and there are no plans to do any re-vegetation.

But Mr Dykstra says the west boundary will be re-vegetated. Which is it. Too many differences with he said /she said statements. Too many lies.

We have now started to worry about what this business will do to the values of our properties. We moved here 30 years ago and this was to be our forever home but now we are not so sure. It certainly changes the way you think and I personally (name extracted) stress a lot about having to move. I have a very good registered business here and to move would just be devastating. I am in the heart of horse country and my business is associated with that and do not want to have to make that decision because of an Illegal business that should never have got that big without being questioned by the shire. They must have known it was there. It has already impacted our lives and if it gets bigger again what will all the residents that it affects have to do.

Cardup should not have this industry here. The land is classed by the WA Government as "environmentally sensitive".

WHY has this slipped under the radar but is now destroying peoples lives.

                                                                     ******************************************

The extra heavy vehicle traffic on Karbro Road. My kids will be riding to school along this road and I have witnessed numerous times already the increase of heavy vehicles using this road and feel like the speed limit isn’t being adhered to as well.

When the wind is minimal I can hear the constant drone of machinery. We have horses in the paddock closest to the road and I have seen them spook when the cement truck drive down the road with the drum shuddering. If that happens when a person is riding a horse down the road it could seriously injure a person or worst case kill someone.

                                                                  ****************************************

I object to Concrete manufacturing facility at Lot 60 Robertson Road in Cardup.

This massive operation has only caused grief to the residents of Cardup. This is a heavy industry that needs to be located in a suitable area. The impact area of Permacast operations go far beyond the boundary of the site. The Permacast premises is a major source of noise and vibration that nearby residents cannot escape which result in negative psychological and physical effects. Personally the vibrations and low frequency noise gives me headaches, makes me feel nauseous and causes depression and heightened levels of anxiety. My home vibrates and pulses with stressing beds and compactors. That is why “BUFFER ZONES” exist. Factory noise and vapour generator noise is like living close to a freeway.

The noise and vibration mitigation measures have had little to no effect and all of their recent testing still creates the same disturbance. Noise PREDICTIONS are not accurate and have been proven so by the acoustics PEER review company. Many questions were raised in regards to the use of the standard ISO 9613, assigned levels, adjoining industrial activities, ground absorption factors, selective use of inflated influencing factors and the neglection of some contributing influencing factors leading to inaccurate results. I believe the predicted results have always been biased as shown by previous peer reviews.

Excessive heavy vehicle traffic is damaging our roads and driving among them on our roads is already quite dangerous such as Karbro Drive (with centre islands and chicanes) which has become a “rat run” for trucks travelling East to Permacast and West from Permacast. The development proposal states :”The route of transport of the trucks from the site would be from Robertson Road to Norman Road, to South Western Highway and then to various sites”. This is not and will never be within Permacasts control whatsoever because truck drivers choose whichever direction they please. Many heavy vehicles to and from Permacast continue to use the back roads – These include semi trailers hauling concrete products and agitator trucks etc.

I now refer to the Responsible Authority Report 10.1.2 - Attachment 1 Ordinary Council Meeting - 21 August 2023. I believe these statements and conclusions from SJ Shire and Authorising Officer were accurate then and accurate now.

“The scale and overall intensity of this development is considered to cause unacceptable amenity impacts on the locality. Its significant expansion in recent months, has generated significant complaints associated with excessive noise and vibration impacts being experienced by nearby sensitive development. Based on the independent expert review of submitted studies, there is significant concerns held about the development and its operations causing impacts on the public health and amenity of the locality”

“The application seeks approval for a retrospective concrete manufacturing facility expanding the existing industries operating on site. Production of 73,000 tonnes of concrete per year requires a buffer distance of 750m from sensitive receptors while the nearest residences are located 150m to the west on the opposite side of Soldiers Road. Further, Urban Development zoned land (part of the Whitby Precinct A Local Structure Plan area) located to the south west is also with the buffer distance area. The key proposal has failed to demonstrate that noise, vibration and dust emissions generated by the concrete manufacturing facility will not have adverse impact on the amenity of nearby sensitive land uses located within the buffer distance area and is therefore recommended for refusal.”

Note: The public feedback period for the development application was to be extended (long email trails support this) based on additional information to be considered and reviewed by the public but there has been no change to the closing date on the SJ shire website. I reserve the right to submit a second feedback submission if further information is provided.

To summarize:

Large scale heavy industry does not belong in a place where the operation has significant negative impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area and the root cause of detrimental effects on local residents mental health and wellbeing.

                                                                       *****************************************

The extra heavy vehicle traffic on Karbro Road. My kids will be riding to school along this road and I have witnessed numerous times already the increase of heavy vehicles using this road and feel like the speed limit isn’t being adhered to as well.

When the wind is minimal I can hear the constant drone of machinery. We have horses in the paddock closest to the road and I have seen them spook when the cement truck drive down the road with the drum shuddering. If that happens when a person is riding a horse down the road it could seriously injure a person or worst case kill someone.

                                                                      ************************************

Additional traffic to an already congested and poor management road system. Additional noise which will negatively impact our environment and reduce our enjoyment of living in a semi rural environment

                                                          **************************************************

I am worried about the long term effects of our native fauna population as well as pollution to our airways and waterways which would affect local residents and local native animal populations.

                                                             *****************************************

SJ Shire is not an industrial area.

It will be detrimental to the health of surrounding residents. Not to mention what it in do to our environment.

                                                                 ****************************************

We chose to live where we do for a quiet lifestyle.

The illegal extension to the concrete plant has ruined this lifestyle. The noise when they remove the concrete from the moulds is horrendous. It sounds as if a helicopter is hovering over the house and the vibration is extremely irritating. It goes for hours. If the plant is allowed to continue this noise will not disappear it will be worse due to the longer hours they want.

I believe there should legally be a much greater buffer zone due to the nature of the work carried out on the site. They have put a wall of sea containers up, which is an eyesore in our environment and will do very little to stop the noise.

Cardup is not the area for such heavy industry, right next to homes. Sound carries much greater distances here because it is so open.

There will also be an increase in traffic from large trucks which again brings more noise and dangerous roads.

Earlier this year we have had issues with the water in our pool from phosphates. The pool continually goes green and very expensive to keep the water phosphate free. It is either coming from the concrete plant or a change up at the quarry as it has never happened before over the 25 odd years the pool has been in.

The plant will devalue our property due to it being an unpleasant environment to live in, this will impact us financially. It is also a drain on us

mentally due to the stress of having to tolerate the noise and the fear of losing value in our property which will lead to not having enough funds for retirement.

Please remember that the business has illegally extended their manufacturing site without a single thought to the resident's mental health around them. This is clear by the fact they extended it without approval from the council. I am sure they would not want to live anywhere near the vicinity of the concrete plant and put up with what we have to put up with in an area where residents have paid a lot of money to live in a quiet & peaceful surrounding.

                                                       ************************************************************

It is too close for comfort and think the control they have in place will not control the after affects of their operation.

                                                                    ***************************************

RESIDENT

Too close to comfort and don't think controls they have in place will not control the after affects of the operation.

                                                       ***************************************

Increase in heavy vehicle traffic of local road that I use multiple times a day.

2. The emissions from such plant will include pollutants like particulate matter and chemicals, which will pose respiratory and health risks to people living in close proximity. A health and safety case that can and will be studied over time and action taken further if impacts negatively weight on local residents health.

3. The noise and dust generated by the plant will disrupt the quality of life for residents and impact property values.

Our family that resides in Cardup strongly object to the current and future upgrades to the Permacast operations.

The facility has expanded over the past few years creating an environmental concern to the local residents and the expanding Whitby development. I don't understand how large operation of this nature can be allowed to contaminate the landscape in the way they have, i.e., painted stacked sea containers, a major safety and environmental issue.

The constant noise pollution, air contamination and dust issues has a major impact to the local residence, both health and financial consequences.

The local residence collect rain water as there are no mains water in most of the surrounding properties, the Permacast operation raises the risk of polluting the rainwater.

The Shire are promoting a healthy well devolved community with sustainable modern infrastructure, certainly not being displayed by Permacast development.

                                                       ***************************************

Have felt and heard the thrum / vibration from the operations being conducted earlier in the year do not want this to recommence as it impacts health. In addition concerned about the impacts on water collected in rainwater tank due to easterly winds blowing from that direction. Water tank is our only source of water. Experienced an increase in traffic flow along Karbro Drive in the early morning and evening from the workforce using Karbro as a rat run when operations were running earlier in the year. Karbro is not designed for increased traffic and speed. Visual impacts along Soldiers Road and Norman Road, this affects the visual amenity of the Cardup area and subsequently affects land values.

                                                    ******************************************

BARRIERS

Acoustic walls (shipping containers) as predicted, a section has already toppled over due to high winds. Was the shire made aware of this proposed addition prior to its installation? Were any engineering specifications offered to the shire for review to ’ensure the containers were placed on a suitable foundation and secured to ensure they stayed in place? A lot of heavy equipment is operated around the so called (acoustic wall). Will it take a work place fatality before the relevant authorities take notice as to the dangers?

Permacast promote in their company profile they are leading experts when it comes to concrete acoustic sound insulation solutions, and this is the best they can come up with!? As a rate payer if I put up a shade sail over my swimming pool which didn’t have the appropriate council approval or offended the neighbours, you would insist it be removed. It would seem there is one rule for an individual rate payer, and no rules for a company that sets up and operates illegally.

Covering Letter

The covering letter indicates there will be 250 parking bays provided, for a work force of less than 100? The letter suggests the extra spaces were due to a DEWA requirement? and parking for visitors and special projects. The letter also goes on to say there will be no increase to production or staff numbers. The fact special projects are mentioned and knowing Permacasts track record, I would suggest we can expect production to increase, and operate beyond the suggested operating hours of07.00am to 06.00pm Monday to Saturday, they have acted with impunity in the past and will continue to do so in the future! They have become a" protected species"

HOURS OF OPERATION

There should be no operating of machinery whatsoever before 7am. Recently we have been experiencing noise and vibrations all hours of the day and night which have been reported to the Shire and DEWA. A representative from DEWA suggested the vibrations were coming from remedial work being carried by Permcast in an attempt to suppress the dust issues that effected the site. I asked if this fact had been verified by any official from DEWA or were they relaying on the information being fed to them from Permacast and if in- fact Permacast were operating in the PWN restricted area. To date I have not received a reply to this question

Reduction in vibration time - there should be no vibration AT ALL in this rural area.

WATER MANAGEMENT

Is Permacast’s water consumption recorded? In view of the fact that bores in the surrounding area have been drying up recently, and as you are aware the ground water is our only source of supply (apart from rainwater), this is of great concern.

Draining basin and drains - where does this water go to - into our ground water?

The proposal states there are no dust issues BUT then goes on to suggest that when dust issues do arise they will put water sprinklers on in an effort to suppress this issue. Will this be an automatic system triggered by? Or will it be left up to an individual that may or may not react to the situation?

Has any consideration been given to the effects of placing and compacting the reconstituted asphalt throughout the site and what effect this will have on the ground to absorb excess water run off? Is this surface impervious, if so, such a large area and heavy downpours of rain are more than likely going to swamp any dams or containment ponds which will see water escaping the boundaries of this facility?

On the site map it indicates a red highlighted area in the Bush Forever zone, indicating further clearing of the Bush Forever site is required. We live on a Bush Forever block, my understanding was Bush Forever was exactly that. BUSH FOREVER. Not to be bulldozed because some illegal organisation wants to make further expansions to their process.

Permacast & WA Premix also draining into historic draining line in a south westerly direction. This drain has been there since 1984 BUT Permacast and WA Premix have not and so why are they allowed to use this when it goes in a south westerly direction towards Bush Forever?

’CONTEMPLATES’ moving this from Bush Forever and join western drainage basin?

This proposal contains a number of words which are not defined such as, ’Contemplates’, ’Possibly’, ’Unlikely’ etc etc. It is all very wishy washy.

1.0 Intro

1.1 Background - 2 Stressing Beds?? Don’t they mean 4??

2.2 Climate - Gusts from the East - Don’t you mean GALES. Enough to

push over stacked shipping containers!?

3.1 Dust sources - air blasting - this dust has been proved to cause cancers.

3.2 Low Risk Dust - BUT water sprinklers will be installed along traffic-able

areas. More of our water being taken?

When?

Every day?

6 Wind Roses - February 1989 - August 2021 - CALM!?

Have STRONG GUSTY SUMMER EASTERLIES been taken into account?

NOISE & VIBRATION & HUMAN ANNOYANCE

Due to the proximity of our premises to the Permacast site, underlying noise was our initial concern and still remains so. We have been subjected to low frequency noise and vibration which at times is so severe it makes our ceilings shake and the pressure waves associated with the vibration actually make you start to feel physically and mentally unwell.

According to the sound survey carried out as part of this proposal it was stated that it was difficult to achieve true noise samples due to the fact of background traffic noise, lawnmowers and even a school siren. (And music!) None of these factors effect us in any way but the noise and the stressing bed operation certainly does. We have no fancy measuring devices that have been calibrated and comply with whatever Australian Standards. All we have is a body to tell us that our life style, health and mental well being is being put at jeopardy because of the illegal operation of this facility.

The proposal mentions that because of the noise emitted by the stressing beds, only one will be allowed to operate at one given time. Are we to assume that on the completion of the first stressing bed the next one will be brought into operation and then again the third and then the fourth and back to the first if required for eleven hours a day?

So in essence the duration of this noise will be extended over a much, much longer period. Why was only a short noise survey carried out at the recent testing conducted on 1st November 2023? when local residents will be subjected to much longer periods of saturation?

The report also suggests the upper limits will be applied to the stressing beds presumably to reduce the noise and vibration levels currently emitted. Who or what governing body will ensure that these limits remain or will they be ’production driven’ and raised or lowered to meet demand.

As mentioned in our previous submission regarding the Retrospective Approval dated March 2023, noise being emitted from this particular facility was variable The vibration fluctuated from being a nuisance level to being completely unbearable, suggesting that human intervention can be made at any time to raise or lower said vibrations. During the recent testing carried out, on the 1st December we contacted DEWA to submit a noise complaint, again on the 15th siting vibration levels at 07.45 very loud vibration from 08.50 until 09.05 and again from 09.25 until10.00am. The next test was carried out on the 20th December. We didn’t notice any vibrations on that occasion but a very strong North Easterly wind was blowing for most of the day. The strange thing is on the 21st and 22nd heavy vibrations were felt on both morning and on several occasion since.

If, according to DEWA the recordings taken on the 20th were of a low magnitude and complied to the relevant noise criteria, why have I had to again complain to the Pollution Watch Hotline because of unacceptable vibration levels being omitted from Permacast on the above dates??

STRUCTURAL DAMAGE

In view of the vibrations that we have been subjected to to date, I cannot see why the report can suggest it is unlikely that any structural damage has or will occur.

FRIDAY 10th NOVEMBER 2023 & MONDAY 13th NOVEMBER 2023 – Complete house shuddering making us and the house vibrate - very frightening and stressful. Worse than an earthquake.

Previously vibrations and thumping all hours of the day and night. Dates and times listed on DWER report and website.

Roof shudders and ceiling fans rattle.

Taking readings right by stressing beds is not proof of noise and vibration effecting all the local residence.

CONCLUSION

Fundamentally we are talking about a heavy industrial concrete manufacturing plant which basically shouldn’t be in its current location.

The residents of Cardup have had no opportunity to express their opposition to the facilities construction knowing that it would have a detrimental effect to their quality of life.

Unfortunately, the fact that the facility has grown to such a size without any planning approval from the Shire remains a mystery. The fact that everything they do, is done after the event, so that they have to seek retrospective approval. This clearly demonstrates their utter contempt for any rules, they do what they want when they want with no consideration to the consequences.

The fact they constructed the proposed modifications while seeking retrospective approval to justify the existing operation highlights this point.

Unfortunately as the facility is now built and are manufacturing concrete components for the Metronet project it will be difficult to shut it down and have it removed. Although an illegal operation, this is adversely effecting local residents with noise, water, dust and pollution which is effecting them both mentally and psychically. Some will see this facility as an employment opportunity, others as a provider of components required for a range of different projects.

The fact remains it is an illegal operation. The residents and rate payers of Cardup have not had the opportunity to object to the plant being built because it has been done so illegally. Noise has been an issue since the installation of the first stressing bed. Dust has been an issue. Contamination of the ground water on which we rely on has been proven. While some attempt to reduce these levels has been made, there is no clear plan on who will be responsible to ensure these measures will be adhered to. Relying on the Permacast management to self regulate their own operation would be tantamount to courting a monumental disaster!

Since 2006, Permacast has been allowed to illegally grow to its current size, in part, due to the actions or in-actions of the Shire of Serpentine. It has granted retrospective approval and rezoning which has allowed the company to flourish and expand, while suggesting it wasn’t aware of Permacast’s operation. Now we have a situation where, if the majority of councillors are opposed to the Permacast proposal, MODAP will make the final ruling. As previously stated, the fact that this is not a Green Field site, the facility already exists and it is there for all to see.

The local council has a responsibility to the ratepayers effected by this issue and needs to work closely with DEWA to ensure Permacast are held to account over their past and future actions. Joint measures need to be put in place to further mitigate all of the polluting issues which have only been partly addressed. This may go part way to establishing some confidence back to the rate payers and the Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire hopefully has their vested interest at heart!!

                                                          ******************************************************

Further to the additional information to support the development application for the Concrete Manufacturing facility on Robertson Rd in Cardup, we of Soldiers Rd Cardup wish to state that our position and views have not changed.

We resubmit our letter to you:

We strongly object to the above application.

When were we as residents of the Shire approached to have the zoning changed to Heavy Industrial? Please relocate these works to the correct Heavy Industrial area, it does not belong on the doorstep of the semi/rural –residential area. Going by everything we have witnessed, it appears that this is not a company that has the Shire residents /environment as its best interest.

Please note: we are not against progress in our Shire; we’ve lived in the Shire for about 31 years and at this address for the past 23 years and have seen much positive development. However, this company has destroyed our lives, our peaceful neighbourhood and devalued our property.

As to the “testing days” (to see if things comply) – everything is suspiciously quiet on those days, even from the sister company next door. Our gut feel is that someone is not being above board in order to paint a better picture than what it really is.

Come on Shire – please show some pluck and stand up for the residents – not just around voting day.

                                                                       **************************************

I do not approve with the expansion of this facility.

The noise and vibration effect us and our home.

We have a large crack in our house since the operation .

The dust we are breathing in is a big concern, let alone all the heavy traffic caused by all the trucks.

                                                                   ************************************

RE: BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT

I quote Page 6 of Bushfire Plan: "Areas east and south of the lot are registered Bush Forever".

"The development site is cleared ready for the construction of additional concreting facility and support structure".

Does this mean that the buildings are not there???

Or adding more buildings???

Have 'Smiths' not seen the huge construction that is already there???

Again I quote "There is no re-vegetation of landscape planned for the development"???

They are meant to be landscaping to cut down noise and dust.

Covering Letter Page 2: Area to be landscaped???

A total contradiction of facts.

Re: COVERING LETTER - PREVIOUSLY APPENDIX 6

The MD of Permacast cannot get facts right in this letter. It seems 'Dykstra' also agrees that South Cardup Residence have not got their facts correct.

This shows total ignorance. Did they not listen to the questions/statement at the August Council Meeting or read the minutes (admittedly not well written) correctly? It seems NOT.

If these people are so easily misled and do not quote facts correctly, how can we believe anything either person/company says regarding updates of their manufacturing process???

Please note, as I have reported before, the ODOUR & FUMES refers to the Plastics Factory on Cardup Siding Road, reported by Mr & Mrs. Byl. We do not know these people.

Why is the 'undersigned' blacked out. Does he not want to put his name to this document and not be responsible for his errors???

DUST MANAGEMENT

I Quote: Surrounding Land Use Residential development 1 00m from site???? What about existing residence???

Bordered by Special Residential. These residence properties were on Soldiers Road long before Permacast existed and also, where is the BUFFER ZONE for these properties???

RISK ASSESSMENT

The site contains concrete dust which is the main cause of silicosis. Have tests been taken when the easterly winds exceed 70 kph???

You quote: Only dust occurring from driveways - photos prove dust arising, over tree height, from concrete blasting.

NOISE & VIBRATION

I think Lloyd George needs to use his body and ears to feel/hear vibration even 1 km away.

We are not referring to traffic noise here but loud vibrations continuously from stressing beds and start-ups.

I quote "hours of stressing bed vibration operations limited to 7am - 6pm".

These are running and noise happening 24/7.

NO tests were taken at our property, it seems tests were only taken close to this facility. This noise/vibration travels a long way. Instead of your technical equipment being used I suggest you use your ears and bodies to pick up this noise and vibration - again NO BUFFER ZONE.

Shipping containers do not stop vibration moving through the ground.

This is human annoyance 24/7. There should be no vibration in this rural area of Cardup. Have these tests been undertaken continuously 24 hours and for numerous days continuously???

We are not interested in your technical readings and graphs. Just our ear and bodies are quite sufficient to feel these awful sickening vibrations.

STORMWATER

I quote "land has recorded industrial use since 1978. This is Permapole NOT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE as with Permacast.

There is no point in stating drainage that is going to now improve. Hopefully this might stop Permacast putting oil into drainage systems. Who polices this???

Pollution has already occurred for many years with Permacast using and abusing the drainage systems and polluting the Cardup potable water. Why has no water testing been undertaken to ensure the residents have clean unpolluted water. This should surely be "duty of care" for the S/J ratepayers.

Why hasn't the drainage site been constructed already to drain water to west???

Again I quote "they contemplate constructing it".

OPERATIONAL NOISE

LOT 21 NORMAN ROAD you quote LOT 21 ROBERTSON ROAD???

This hardstand area was planted with trees by Hanson. Then these trees were ripped up by Permacast for their laydown area. This is really not helping the environment. Have they replaced any???

Again hours of operation quoted as 7am - 6pm???

Have noise levels of the Permacast boundary security systems been monitored as they appear to go off day and night??? We are aware of this because adjacent residents.

have had to call the police regularly to stop this noise during the night and totally disturbing their sleep.

This is disgraceful.

SUMMARY

I would like to point out that all the way through this report there are SO many contradictions.

Why???

Cannot Permacast and their professional advisers get their facts right???

It is totally unbelievable what this company, Permacast and all its advisers, directors, board members, owners and family members have got away with. This disgraceful polluting heavy industrial setup has been running for so many years polluting the water and environment under the noses of the Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire.

Why???

It now seems everyone has been gagged. Not one Minister is interested in our fight to rid this company from the Cardup area. One minister passes the buck onto another minister and the main ignorant minister for the Environment Minister, Reece Whitby does not even have the decency to reply to numerous emails we have sent to him.

Of course one particular minister Rita Saffioti has to get her projects finished on time and should never have had the audacity to deal with this illegal concrete setup in the first place. Of course, it is a total family affair.

The media it seems have also been gagged. Not one report on the total facts of this illegal facility have been reported even though we have written to and contacted many of the newspapers and the television industry. Again all gagged.

The sooner this Permacast facility is removed from this rural area of Cardup the better. There should not be ANY heavy industrial facilities in this area at all.

                                                          **********************************************

• If the buffer zone between the plant and existing housing is not the legal requirement, why is this still being considered? They have set up a heavy industrial business operation without legal approval close to homes in a special rural zone. These zones are for quiet lifestyle living and we are not allowed to run a business from our property due to extra traffic etc so why can a business set up this type of operation in close vicinity to the Special Rural Zone?

• There is a proposed hardstand/holding area (which is already set up) off Norman Road – this would be an acceptable location for the stressing beds due to the fact that they would not be in close vicinity to any housing. Why can they not be moved to this location?

• If this is approved what guarantee is there that the operating frequency will remain at 130Hz or less? We all know that once approvals are given, businesses promise to comply with restrictions but often do not carry them out.

• Was the plant operating at the maximum capacity (that will be a normal operation day) whilst testing was done? If so, what proof is there? We do find it hard to believe that the horrendous noise and vibration that we endured has been reduced so considerably due to a couple of operational changes so fear that the original operation level will return if approval is given.

• We have objection to the plant operating hours. We believe a 4pm finish is more acceptable and no Saturday operations for the stressing beds.

                                                          **********************************************

Lot 112 Soldiers Road Cardup

Retrospective approval of the PERMAcast facility should be refused. They have illegally built a heavy industry plant on an area that is too small to control their emissions and is too close to residences.

Buffer Zone

All requirements for buffer zones have been ignored and this heavy industry plant has been built too close to residences. In doing so, PERMAcast has blatantly ignored all regulations and recommendations with regard to buffer zones. They completely built and are operating this plant without any prior approvals and are using their political influence to now apply for retrospective approval. There was no planning or consultation as assured by the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS), Town Planning Scheme (TPS) or Local Structure Plan (LSP), before this illegal plant was constructed. This is a flagrant disregard for planning and building regulation and this retrospective approval application should be refused.

Noise

We are subjected to a barrage of noises emanating from this heavy industry including machinery, alarms, vehicles, hammering, banging and vibration noise from the stressing beds. The container wall and the other measures which were implemented, do not stop the noise and vibration. The vibrations can be felt inside our house, you cannot get away from the noise by closing the windows and doors. I suffer from Arterial Fibrillation, a heart problem which has been treated using a method called ablation . I am concerned that the vibrations from the plant will cause this condition to return.

PERMAcast has not fully started operations and the noise coming from the plant is still horrendous, it is going to get worse as they ramp up operations.

The noise cannot be controlled because the plant has been illegally built too close to rural residences. Their whole operation is extremely noisy. Noise is a well-known physical and mental health hazard, and we should not be subjected to continuous noise. We are entitled to the lifestyle assured by the zoning of our homes ‘Rural Residential’. By building illegally PERMAcast has taken away our rights and is diminishing our health. Just yesterday, 16th January 2024, I complained to the DWER that the noise coming from the Permacast was horrendous . It sounded like the water bomber was hovering over my house. There was also beeping and hammering noises. This continued for 2 and a half hours before I left to go out for a medical appointment. They were given 150 days by the DAP panel to correct the noise emitted from this plant and they have failed to do so.

The retrospective approval application should be refused because this plant is too close and the noise cannot be controlled and is therefore a hazard to our health.

Dust

Local residents have been complaining about dust from these premises for many years, since they started to clear the land. During summer, strong winds blow directly from PERMAcast towards the residences on the west. I have many medical issues besides I am concerned that dust emitted from this illegal operation will exacerbate these or create new issues. I cannot go outside when it is windy because of the dust from PERMAcast. Cement and concrete dust contain carcinogens. My grandchildren visit me on the weekends and I am worried about the long-term effects on their health.

I am concerned for the kindy children at the school nearby.

To my knowledge there has been no dust monitoring done on the site. When PERMAcast is not operating the air above the plant is clear, when they are operating there is a cloud of dust above the plant.

Dust is not just generated from the roads, the PERMAcast operation creates dust. Any spillages will dry and create dust during the next windy day and by vehicular movement.

PERMAcast do not give any specifics about their operations, we are not sure how they clean their concrete products. Whether they sandblast or water blast, the result will be concrete particles that will end up blowing across to the residences.

Retrospective approval should be refused because this plant is too close to residences and the strong summer winds blow through the plant directly to the residences and school on the west. Dust monitors should be installed and controlled and regulated by a reliable private contractor. We do not want self-regulation as this company does very little for anyone but themselves

Water Management

Everyone in the area relies on ground water and rainwater. PERMAcasts water usage is not covered in any documentation. I am not aware of any study conducted on the impact of their water usage on our ground water.

I am also concerned about their wastewater and storm water management. Their dam is no longer required to be lined and there is no plan for preventing leaching of their impurities into our ground water. There is no discussion of the chemicals, such as epoxy coatings or cleaning chemicals used and how these will be prevented from leaching into their ground water. Cement dust will release contaminates like Chromium VI and other heavy metals into the stormwater waste basin and soak wells which will contaminate groundwater and soil of private residences.

There is no detail in relation to water management and retrospective approval should be refused. Water should not be allowed to leave the property as there are many impurities and poisons used on the premises.

Traffic

There has been a huge increase in traffic on Norman Road, Soldiers Road, Karbro Road and Bishops Road. There has been in huge increase in truck and heavy vehicle traffic. This is only going to increase as PERMAcast ramps up its operation. Our roads are too small to support such a large operation.

Retrospective approval should be refused, there was no proper planning before this plant was constructed and its location is inappropriate.

Working Hours

PERMAcasts intended working hours are not clear from their submitted documentation. They seem to expect to be able to operate on any day at any time, with minimal restrictions on operation of certain equipment.

Retrospective approval should be refused – they are too close to residences to be able to operate at any time and on any day.

Conclusions

1. PERMAcast has built and is operating a huge heavy industrial plant, without any approvals or licences. This is an illegal operation and they should be held accountable.

2. They should not be granted retrospective approval just because they have already built the plant; having government contracts should not be a consideration. The government should not have awarded contracts to an illegal operation.

3. This plant has been constructed without any planning or consideration for how it would control its emissions. Ad hoc implementations do not fix the overriding issues.

4. PERMAcast has not resolved any of the concerns raised in response to their original application, despite being granted an additional 150 days. They have managed to use deception and manipulation of words to lower the environmental standards to get re-classified as a 'non-prescribed premise'. Their noise, dust and water emissions continue. These and the traffic in the area will only increase further as they ramp up their operations.

PERMAcast SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR THEIR ILLEGAL PLANT.

                                                                *******************************************

As a Cardup Resident I Concerned Citizen* I object wholly to the presence of Heavy Industry in Cardup.

The concrete product manufacturing business operated by Polevine Pty Ltd trading as Permacast (Permacast), in the southern portion of 394 (Lot 60) Robertson Road, CARDUP WA 6122 (the Premises) has since 2006, grown to a gigantic size without any permission what so ever to do so. Application was recently made for retrospective permission to expand, after already having done so without any permission from the shire. This residential area is not zoned as heavy industrial, and the residents are suffering greatly from all manner of disturbances emanating from Permacast. Issues include the horrendous & extreme noises of many varying kinds from machinery, vehicles, both small and large and other equipment in use, in conjunction with the heavy vibrations from stressing beds running at all hours without any regard for the residents of Card up. The low frequency noises that reverberate through one’s body causing headaches and disrupting one’s whole being. This has been going on for far too long, and has been causing massive disturbance and distress to all concerned. As recently as January 16th this noise level and heavy vibration has disrupted residents greatly,

making several feel physically ill. There is enough evidence in testimonials on the website to support that fact.

There are a whole gambit of incidences happening, regulations literally being conveniently changed, that smack of corruption, but that does not alter the fact that the Concrete Manufacturing Facility at Lot 60 Robertson Road, Cardup, is heavy industry, and should not be situated where it currently operates by the residents.

Therefore that Manufacturing Facility at Lot 60 Robertson Road, Cardup, should definitely be denied a retrospective licence, cease operation immediately, and be forced to relocate to a more appropriate location (Heavy Industrial) away from people’s homes and schools.

It pollutes our environment and has a detrimental effect on everyone’s lives and health.

The Permacast operation is literally driving people mad with all of the many pollutants it is emitting from the premises. Residents can’t sleep, can’t concentrate, are feeling ill, suffering respiratory issues, the list goes on. That in itself is a mental issue. The mental health of the residents does matter. Stop this rot, and out of control behaviour, where companies can build without permission, and do as they please, and instead of their greed, consider the residents of Cardup.

The SJ Shire should do all in its power to ensure that this illegal facility does not receive the retrospective development approval that it seeks. Spare a thought for the many ratepayers in the immediate area who have been suffering every day for far too many years, and still continue to do so today.

                                                             ***********************************************

Submission to the Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire

In relation to Concrete Manufacturing Facility at Lot 60 Robertson Road, Cardup Reference Number PA23/198

(Revised to reflect Harley Dykstra submission 14 Dec 2023)

Introduction

The Collins dictionary defines Heavy Industry as follows,

" ... Heavy industry is industry in which large machines are used to produce raw materials or to make large objects ... "

Irrespective of whatever dictionary you choose, all describe Heavy Industry in a similar manner.

Perm a cast talk on their website of producing vast quantities of prestressed concrete products.

Some examples include,

Gateway WA Project

228 Prestressed Bridge Planks (15-24m Long)

4 Post Tension Wing Beams (110 Tonnes each)

578 Precast Parapet Panels

Southern Seawater Desalination Plant

Culverts weighing up to 15 Tonnes each

W2W Alliance Black and Veatch Thiess JV

60 Post Tension Roof Panels -9 Tonnes each

36 Post Tension Roof Panels -11 Tonnes each

2 6.5m Dia Inner Ring Beams- 26 Tonnes each

4 Epoxy Lined Roof Covers - 8 Tonnes each

The list goes on. Given the quantities produced, the size and weight of the items, the materials produced and the market Permacast serve, it is, without doubt, a Heavy Industry. No question.

Is Cardup zoned for Heavy Industry? The answer is no.

The land on which Permacast (and its affiliated companies) operate is NOT zoned heavy industrial.

On the above grounds alone. this operation should not be allowed to continue.

Turning to the updated retrospective development approval as submitted by Harley Dykstra.

Cover Letter

Development Site Plan Updates

The increase in parking bays on site to 250 whilst stating that staff levels will not increase is totally illogical. The explanation given, and the statement that tired staff will leave their cars on site and catch taxis home, is bizarre and laughable.

With the Court Grammar School just over a kilometre away and with children and mums frequently moving around the area, one would have thought that council would do all in its power to discourage any additional traffic in the area?

With a near fatal traffic accident on Soldiers Road only recently in the news, and if the illegal concrete plant is allowed to continue and grow, the number of deaths and injuries on nearby roads is only likely to increase commensurately.

Does council intend to counter the increase in the number of local trucks and cars with any traffic calming measures?

It is only a matter of time before a child is killed as a result of the massive increase in traffic from this illegal concrete plant.

The "Enveloped" stressing beds, as they are euphemistically referred to in the Harley Dykstra cover letter, are in fact a pile of old sea containers stacked on top of one another and slapped with a bit of green paint. They have already fallen down once due to strong winds and that event triggered a WorkSafe enquiry. It is only by sheer chance that no one was killed.

For a company that claims to manufacture "sound walls" it is both intriguing and laughable that council should accept such an ad-hoc measure as a form of supposed noise attenuation.

In a peer review report to council by Reverberate Consulting dated 31 July 2023, Martti Warpenius stated the following in regard to using sea containers for this purpose;

Shipping containers used as noise barriers

The use of 40ft storage containers as the prime method of shielding noise to surrounding residential areas is questioned. Acoustically they have been shown to be insufficient to control noise. We remain concerned about non-acoustic issues. The following list is not considered comprehensive, and we recommend other expertise be consulted:

• The shipping containers appear to be located so as to interfere with normal Permacast operations. This may cause their relocation to alternative locations, potentially compromising the noise control

• shipping containers, by their design, may be considered temporary and liable to be removed.

• They are designed to be transported. This means that they may not form a permanent solution

• Shipping containers may corrode more than a permanent, purpose-built noise barrier

• It is unclear if shipping containers can withstand high winds, especially when stacked

• The stacking of containers may create additional workplace hazards. We recommend that the applicant justify the use of these shipping containers to the satisfaction of the Shire, otherwise an alternative permanent solution is to be implemented.

Harley Dykstra also says that by painting these old sea containers 'pale eucalypt' in colour that they will " ... blend with natural tones of the bush and sky ... ". We have yet to witness a green sky.

Dust management is also unlikely to display any marked improvement with regard to local pollution of adjacent properties. The statement by Harley Dykstra that " ... there is no mixing of cement or concrete ... " is untrue. Cement is mixed with aggregate in the batch plant to make the concrete. The concrete slurry is then poured into the moulds or stressing beds as the case may be. It appears that they are intending to hide behind different corporate identities (e.g. Permacast, Polevine, Permapole, WA Remix etc) to obfuscate matters. If WA Remix are

identified as a separate company then their Category 77 {W6658/2022/1) -Concrete batching or cement products manufacturing, from DWER shall apply.

Both DWER and Council are fully aware of all the noise, vibration and pollutants that emanate from Lot 60 and as such are obliged to monitor, control and respond accordingly.

Aside from the Stressing Beds, general factory noise and the noise from the vapour generator is in the background and levels vary with wind and whatever particular activity Permacast/Polevine are doing. That noise is very loud for those living in close proximity to the plant. Some residents say that it sounds like an airport runway and it is considered that this sound would come from the high velocity air movement of plant machinery.

Trucks are always going to be an ongoing issue and it is expected that it will get a lot worse. Permacast/Polevine know that there will be a lot of noise from their lay down / load out area and surrounding roads when they ramp up production. They have added paperwork to their development submission and when one reads it one immediately senses that it will affect all locals in the area. Permacast/Polevine have even mentioned that Karbro Drive is not to be used which of course is totally impossible to control -there is no way to control or stop drivers from taking any route to and from the plant that they choose. Most truckies would choose the quickest.

Appendix 1: Development Application Site Plan (Updated)

The site plan, updated or otherwise, provides unashamed visual proof of a Heavy Industrial

operation squeezed onto land with inappropriate zoning and with residents' homes clearly visible only a short distance away on the western (left) side of the plan. No buffer zone here.

Of further concern is the large area of natural bush (part of the Bush Forever area) that originally had a big red label in capitals that read "SUBJECT TO CLEARING PERMIT". It is intriguing to note that this label has mysteriously disappeared from the latest site plan. Given the deceptive tactics and total disregard for the environment displayed by Permacast/Polevine in the past and the polluting behaviour reported by former employees, that, irrespective of council, or the appropriate authority's approval, more trees will be cut down, ground cleared and all flora and fauna annihilated in this illegal operation's lust for more space. Council may wish to carefully review, consider and comment on this.

Appendix 2: Updated Dust Management Plan

It is assumed that a lot of the cement dust that blows on the wind from Lot 60 may emanate from the WA Remix area of the site. However, we note that this facility has conveniently been excluded from the DMP for obvious reasons.

Furthermore, residents have been prevented from observing the origin of the cement dust due to the erection of the wall of old sea containers supposedly established as a "sound wall" or "envelope". Although having little or no effect on sound and vibration, this dangerous structure does provide an effective "privacy screen" that allows the facility to continue its illegal operations in secret.

The original DMP talked in part about this facility being a "land development site" and even quoted DWER's own guidelines in this regard. But the reality is that this is an operating heavy industry plant producing hundreds and thousands of tonnes of concrete per annum. It is not a building or construction site where work will finish and the original environmental conditions will resume. And if "land development" is or was occurring, then surely no approval was granted by the Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire for this to take place and basically constitutes yet a further admission of illegal activity on the Lot 60 site?

This, so called, updated DMP also states that the existing development has two Stressing Beds (the major source of noise pollution in the area) and the following paragraph talks about

adding one more. The reality is (and as shown on Permacast's own site plan) that this plant already has a total of FOUR Stressing Beds whose sole job is to VIBRATE and remove air pockets from setting concrete. Are Permacast unsure what equipment is already installed on site?

In essence, the updated DMP is a highly superficial document basically telling council what they want to hear and containing very little detail. A lot of it appears to have been a "cut & paste" exercise form similar generic documents and is unlikely to provide any comfort or reassurance to Cardup residents that the ongoing cement dust, dirt and detritus that has rained down upon their properties in the past will not continue into the future should this illegal operation be allowed to continue.

The DMP also contains contradictions that bring into question the veracity of the whole document. For example, on page 3 it talks about installing a " ... 100 bay carpark ... to facilitate increased staff numbers ... " However, in the cover letter it says, " ... there will not be an increase in staff numbers ... ". Which one is the reader supposed to believe?

Note also that the Development Site Plan (Amended) attached to the DMP as Appendix B (and also in Appendix C) clearly shows a red label on the Bush Forever vegetation that says SUBJECT TO CLEARING PERMIT. It is therefore obvious that Permacast/Polevine intend to encroach into this area of native bush once the current attention focussed on them declines.

We look forward to reading the peer review of the Permacast Dust Management Plan.

Appendix 3: Updated Noise and Vibration Report

This first document appeared to be basically a rehash of the original report produced by Lloyd George Acoustics and rejected by council following a peer review earlier in 2023.

This latest version is very similar but suspiciously no longer contains the words 'predicted' six times, 'assumed' three times, 'may' six times and 'possible' three times. I say "suspiciously" as the use of these words were flagged in my original submission but have now disappeared from this latest effort by Permacast.

One could deduce from this fact that person or persons unknown at the SJ Shire may have provided a copy of my original submission to Permacast / Harley Dykstra thus assisting them to 'massage' the current document to remove doubt and ambiguity from it. Details of this issue, which constitutes a breach of confidentiality and potential corruption, has been passed to the CCC for their consideration.

Irrespective of the above, the testing method and criteria used is still very intriguing and appears to have been selected and manipulated to produce the best possible outcome for the LGA client.

No longer is the use of the ISO 9613 standard for testing mentioned as this was questioned by the peer review in the original submission where it stated,

"Noise modelling in Western Australia, as stated by DWER, is commonly undertaken using the CONCAWE algorithm 7. In fact, the meteorological conditions used by LGA were developed for the CONCAWE algorithm.

Where LGA uses ISO 9613, they need to justify its use as outlined by DWER. LGA also needs to compare the forecast results with CONCAWE as part of that exercise."

We can see no such justification for using ISO 9613 in this revised LGA report. An internet comment with regards to the use of ISO 9613 states

" ... The weakest parts of this method are its vagueness, and doubts about its accuracy. A lot of modelling input parameters is based on the user's judgment rather than a standardized procedure. This weakness could be an argument against the method to be considered as a standard. For example, the user decides, material reflection properties, how to use foliage, site and housing attenuation factors, and whether ground reflections for vertical diffraction paths are important or not. The other weakest part of 9613-2 is doubts about its accuracy."

Numerous calls have been made to the DWER environmental hotline with regard to the noise and vibration emanating from the Lot 60 heavy industrial plant. These calls and the log thereof should be taken into account when assessing this factor.

In real world conditions people can hear the low frequency droning noise and feel the ground propagated vibrations some considerable distance from the plant. As far as we know, no testing of any form has ever been conducted on any of these more distant properties.

The effects of this ongoing noise pollution have been multi-faceted but there are documented and recorded incidences amongst residents of the following,

• Depression

• Anxiety

• Mood Changes

• Suicidal Ideation

• Insomnia

Those who can no longer stand the noise and vibration are sadly forced to sell up and move away from the area.

Heavy industry that has such a marked effect on people's health should not be allowed to exist in the Cardup area.

As the SJ Shire have stated previously, these latest submissions will be subject to a peer review by a suitably qualified noise and vibration expert. It will be interesting to read this review which will hopefully dissect the methodology employed by LGA to produce this report. To the layman it appears to have been an exercise in obfuscation and whilst it runs to 35 pages and contains a lot of verbiage, the actual finite detail and the recognised methods and standards used for the testing appear to be missing.

It should also be noted that the Permacast Operational Noise Management Plan, submitted as part of this most recent revision, relates only to Lot 21 which is situated adjacent to South Western Highway. This area does not contain the noise and vibration generating equipment that has caused so much distress for local residents and, aside from vehicular noise which is of concern; it's inclusion herewith is somewhat puzzling.

Appendix 4: Updated Stormwater Management Plan

The general consensus with regard to this latest stormwater management plan is best summarised in an email from Louise Cockerton to Stuart Barter of DWER on 15 November 2023 which said,

" ... Currently the management plans are very generic ... with no clear objectives with regards to human health and or ecological risk. There are no details on roles, responsibilities, action criteria or even monitoring programs (seasonal at best).

All parties {employees of Permacast, receptors and the Shire) will need to know exactly how and when to apply any prescribed measures. Currently it has a 'she'll be right approach' and as concerned receptors we would very much like DWERs input and review of these plans ... "

This plan, again prepared by Rob Smith of McDowall Affleck Pty Ltd, is yet another revision to an earlier plan that was subsequently rejected by council.

Of major concern is the fact that the dams, where most stormwater is to be directed, are not apparently going to be lined. This is despite earlier assurances from Andrew Trosic of the SJ Shire that this was to happen. In the minutes of a meeting dated 10 October 2023, Mr Trosic stated,

" ... the Dams are to be lined. The Prevention Notice says they have six months to rectify - that means that the dam has to be lined within six months. Andrew said the plan was they are not allowed to discharge water, it needs to be pumped out ... "

However, in an email from Stuart Barter of DWER to local resident John McEwan dated 14 November 2023, he states,

" ... The existing dam is no longer being expanded or lined. Permacast intend to construct a secondary dam as mentioned above. Neither dam on the premises will be lined, however all wastewater will be treated to remove cement contaminants prior to being discharged. Permacast have stated that water within catchment ponds/dams will be regularly tested and testing data will be shared with DWER and the Shire ... "

This means that all water that flows into the dams and contains cement dust will contain traces of Chromium VI, a known carcinogenic.

With no liner, these contaminants will subsequently leach down into the water table, pollute the groundwater and will be drawn up though the bores of the properties on the other side of Soldiers Road to be consumed as drinking water by the residents who live there.

This situation is wholly and totally unacceptable and we trust that the SJ Shire will reject the SMP on these grounds also?

Appendix 5: Bushfire Management Plan

This report, compiled by Smith Bushfire Consultants Pty Ltd, appears generally acceptable. However, under Section 2 (Environmental Considerations) a few lines are intriguing,

Subsection 2.1: Native Vegetation - modification and clearing

The site is already cleared of vegetation and no additional clearing is required associated with this development. There is virtually no vegetation on the development site.

Subsection 2.2: Re-vegetation/Landscape Plans

There are no re-vegetation or landscape plans for this development

If "no additional clearing is required" then why do some versions of the site plan as previously mentioned show an area with the label "subject to clearing permit"?

Furthermore, why does this plan state, "There are no re-vegetation or landscape plans for this development" when the Harley Dykstra cover letter under section 5 states,

" ... Additional landscaping is proposed at the western edge of the Permacast development area of the site, on the bund edges of the drainage basin and on the existing bund located immediately west of the western most acoustic barrier on the site plan. This landscaping will include screening by way of a mix of trees and shrubs ..

This brings into question the veracity and reliability of the entire submission. One of the statements is obviously incorrect, but which one? How many others are blatantly wrong? How can the reader separate fact from fiction?

It should also be noted that within Appendix 2 of this report it states,

" ... even the cleared areas within the development site are now declared as an environmentally sensitive area ... "

This is verifiable via mapping from the Department of Lands and Heritage. How then can council support the existence of heavy industry on such a site?

Appendix 6: Statement from Permacast - Fumes and Odour

This final appendix in the form of a somewhat rambling letter by Permacast's MD, Alberto Ferraro and is regarded by all who have viewed it as odd.

It talks of "fumes and odours" which, to the best of our knowledge, have never been an issue for any residents in regard to the emissions from Lot 60. The only reference we can find is in the minutes of an SJ Shire meeting when a resident complained of emissions from a plastics factory at an entirely different location.

However, the stand out line from Mr Ferraro's letter is, " ... No cement or concrete production is occurring as part of Permacast's activities ... ", which begs the question, "What do they make behind the wall of old sea containers then?"

In an attempt to obtain some clarity on the type of material being manufactured by Permacast your attention is drawn to the Environmental Protection (Concrete Batching and Cement Product Manufacturing) Regulations 1998, which sits under the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

Section 2, Interpretation, contains the following definitions as follows;

cement means argillaceous and calcareous materials used in cement products;

cement product manufacturing means the manufacturing of products in which cement or concrete is the principal ingredient;

concrete means a mixture of cement, sand, aggregate and water.

Therefore, based on the definitions contained within the said regulations by which DWER and the SJ Shire are duty bound to administer, no reasonable person would draw the conclusion that the prestressed concrete bridge spans, building panels, sleepers, foundations, culverts, noise walls and the myriad of other items that they manufacture and listed on Permacast's website, are anything other than "cement products" because they have been manufactured in a way in which " ... cement or concrete is the principal ingredient.".

Now that it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that Permacast do in fact manufacture "cement products", leads us to the question of why DWER and the SJ Shire are so vehement in supporting and defending a company that is attempting to circumvent compliance with the appropriate legislation?

Recent correspondence has indicated that, despite operating from premises that have no development approval and being the subject of an Environmental Protection Notice (202313), Permacast is a major supplier of "concrete products" (or cement products if you prefer) to several major government infrastructure projects (e.g., Metronet).

This constitutes a perception in the community that certain government departments, and the officers therein, may be failing to conduct due diligence when determining compliance with the EP Act thus affording this company an opportunity to meet contractual milestones without the hinderance of environmental constraints, such as those contained within category 77 of the aforementioned regulations.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion therefore, the Cardup people are wholly and totally of the opinion that the heavy industry located on Lot 60, Robertson Road, Cardup needs to relocate and should no longer be allowed to operate from these premises.

The operation has grown from humble beginnings to an enterprise of massive proportions and for that they may well be applauded. We also appreciate the government and private sector's thirst for concrete products to support the various ongoing resource and infrastructure projects.

However, it is situated on land that is classified by the WA government as environmentally sensitive.

The land is too small, too close to people's homes and the operation has been proven to damage the surrounding environment repeatedly.

It is noisy. It is dusty. It is polluting. Numerous dangerous heavy trucks fill the roads surrounding the plant.

It has operated for many years under the noses of local council and never received development approval. Thus, it has been operating illegally.

A previous application for retrospective development approval was rejected unanimously by council. This revised "third bite of the cherry" by Permacast should be similarly rejected.

The documentation submitted by Harley Dykstra on behalf of its client has been padded out and still lacks detail, contains numerous errors, contradictions and utilises testing regimes that are, to be polite, highly questionable.

It represents what is basically an exercise in telling council what they want to hear but contains no substance to support its affirmations, either now or into the future.

In a letter to me from Alistair Jones, the Director General of the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation dated 17 January 2024, he states

" ... Permacast remain bound by requirements to comply with the general provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 which make it an offence to cause pollution or emit an unreasonable emission, and the prescribed noise levels in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

DWER will continue to undertake compliance monitoring to ensure that Permacast are complying with these requirements ... ".

Given the significant number of complaints to the DWER Pollution Hotline, Permacast will never comply and should relocate at the earliest opportunity.

Heavy industry has no place in Cardup.

                                                                 ***************************************

394 Robertson Road, Cardup

1. I act for –

1.1. Land Group WA – Cardup Pty Ltd (Land Group), the registered proprietor of Lot 30 (No. 496) Soldiers Road, Cardup (Lot 30); and

1.2. Gold Fusion Pty Ltd, the registered proprietor of Lots 22, 24, 26, 29, 302, 9004, 9005, 9011 which together make up the Whitby Town Estate being developed in accordance with the Whitby Local Structure Plan. Lot 29 Robertson Road is the lot located closest to Lot 60 Robertson Road, Whitby (Lot 29) the land the subject of this application.

2. The purpose of my letter is to respond to the second tranche of additional information provided by the applicant, and to outline my clients’ ongoing objection to the application for a concrete products manufacturing facility at Lot 60 Robertson Road Cardup (the Subject Land).

3. The Subject Land is located approximately 230 metres north east of Lot 30 and less than 200 metres from the northern boundary of Lot 29 at its closest point.

Compliance with planning framework

4. On 22 September 2023, the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3) became operative. LPS3 identifies the Subject Land as Industrial Development, and assigns an ‘A’ use permissibility to the land use class of ‘Industry’.

5. As you would be aware, extra care and consideration must be given to land uses to which an ‘A’ permissibility has been assigned. This is because there are potential impacts which should be the subject of advertising and consultation before a determination is made.

6. Importantly, when read with the Cardup Business Park Local Structure Plan (LSP), it is clear that special emphasis must be placed upon the requirement in the LSP, for –

…emissions from industry (are) to be managed within the boundaries of Cardup Business Park within an on-site buffer area (i.e. emissions

shall be managed within the lot boundary or within the boundary of Cardup Business Park).

It will be the responsibility of future landowners / developers to ensure that development is located appropriately within Cardup Business Park to meet requirements.1 (emphasis added)

7. That appropriate location includes not only existing sensitive receivers, but also land which has been designated through planning processes for the development of sensitive receivers into the future.

Relationship to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 licensing regime

8. With that contextual commentary, there appears to be nothing in the additional documentation which definitively provides comfort to the decision-maker that emissions can been either contained onsite, or to the extent that those emissions move off-site, that they are at levels which will guarantee that the surrounding land, including my clients’ land holdings, will remain unconstrainted.

9. On 4 January 2024, the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) issued an update on the Permacast matter (enclosed).

10. It confirmed that Permacast’s operations are not subject to registration or licensing provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The update goes on to say that whether these types of activities should be the subject of the EP Act licensing regime is to be considered as part of DWER’s legislative reform program.

11. In the interim however, DWER and the Environmental Protection Authority have no jurisdiction over the operations proposed, unless there is an emission which breaches the standards set under regulation.

12. This is important, because it imposes significant responsibility on the JDAP to craft conditions of approval (if approval is to be granted) to

ensure that environmental standards are met and that in accordance with the LSP, emissions are managed within the LSP boundaries.

13. In order to assist the JDAP, we respectfully encourage the Shire to engage its own consultants to peer review the reports that have been provided, and in particular to review any proposed conditions of operations.

Noise and vibration

14. In relation to noise and vibration, the covering letter from Harley Dykstra sets out a number of dot points on page 2 which propose operational changes to ensure compliance in relation to noise and vibration.

15. Some of those dot points require modification of the manufacturing process, and the number of stressing beds that can be operated at the same time. While these proposals are laudable, they do seem to be almost impossible to police for compliance given the technical nature of the processes taking place.

16. Finally, there has been no mention regarding the noise generated from the transportation of large items during the overnight period. These large trucks will be under escort of a pilot vehicle, having (presumably) been loaded by a crane onsite. The new acoustic report is silent on the impact of these overnight operations.

17. My clients remain concerned that noise and vibrations will continue in such a way as to impact the development capacity of their land.

Dust

18. The covering letter refers to the Applicant’s discussions with DWER regarding the mitigation of dust. The covering letter says that measures ‘are contemplated…in consultation with DWER’.

19. Given DWER has no decision-making role in relation to the activities operating from the site, there can be no reliance on the suggestions

would need to be satisfied that the dot point list of measures set out on page 2 of the covering letter was sufficient to manage dust on site. In our submission, a timeframe should also be imposed in the approval for the sealing of the main driveway.

Conclusion

20. We reiterate our submission that this facility (already operating without a development approval) is inconsistent with the existing and proposed urban residential development within the immediate locality, and approval of the proposal would be inconsistent with orderly and proper planning because it would entrench an incompatible land use in this locality in perpetuity.

21. Given the uncertainty which still exists in relation to the impact of noise, vibration and dust it is our submission that notwithstanding this additional information, the Shire should maintain its position to recommend refusal of the application to the JDAP.

                                                           *******************************************

I maintain my objection to the proposal - the manufacturing process has not reached optimum processing and the noise and dust is clearly an issue exacerbated by the ferocity of the easterly wind that comes through Cardup. It is a heavy industry manufacturing plant placed in a semi-rural / rural setting and should be relocated to an area designated for that type of industry away from residential properties. Rectifying issues appears to be have been done on an ad hoc basis such as the pile of sea containers surrounding the facility which is clearly not safe (especially as one has fallen off).

                                                           *******************************************

                                                                             The below from the Shire Agenda

                                                                            Complaints and planning issues

Since March 2023, a number of complaints have been received from nearby landowners to the subject land, alleging noise and/or vibration impacts from activities that are adversely affecting the amenity of the area. These complaints continued throughout 2023, and have also continued during the beginning of 2024. These complaints include:

- 1 March 2023: Noise and/or vibration complaint

- 26 May 2023: Noise and/or vibration complaint

- 7 June 2023: Noise and/or vibration complaint

- 14 June 2023: Noise and/or vibration complaint

- 20 June 2023: Noise and/or vibration complaint

- 28 June 2023: Noise and/or vibration complaint

- 28 June 2023: Noise and/or vibration complaint

- 26 July 2023: Noise and/or vibration complaint

- 28 July 2023: Noise and/or vibration complaint

- 1 August 2023: Noise Complaint

- 3 August 2023: Noise Complaint

- 4 August 2023: Dust Complaint

- 10 August 2023: Noise Complaint

- 30 August 2023: Noise Complaint

- 18 September 2023: Noise Complaint

- 21 October 2023: Noise Complaint

- 28 October 2023: Noise Complaint

- 30 October 2023: Sea Container Wall

- 1 November 2023: Noise Complaint

- 4 November 2023: Noise Complaint

- 6 November 2023: Noise Complaint

- 7 November 2023: Noise Complaint

- 8 November 2023: Noise/Vibration Complaint

- 10 November 2023: Noise Complaint

- 11 November 2023: Sea Container Wall

- 14 November 2023: Noise Complaint

- 14 November 2023: Noise Complaint

- 15 November 2023: Noise/Vibration Complaint

- 16 November 2023: Noise Complaint

- 20 December 2023: Noise Complaint

- 16 January 2024: Noise Complaint

31 complaints in all here, from Cardup residents who have had enough, plus there are a lot more that have been made to DWER etc. which are not included in this count.

                                                             ******************************************