Joint Development Assessment Panel approves Albemarle’s application for Binningup workers accommodation

A plan for a 500-person temporary workers accommodation facility in the South West has cleared a major hurdle, after the Shire of Harvey was overruled in its opposition to the proposal. The Regional Joint Development Assessment Panel voted 3-2 on Thursday to approve Albemarle’s proposed facility in Binningup after a meeting that lasted four and a half hours. The proposal was passed despite opposition from the Shire of Harvey, which voted 11-1 to reject the application at a special council meeting on October 12. The development will see accommodation built to house Albemarle’s construction and commissioning workforce for its expansion of the Kemerton lithium hydroxide processing facility, along with a proposed dining hall, rooftop function centre and recreational facilities including a pool, gymnasium and basketball courts. A number of changes were made by the panel to the conditions of approval, including a stipulation the site cannot be used for workers accommodation purposes for more than 15 years, an occupational management plan must be created and the allowing of site personnel to have direct access to Binningup Road if they are travelling to the town. The panel heard from eight separate speakers before the matter went to vote. Binningup Town Association secretary Glenda Teede, chair Craig Maughan and deputy chair Ross Sharp all spoke against the proposal. Ms Teede said Albemarle’s only focus was “to get in the workers and get the job done”. “We are concerned the facility has the capacity to increase the population of Binningup by between 40 and 80 per cent in a short time,” she said. “Workers camps have little attachment to community, increasing the possibility of crime.” “The applicant have shown little regard for the Binningup community and they will probably distance themselves further by giving (site) management to an outside provider.” Ms Teede also brought up concerns about the impact on Binningup Beach from additional use brought on by the proposed facility. Mr Maughan suggested the proposal be rejected due to it being developed on agricultural land outside of “extraordinary circumstances”. He questioned whether Albemarle had a “workforce problem or an accommodation problem”. “They have no shortage of residential land in the Shire of Harvey,” he said. “There is more appropriate land”. Mr Sharp expressed his concerns about the environmental impact, particularly with a proposed wastewater treatment plant on site. He described Albemarle’s environmental assessment as a “desktop report” which missed the potential groundwater risk. “If (they) did it properly, they would have seen the Castro Farms water draw point is on the other side of the fence,” he said. “Albermarle should not be able to buy their way out of their environmental responsibility.” MinterEllison partner Nada Raphael spoke on behalf of Albemarle and highlighted the social, economic and environmental benefits of the facility. She said the company’s recently released social impact assessment was supportive of the proposal. “The concerns raised by some community members is perception of loss of amenities,” she said. “A perception of a loss of amenities is not a reason to reject the application.” Albemarle did make concessions, including accepting a connection to a reticulated sewerage system and the creation of a social impact management plan to include a community reference group. Consulting group Element’s representative Matt Raymond said the development had been designed to preserve environmental values. He described the land as being “degraded” and told panel members biodiversity would be improved through the planting of 300 trees at the site. Environmental Technologies & Analytics director Jon Harper said the development would not be impacted by neighbouring agricultural practices, while Element representative Claire Willey described the project as “sustainable, temporary and adaptable”. “The activities will not prejudice priority agricultural land (and) the development has a low intensity land use,” she said. Ms Willey said the facility would take up only one fifth of the land on the property. She noted while the project was situated on the buffer for the council’s priority agricultural land use, the buffer was purely strategic and not statutory. Francis Burt Chambers’ Ken Pettit SC used his presentation to disagree with the council’s claim the development would create an “undesirable precedent”. “(It) doesn’t gain any traction unless there is something amiss in the first place,” he said. “Even if there is such a thing, that wouldn’t stand in the way in otherwise approvable application unless there is likely to be additional applications in a similar manner.” “It shouldn’t be use as a surrogate reason because it might be approvable but the townsfolk don’t like it so we’re going to oppose it”. The council’s recommendation to have the application rejected was unsuccessful after all three Development Assessment Panel members voted against the move. Deputy presiding member Kanella Hope said while she accepted a lot of the Shire’s assessment of the situation and the report was “very objective”, she did not accept its conclusion. “This is a challenging application and I thought long and hard about the perception on the community,” she said. “I think the broader strategic (planning) questions are not in the powers of this panel. “I do believe the proposal is largely self-contained and with the conditions it is quite disconnected from the community. With the correct conditions, this development can be reasonably regulated.” Harvey Shire president Paul Gillett disagreed with the proposition, reiterating the council’s desire for a more suitable location. “I think it is a lost opportunity all around with the project sitting where it is,” he said. DAP presiding member Tony Arias said they could not consider relocating the proposed use in their decision. “We have to consider the application on its merits,” he said. “There might be a better site or not but that is not for us to determine. “I’m comfortable the application can be supported and has merit.” Mr Arias, Ms Hope and acting third specialist member Diana Goldswain all voted for the conditional approval, while Harvey Shire president Paul Gillett and councillor Wendy Dickinson voted against. Speaking after the meeting, Mr Gillett had mixed feelings about the result. “I am a little bit disappointed, but at the end of the day I am happy some of the conditions were put in place,” he said. “I am more disappointed with the precedent it could cause with development on prime agricultural land.” Mr Gillett did move a motion to have 40 per cent of the accommodation as executive units to give the opportunity to have a more permanent community at the site, but the move was rejected by other JDAP members. He recognised the efforts of both the Binningup community and Albemarle during the application process. “I think it has been a hard process to go through for all parties,” he said. It is not the end of the road for Albemarle, with the company still needing to create a detailed design plan along with obtaining regulatory environmental approvals before construction can commence.