Shire of Harvey votes to reject amended plan for Albemarle workers accommodation facility as D-Day looms

The Shire of Harvey has again called on the State Government to reject an amended plan for a workers’ camp in Binningup as a final decision is set to be made on the project. Councillors voted 11-1 at a special council meeting held at a packed Harvey Town Hall on Tuesday to endorse a recommendation to the Regional Joint Development Assessment Panel for Albemarle’s proposed 500-bed workers accommodation village to be refused approval. It is the second time in three months the Shire of Harvey has voted on the proposal, after the Regional JDAP changed the classification of the proposed facility from a use not listed in the council’s “general farming” planning zone to a “residential building” at its meeting on August 15. Under revised plans submitted by Albemarle since the August JDAP meeting, the temporary construction camp has been removed from the planned development, setbacks and buffers between the facility and sensitive land uses have been increased and the dining hall has been reduced in height by about 2m. But the biggest change is the company’s plan to treat and dispose of wastewater on-site after it said it would be “financially unviable” to connect the development to the reticulated sewerage system. The report for councillors written prior to the meeting stated the Water Corporation could not connect the site to Binningup’s sewerage system and any waste would need to be piped to its Kemerton treatment plant. It is expected this move would cost Albemarle between $7 million and $10 million. The council recommended the JDAP refuse the application in part because it believes the company has not sufficiently justified the connection to the sewerage system is financially unviable, and the application as it currently stands does not provide enough information to determine the site’s ability to dispose of wastewater. Other reasons the council gave to the panel to reject the plan included the inconsistency of the proposed 128 “residential buildings” with the Shire’s district planning scheme, the precedent the approval would set for the land zoning use, the creation of a “sensitive land use” which could prejudice agricultural production and the lack of information provided on the potential social and environmental impacts of the development. Speaking to the JDAP recommendation, Deputy Shire president Michelle Campbell criticised Albemarle for its handling of the process and said the proposal appeared to be “a quick and easy solution” for the company. “The initial presentation to council indicated that this was their preferred site and I feel that this has been presented to council as a fait accompli,” she said. “I understand the issues surrounding the availability of housing in the regional market, but I reason that we have missed a great opportunity to have the proponent establish this accommodation in another, more suitable location within the Shire where it can support local business and industry and utilise already established facilities,” she said. Councillor John Bromham also spoke for the recommendation, and said the matter was one of ethic and corporate social responsibility. “I would like to know why a company who states it wants to be part of our community the follows a secret pathway to go through JDAP when it could have worked with us collaboratively for a better outcome,” he said. Craig Carbone was the only councillor to vote against the recommendation and will be on the panel when the plan goes to JDAP on Tuesday. He told the more than 40 public attendees the facility was likely to get approved by JDAP despite the Shire’s disapproval, noting the panel’s approval earlier this month of a sand extraction site in Binningup which had also been rejected by council. “I’ve read this report three times in the last few days and I honestly cannot see a reason why JDAP would knock it back,” he said. “The reasons these things go to JDAP now is because over the years, not just our council but a number of councils have made rulings based on emotion and not on fact or not on planning grounds, so more and more of these decisions are being taken away from council because we get it wrong so often.” He noted the 95 public submissions against the proposal was a small portion of the number of ratepayers in Binningup. “That says to me, out of 90 people in Binningup, there’s another 900 who either don’t care or are in support of it and are quite happy for it to go ahead,” he said. “I mean, where is the rest of the Binningup community?” All councillors did vote for a second motion requesting chief executive Annie Riordan review the acceptability of “residential building” in the Shire’s draft local planning scheme and consult with the Water Corporation over the Binningup wastewater treatment plant’s inability to cope with increased demand. Speaking after the meeting, Shire president Paul Gillett said he was reasonably optimistic about the council’s chances at the panel. “I would like to think that if everyone took a step back and had the site selection of the place, it is not the appropriate place to be putting such a proposal,” he said. “It is not as if we have a shortage (of residential land in the Shire), so it would just be nice to see common sense prevail and that proper and orderly planning is held true to form.” Mr Gillett said the council will put in a responsible authority report to JDAP, which would include conditions the community would expect in the case the panel approved the application. In a statement, Albemarle said it was continuing “proactive efforts” to liaise with the Binningup community over the workers accommodation. “Albemarle continues to inform, invite and respond to feedback from Binningup residents via a range of methods including regular project updates, meetings, door-knocking, an online survey, widely available printed and online information, local focus groups and feedback contact details,” a spokesperson said. “The company remains committed to constructive and ongoing engagement with the community and to seeing the consultation process proceed through to review of the proposal by the Joint Development Assessment Panel.”