The Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) deferred its decision on an application from Central Coast Council to operate a resource recycling facility at Kincumber when it met in Gosford on February 23.
Residents objected to the proposal based on what they believed to be its potential for air pollution, noise pollution and traffic congestion.
At the panel meeting, 11 residents gave verbal submissions objecting to the proposal and none spoke in favour, apart from a representative of the applicant, Mr Barry Gentle.
Residents complained that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) did not contain adequate measures to mitigate the potential for Silica dust from crushed concrete.
On the weekend before the JRPP meeting, residents reported significant truck movements in Doyle St, Kincumber, from as early as 6:40am.
Several locals also witnessed dust coming from two stabilised pavement trucks transferring materials via hose.
It appeared that Council was “cleaning up” the site, which it had been using as a waste storage facility without approval.
The proposal was a designated development under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, because it was a Waste Management Facility.
According to the JRPP Planning Report, the proposed facility, in Doyle St, Kincumber, would process up to 6,000 tonnes of excavated road construction material per year, with no more than 1,000 tonnes of material stored on site at any one time.
The processing and storage volumes meant the facility did not require an Environmental Protection Licence.
As a public authority, Council was also exempt from requiring a Controlled Activity Authority from the Office of Water.
“No permanent services, structures or ancillary facilities are proposed for the site.
“Materials will be stored within the existing cleared portion of the site and no vegetation removed.
“Resource outputs from the facility are likely to include reclaimed asphalt pavement material, concrete, granular road base, soil and/or topsoil, and pipes and other concrete structures.
“The materials would be sorted and tested offsite and stored on site, in segregated stockpiles, until required for future road projects.
“Concrete crushing is expected to be carried out two times each year, using a mobile crusher.”
The site is located within the Kincumber Treatment Sewerage Plant (KTSP).
Central Coast Council argued that a “significant buffer zone exists between the KTSP site and adjoining developments.
“The site was historically cleared and has been used as an [informal] road construction material stockpile area for a number of decades,” according to Council’s planning report.
Twenty four public submissions and a petition containing 36 signatures were received objecting to an expansion and/or intensification of use of the site.
“It is noted that no expansion or intensification of the informal use is proposed,” the planning report said.
“The main concerns raised were the generation of dust from concrete crushing, noise from vehicle movements and reduction of habitat for threatened species.”
In 2012, Council considered a Planning Proposal to rezone the Springfield Quarry to a Resource Recovery Facility.
A significant number of public submissions were received objecting to the proposal, and in June 2013, the former Gosford Council resolved to receive a report considering alternative sites.
Eighteen sites were identified and investigated, and four sites investigated further.
The site at Kincumber was identified as the preferred option because it was owned by Council, “reasonably central to operations whilst being isolated from adjacent residential areas and screened from these areas by existing vegetation”.
The site contains two sediment ponds for on-site detention (OSD) requirements and for runoff storage.
“All materials would be tested and classified prior to being received at the proposed resource recovery facility.
The facility would operate from 7:00am to 5:00pm, Monday to Friday, with occasional night and weekend work.
The proposal assumed the use of 8 tonne trucks with a 12 tonne bogey, and 300 truck movements in and out of the facility, approximately 2.3 truck movements, per day.
Council’s Environmental Officer advised that dust management, including dust from concrete crushing, would be controlled on the few occasions per year it occurred via wetting down or other suppression methods.
Air pollution and ongoing site stormwater management and monitoring was to be addressed in an Operational Environmental Management Plan.
Residents within 500 metres of the site would be given five days’ written notice of any concrete crushing.
Stormwater discharging from the site may potentially be contaminated with sediment or impacted by the stockpiled materials.
The existing sediment ponds are not adequate and require upgrading and regular monitoring to ensure that water pollution does not occur, according to an Environmental Impact Statement submitted with the proposal.
Council’s records indicate that an environmental incident occurred at the site in 2015 which involved the detection of bonded cement material in some stockpiles.
Residents remained concerned that Council had carried out a high level of activity at the site prior to JRPP approval, including excessive numbers of trucks going through the nearby residential area.
The reasons for the JRPP’s deferral of the matter included the view that the analysis regarding traffic movements did not reflect likely future use during peak times, with associated impacts related to noise.
The panel also requested an Operational Environmental Management Plan prior to approval to ascertain whether impacts could be managed.
“There were some aspects of the proposal that also warranted further information prior to a decision being made,” the Panel’s Record of Deferral said.
Council will be required to provide details of the use of the site for resource recovery (years used, capacity, scope of materials, changes over time, typical materials and truck movements), and other options considered for the location of concrete crushing.
The panel requested clear information on the volume of concrete crushed material as a component of the overall capacity, number of occasions per year of use and likely duration of that occasional use.
Central Coast Council has also been asked to provide more information on Silica management and storage, and how concrete crushing affects this aspect.
It wants to see the stockpiling of materials in locations that will not affect adjoining trees.
A contamination analysis is to be completed by an accredited certifier with expertise in the field, including bore hole testing of existing water table contamination and review of proposed mitigation to address potential groundwater contamination, including during flooding events.
The JRPP also called for further traffic analysis assuming “worst case scenario” of movement of 1,000 tonnes within one day, and any “typical” use based on past experience.
The panel also wants further advice on the noise impacts.
Council will need to supply details of how proposed limits of 1,000T on site and 6,000T annually will not be exceeded.
Planning report,
Feb 14, 2017
DA49839/2016, Central Coast Council
Record of Deferral,
Feb 23, 2017
Jason Perica, Central Coast JRPP