By Violet Li
As Hallam Road landfill and the proposed waste transfer station by the landfill operator Veolia have unquestionably been the major concerns in the community for years, Star News spoke to River Gum Ward candidates about their perspectives and future orientation.
Garry Page said the current landfill site was not appropriate for a commercial-sized waste transfer station and the landfill should have been closed years ago, but, as the decision had been taken and the site already selected, the only option was to mitigate the impacts.
He referred to the City of Casey’s February 2020 Council Meeting Agenda Item 7.5 Hampton Park Landfill Land Agreements. He said according to this item, the waste and resource recovery activity hub planning work started back in 2019.
“It is appropriate to consider the commercial-sized waste transfer station concept has now had many additional years to be progressed. The documents show the plan was known at the time of the land swap,” he said.
“Therefore, we need to consider mitigation options.”
Mr Page also pointed out the Planning Minister had the power to call in a permit application from local councils.
“The relevant minister can override the City of Casey. Given the planning work undertaken so far, the new council is unlikely to be able to move the consideration of a commercial-sized waste transfer station to a new site,” he said.
“If the decision to use the Hallam Road landfill for a waste transfer station is out of the control of the council, then it should be located as far away from residents as possible.
“The obvious location would be what was referred to as Lot 4 or 795 South Gippsland Highway. This removes the traffic noise, odour and any adverse impacts from existing residences.
“This location has the advantage that it is the maximum distance away from existing residential properties. It has the advantage that it should permit the introduction of an overlay for the waste transfer station without impacting any existing residential properties.”
Mr Page pointed out that Lot 4 was swapped at the last council before the 2016-elected councillors were sacked.
Geoff Hansen said he was against the proposed waste transfer station given the built-up residential housing in the area, the health and well-being of residents, and the property values for the landowners.
“If I am elected in the River Gum Ward, I will argue against the expansion of the buffer zone. The tip managers have a responsibility to keep the tip to a minimum and to manage gases formed by the breakdown of the rubbish,” he said.
Nazir Yousufi said he was committed to addressing the concerns of Hampton Park, Cranbourne North and Lynbrook residents regarding the landfill transfer station.
“As a local resident of Lynbrook, I understand the issues firsthand, including the unpleasant odours, dirt and noises that have impacted our community,” he said.
“If elected, I will advocate for the Casey Council to pressure the State Government for a more suitable solution.
“We need to invest in advanced technology to convert waste into energy, which would reduce environmental impact and improve our quality of life.
“If funding is a concern, the transfer station should be relocated to a less populated area, ensuring our community’s health and well-being.”
Asher Coleman believed the proposed waste transfer station needed to be stopped because the area had been too built up and the impacts on the community would be too severe.
“Council cannot stop the transfer station alone, but that is not an excuse to wash our hands of the issue,” he said.
“Council needs to be promoting the experiences of impacted residents to State Government while voting down plans relating to the transfer station when they come up at council.
“It is true that the State Government and VCAT can override council and I cannot promise that we’ll win this fight, but to use that as an excuse to do nothing is gutless.”
Mr Coleman also said he would talk to the communities in regard to the proposed landfill buffer overlay if elected, but his instinct would be to oppose the overlay.
“There is no fairness in imposing an additional financial burden on residents who have already suffered from proximity to the landfill and proposed waste transfer station,” he said.
Lynette Pereira, a former councillor who served from 2008 to 2012, said she had been a long opponent of the tip expansion and the proposed waste transfer station.
“There is no adequate buffer zone and residents are heavily impacted. I believe in NSW such a facility requires a 2km buffer zone but here it’s literally across the road from residents,” she said.
“The tip operators have had so many breaches in the past. I can’t believe at the last council meeting before the 2016 councillors got sacked, they approved a swap of the land parcel that was meant to be rehabilitated and returned to residents, to be transferred so that the facility could have truck access instead.
“I would have opposed this development at every stage. It does not belong here.”
Damien Rosario said if elected, he would promptly seek briefings with the council’s planning officers to gather relevant information and explore possible actions the council can legally take under the Planning and Environment Act.
“If there is a legitimate case to refuse the permit under the Act, I will pursue it and seek the support of my fellow councillors to reject the proposal. It is crucial to approach this issue thoughtfully to avoid any missteps and especially the mistakes of the past,” he said.
“However, given that the State Government has identified the site as being of state importance for waste and resource recovery, it is unlikely they will easily abandon this location, despite the availability of other viable sites.
“This is evidenced by their lack of intervention during our community’s outcry before, during, and after the state elections.
“Therefore, it is vital to also consider options for mitigating the impact on residents should the proposal proceed.”
Mr Rosario said he would also seek briefings with the council’s planning officers to understand the available options for the buffer overlay for due consideration at a council meeting.
Wayne Smith believed the community hadn’t had the full story at this stage.
“We’re not going to get them till the councils are elected, and then they’ll have to get the full story,” he said.
“My commitment is if I get in, it’s definitely my number one priority because I live there and I put up with the smell every day.
“It’ll be my number one thing to find out what the council can do. I suspect some decisions have been made behind closed doors, but we don’t know until we get there.
“If it’s possible, my communities and what I want is I want it either gone or if it’s not going to be gone, we’ve got to mitigate the problems that are going to happen and the traffic is a problem and the possible smell.”
“My honest opinion is I think the State Government needs to keep it there because people in Hampton Park are already unhappy, if they move it, they’re going to move it to somewhere where those people are going to be unhappy,” he said.
