Casey Council has received more tha 1000 submissions to the Hampton Park Hill Draft Development Plan, as objections to a proposed waste resource and recovery hub at the site of the Hallam Road Landfill ramps up.
In a council meeting on 16 August, Casey chair of administrators Noelene Duff said council officers have begun working through the submissions.
“[It] will be quite a process of analysing those submissions and council officers have commenced that work and will be undertaking that work over the coming weeks and months,” Ms Duff said.
“A report will be prepared for a future council meeting to consider those submissions, along with the overarching State Government waste and planning policies that have initiated the need to review the current development plan.”
The draft development plan has been the subject of strong community objection in recent weeks, with residents claiming a proposed waste transfer station will pose further problems for residents, who claim they have been exposed to unpleasant odour from the current landfill for many years.
Lynbrook Residents Association spokesperson Viv Paine said the association is pleased with the community’s effort to present submissions to the plan.
“Lynbrook Residents Association is agreeably surprised that so many residents have made submission to council in regard to their desire to have the Hampton Park tip closed forever,” he said.
He said the community is still holding strong in their objection to the development plan.
“Petitions are underway that will be presented to Casey Council and to State parliament voicing the people’s opposition to this unwelcome proposal to further develop the hallam park tip,” he said.
Alongside submissions to the plan, council also received 25 questions from 15 submitters regarding the development plan at the council meeting on 16 August.
But rather than answering each public question, which is typical practise in council meetings, Ms Duff directed submitters to wait for the council’s report into development plan submissions.
“The questions that have been posed by the 15 submitters are related to the consultation process that’s currently underway with respect to the draft development plan,” she said.
Ms Duff detailed the concerns raised by the questions, which included the proximity of waste transfer facility to residential areas, environment and health impacts, impact on property value and questions of compensation and encroachment of buffers into residential areas.
Also mentioned were queries surrounding the extent of public notification and access to material for non-English speaking residents, high volume of truck movements, the hours of the proposed waste transfer facility and considerations of alternate locations for the waste transfer facility.
“We’ve endeavoured to provide a solid overview of the issues they’ve raised and represent those issues here publicly today and provide an overview of the process the council must undertake as part of its administrative duties,” Ms Duff said.
But Mr Paine said he was concerned by the administrator’s approach.
“I was concerned the administrators didn’t take the time to answer each of 15 public questions on the plan individually rather than bulk them together and then move on,” he said.
