Residents living in Williamtown’s ‘red zone’ are preparing for another fight after news of a proposed five-metre high landfill development on a Cabbage Tree Road property.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Many of the residents, still reeling from the RAAF base PFAS contamination shock, are angry that councillors ignored a recommendation for refusal by the Port Stephens Council development assessment team.
Councillors decided at the September 11 meeting to defer any decision for a site inspection after the developer, James Garvey, during public access pleaded for more time to address some of the assessment team’s concerns.
Mr Garvey implored councillors to show leadership and approve the stockpile of earthworks proposed for a vacant 7.5 hectares property. His pleas for more time were heard and councillors agreed to defer the matter.
Also addressing councillors was neighbour Linden Drysdale, who described the proposal as another kick in the teeth for nearby residents, many of whom have lived on their properties in close proximity to the proposed site for 30-plus years.
“Since news of the contamination in 2015, living in the red zone with its added issues around health, water and diminishing property values, has taken its toll of many of us,” Ms Drysdale said.
“We don’t need this five-metre high fill, we don’t need the hassle of more trucks and we don’t need more contaminated water washed onto our properties.
“The people you employed to produce this report, the people that know the area and the people affected have all said ‘no’.
“You have no idea of the problems in our lives. Because of the contamination our paradise lost now sits between Defence and a developer. It’s just another issue on top of a massive pile.”
Ms Drysdale, who owned a section of the property in question from 1987-2000, said the site was a natural habitat for native animals, birds and frogs.
ALSO READ: PFAS inquiry impacts on the Port community
“The area is flood prone and to add five-metre high fill, the rain water will wash into adjoining properties including mine,” she said.
“Previous owners have tried but failed to illegally fill this same site, there is a massive hill behind the house that is allegedly full of asbestos, concrete, four gallon tin and plastic drums, tar from roadworks and who knows what else.
“We have enough trucks travelling through Cabbage Tree Road all hours of day and night and any more would only make this road even more dangerous. Two of my neighbours have had car accidents turning into their driveways in the 60kmph zone in recent years.
“And I would like to know how will they suppress the dust from blowing into neighbours properties and from the trucks entering the property and moving the fill around.”
Reasons for refusal given by the council assessment team ranged from unacceptable visual impacts to insufficient information to determine the site’s suitability.
The report stated that insufficient information was provided on the potential impacts caused by flooding and that the proposed development “is not considered to be in the public interest as the development is inconsistent with the adopted principles and strategies which seek to promote the appropriate development of land”.
It stated that the site may also provide habitat for the threatened wallum froglet, which Ms Drysdale says she has seen in the swamp.
“By filling the swamp you will decrease their habitat and help to wipe out another species in the area. Frogs are a vital part of the local ecosystem.”
The report identified the site as being located within a strategic economic precinct due to its proximity to the Defence and Airport Related Employment Zone and was currently zoned RU2 rural landscape.
“In its current form the proposed development does not satisfy the zone objectives as the height, extent and visual impact of the earthworks are out of keeping with the rural character of its surround.”
Ultimately, the councillors heeded Mr Garvey’s repeated calls that he would require more time to address many of the key issues and reasons for refusal and deferred their decision.