Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Contaminated soil treatment case study
Similar to Contaminated soil treatment case study (20)
Contaminated soil treatment case study
- 1. Contaminated Soil Treatment Works and Ancillary Development A NSW Planning Case Study
- 2. Sandgate Road Wallsend - Extent of Contamination
- 3. Rehabilitation Action Plan Containment Cells Hunter Water Land Integral Energy Transmission Lines Hunter Water Easements
- 4. Development Application under Seniors Living SEPP
- 5. What is Designated Development? Contaminated soil treatment works… (c) that treat contaminated soil originating exclusively from the site on which the development is located and: (i) incinerate more than 1,000 cubic metres per year of contaminated soil, or (ii) treat otherwise than by incineration and store more than 30,000 cubic metres of contaminated soil, or (iii) disturb more than an aggregate area of 3 hectares of contaminated soil."
- 6. Practical Impact of Decision Toner Design Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council [2012] In-Situ Soil Disturbed Soil
- 8. Summary
- 9. References JBA Planning: Development Application – Statement of Environmental Effects, Shearwater Landing, Greenhills Beach. May 2012 Korber, Anneliese. Toner Design Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council [2012] NSWLEC 248. National Environmental Law Review, No. 1, Mar 2013: 31-32. Sheahan J. (2012). Toner Design Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council. NSWLEC 248 (7 November 2012). Smith C. and Hawke R. (2012) Court decision on contaminated soil "treatment" may lengthen environmental approvals process. Clayton Utz Insights (6 December 2012) Wallace P. (2013) Decision on “Treatment” may Lengthen Approvals. WME Feb. 2013 pg36.
- 10. References JBA Planning: Development Application – Statement of Environmental Effects, Shearwater Landing, Greenhills Beach. May 2012 Korber, Anneliese. Toner Design Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council [2012] NSWLEC 248. National Environmental Law Review, No. 1, Mar 2013: 31-32. Sheahan J. (2012). Toner Design Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council. NSWLEC 248 (7 November 2012). Smith C. and Hawke R. (2012) Court decision on contaminated soil "treatment" may lengthen environmental approvals process. Clayton Utz Insights (6 December 2012) Wallace P. (2013) Decision on “Treatment” may Lengthen Approvals. WME Feb. 2013 pg36.
Editor's Notes
- Preamble Missed John Coffey presentation on Monday – “Does the contaminated land framework in NSW encourage development”? Answer – “no” Presented on the same site at February 2012 EcoForum – some water under the bridge since involving the definition of “Contaminated Soil Treatment Works”
- Former scrapyard owned by OneSteel Recycling Approximately 40,000 cum contaminated soil Primarily heavy metals (Pb, Cd) + some PAH contamination Conservative estimates for excavation and disposal of material > $10M
- Capping of contaminated fill at the rear of the development
- NCC in March 2012 – refusal – Council not a fan of SEPP instruments over-riding their local LEP Appealed in September 2012 and matter went to hearing in November 2012 Mediation progressing well with elimination of all issues except for potential for site to be Designated Development
- DD a series of triggers where development reaches a certain scale or size, then they should be carefully assessed on a separate planning pathway This development had never been considered DD until raised by Council very late in the mediation Monopoly analogy - “Go straight to jail, do not pass go” not accurate – you are out of the game.
- Judge Sheehan found that: Capping contaminated soil fits the definition of contaminated soil treatment works The in-situ material below the cap also forms part of the total volume of soil being “treated” for the purpose the definition (therefore exceeded 30,000cum) Therefore the development was “Designated Development” Logical extension of this principal – eg capping contaminated soil in-situ with a concrete slab becomes DD.
- There is hope! Ancillary Development Sheehan did not address the central argument in the appeal that the remediation was ancillary to the primary development (seniors housing) NSW passed legislation in 2010 to avoid “gotcha” type legal challenges due to part of a development being ‘designated” Amendment came about after a development approval was rejected because the sewerage treatment plant associated with the development was identified as DD This will still be a live issue under the new NSW Planning Act – now called Code Assessable but similar triggers
- Shearwater Landing – Sutherland Council - assessed by Regional Planning Panel but not Designated Development despite having significant issues with contaminated soil Even small scale remediation with minimal disturbance may find itself under the ‘Designated Development’ banner Remediation works are typically always ancillary to a proposed development Use an experienced town planner when planning larger scale development in NSW