Bass Coast Post
  • Home
    • Recent articles
  • News
    • Point of view
    • View from the chamber
  • Writers
    • Anne Davie
    • Anne Heath Mennell
    • Bob Middleton
    • Carolyn Landon
    • Catherine Watson
    • Christine Grayden
    • Dick Wettenhall
    • Ed Thexton
    • Etsuko Yasunaga
    • Frank Coldebella
    • Gayle Marien
    • Geoff Ellis
    • Gill Heal
    • Harry Freeman
    • Ian Burns
    • Joan Woods
    • John Coldebella
    • Jordan Crugnale
    • Julie Statkus
    • Kit Sleeman
    • Laura Brearley >
      • Coastal Connections
    • Lauren Burns
    • Liane Arno
    • Linda Cuttriss
    • Linda Gordon
    • Lisa Schonberg
    • Liz Low
    • Marian Quigley
    • Mark Robertson
    • Mary Whelan
    • Meryl Brown Tobin
    • Michael Whelan
    • Mikhaela Barlow
    • Miriam Strickland
    • Natasha Williams-Novak
    • Neil Daly
    • Patsy Hunt
    • Pauline Wilkinson
    • Phil Wright
    • Sally McNiece
    • Terri Allen
    • Tim Shannon
    • Zoe Geyer
  • Features
    • Features 2022
  • Arts
  • Local history
  • Environment
  • Bass Coast Prize
  • Community
    • Diary
    • Courses
    • Groups
  • Contact us

Ecological losses 'a balancing act': QC

10/4/2021

6 Comments

 
PictureThe Dandy Premix Quarry at Grantville. Image: Google Earth
By Catherine Watson
 
A GRANTVILLE sand mining company does not have to meet the same environmental standards as other land users, the company’s lawyer has told a planning panel hearing.
 
James Gobbo, QC, was summing up in Dandy Premix Quarry’s application to expand and deepen its current sand pit and to open a new one.
 
Mr Gobbo said the quarry had been identified as a priority mining site, in an extractive industries area of interest, which meant it was subject to looser constraints than other land users would be. ​

And the community should be prepared to accept short-term environmental pain, he said, including the temporary loss of some species, for longer-term environmental gains encompassing vegetation offsets and rehabilitation.

​The company’s application to deepen its current sand pit at Grantville, open a new pit and expand its operating hours drew 73 objections before Planning Minister Richard Wynne called in the application in November at the request of the company.
​He sent it to an independent planning panel which concluded a 12-day hearing on Wednesday after submissions by the company, council and objectors. The planning panel is expected to report to Mr Wynne within 40 days and he will make the final decision.

​The most contentious aspect of the proposal is the clearing of a 13-hectare stand of bushland that serves as the only wildlife corridor between The Gurdies Conservation Reserve and the Grantville Bushland Reserve.

"There will be circumstances where there will be a loss of some species during the interim situation."
​James Gobbo, QC, for Dandy Premix
Opponents of the plan, including Bass Coast Shire Council, have argued that severing the corridor will have a major impact on wildlife, including a number of threatened species, moving between Lang Lang and Grantville.
 
The proposal is counter to the Bass Coast Biolinks Plan, adopted in 2018, but Mr Gobbo pointed out that the plan has no force in law.
 
“The council correctly notes the document is not a reference document or an incorporated document in the planning scheme … It’s important not to elevate this notion of a biolink to something that’s been enshrined in the planning scheme. It’s aspirational that it be delivered.
Consultant ecologist Aaron Organ, an expert witness called by the company, had earlier conceded that some species could disappear from the area if the biolink was severed.
 
However, Mr Gobbo said the consequences should not be exaggerated.
 
“I think it’s over-dramatising the thing to say fauna are going to be killed – they’re all going to die – because of course he [Mr Organ] didn’t say that. He said there will be circumstances where there will be a loss of some species during the interim situation.
 
“It’s not a perfect outcome, we accept that, but we do so knowing that the identification of this area for extractive industries, the identification of this site as a priority site, allows us to advance the case that the impacts that are permissible in the circumstances are perhaps a little greater than would be the case if you were just any old developer wanting to knock down trees and habitat for a petrol station or a block of flats or a hotel.”

​“We would treat the habitat corridor as an existing corridor. It has value that will be compromised to some extent but not destroyed and that can be brought back to a high level of functionality in the medium to long term.”

 
Mr Gobbo’s summary was so convoluted that at times it was difficult to work out what he was trying to say. He seemed to be simultaneously arguing that no wildlife corridor existed on the site at all, because there were gaps in it, that the wildlife corridor had no protection in the Bass Coast Planning Scheme, and that the company had every right to knock it down should it so desire.
​‘Just ignore them!’
In his written summary, Mr Gobbo advised the panel to ignore objectors’ submissions since the objectors were not experts.
  “None of the objector parties came forward as experts in scientific or technical matters such as ecology, water or ground water. Notwithstanding, many of their submissions were in truth opinions on such scientific or technical matters. …
  “To the extent that objector parties’ submissions conflict with the expert evidence which was tested by Council, the objector parties and the Panel, those submissions should be rejected or given little (if any) weight.”
  Save Western Port Woodlands spokesman Tim O’Brien said Mr Gobbo’s comments highlighted how the Victorian Planning Panel process was balanced in favour of the applicant.
  “We are fighting an applicant with the resources to produce an army of ‘expert witnesses’ to sing from the applicant’s song sheet, most providing their analysis of the impact of this mine on Grantville locals and the amenity of this coastal community from the distance of Melbourne offices.
  “Grantville residents and the many objectors to this application would be rightly shocked by the unfair imbalance inherent in this panel process, and the disadvantage it places local communities and their ability to have fair input into what happens in their local community.”
  One of the objectors, Anne Heath Mennell, said: Yes, we all declared that we were not experts, simply community members wanting to be heard on matters of concern. Why would anyone waste time with something not of real concern to them?"
    She contacted the panel after Mr Gobbo’s comments and was assured that all submissions would be considered. 
Which it didn’t, he hastened to add; it merely wanted to “skinny it down”.
 
“We have to accept we are skinnying down the opportunity for movement on both sides of this pit. But are we preventing or eliminating it? No. The evidence from Mr Organ is that he believes the link will continue to function notwithstanding that it skinnies down. He’s supportive of the proposal and the revegetation.
Mr Gobbo said the company was not asking for permission to remove vegetation from the site since it already had that right. “We are entitled to take those trees out and it’s got nothing to do with any extraction.
 
“We’re talking about rehabilitation and offsets. We’re talking about making a positive contribution going forward. What’s the current situation, and what’s being proposed and how does it stack up?
 
“I’m sure you understand this is always a balancing act. I’m not for a moment running away from the fact that there are going to be some ecological impacts here. We are seeking to proceed knowing that the impacts are not going to permanently devastate this habitat corridor.”
Picture
Most of the Lang-Lang to Grantville forest corridor has been identified as an
extractive industries area of interest.
6 Comments
Neil Rankine
10/4/2021 08:16:03 am

Looking at the map of the area the sand miners covert, it's clear, this IS the last woodland corridor in Bass Coast Shire!

Reply
Julie Thomas
10/4/2021 08:56:11 am

This is horrifying. Compare the human impact of this area with that of the thousands of animal and plant species that require this specific habitat and have as much right to be there. There is no BALANCE here.

It's preposterous and incorrect to generalise about the qualifications of community members. There is no such thing as 'temporary' extinction of species in an area. Loss of genetic diversity by killing off small populations has the same permanent effect. It's just slower. 'The commmunity' is not the ignorant ones here Mr Gobbo.

Reply
TIM OBRIEN
10/4/2021 10:15:44 am

Yes, the plundering of regional Victoria for the convenience of Melbourne with little regard to the community and environmental impacts, much less the 'collateral damage' on vulnerable species (in fact risking regional extinctions), looks set to continue. We simply have to win this battle...

Reply
Peter Abraham
10/4/2021 11:02:11 am

Whilst the proponents of the mining scheme have an arsenal of money which allows dominance of “certified” expert opinion and advice. Governed by greed a commercial arrangement is as biased as you can get.
A small hamlet is unable to muster a corresponding budget. Many are fighting many battles. The role of government is to provide a balance whereby long-term effects are the governing decision, not a short-term financial gain of one proponent. Government
History shows the greater good or greater need is not the appropriate defence where financial or personal gain is the leading attribute to one’s position.
The dominance of the professional opinion must, if their diplomas have credibility, show the devastation the open cut quarrying will have on the local community, environment and other landholders.
In Australia previous poor decisions have created lasting problems which have only started. A country rich in assets, as the national anthem describes, is not just there for plundering. This only highlights how such a well-qualified person such as a Q.C., governed by a pay packet, appears tongue tied to provide a direct defence of a poor defendant and it’s incorporated plunder packaged as a mining upgrade.
The state and Fed governments have a new moment whereby a person’s home is his castle and the eviction of ones morals is not to be at the expense of another’s, now or in the environments future.
Time to step up politicians.

Reply
Meryl Tobin link
10/4/2021 11:21:09 am

Well said, Catherine, Tim, Anne, Neil and Julie.
Allowing DPQ’s proposed Amendment to pass, with conditions, will only slow down the gradual death of our beautiful shire and bay, not save it. All of us need to call a halt to further incremental destruction as David Attenborough urged in 'Extinction and Climate Change with David Attenborough' (https://iview.abc.net.au/show/extinction-with-david-attenborough).

Our shire is a microcosm, part of the macrocosm that is the planet Earth. To excuse lack of action to save our small area because of current laws and regulations will not save our shire nor our planet. If currently such laws and regulations allow sand miners to remove part of an important biolink, mine below the water table and risk polluting Western Port Bay only 300 metres away with virtual impunity, call on lawmakers and authorities to change the laws and regulations.

As David Attenborough said, "We can safeguard our planet's diversity but ... what happens next is up to every one of us.” David Attenborough urged us to look at our current lifestyles and said we have to educate our children on the way Nature works. We have to realise plants are an integral part of our existence. "[Future generations] will look back on our generation with absolute horror," he said. "We are walking a tragic road of extinction."

Reply
Jeannie Haughton
11/4/2021 07:46:46 am

Added to all of this is the huge financial burden involved if Shires were to plan pro active amendments to the Planning Scheme. Years of work and huge cost I’m always told. Yet the inadequate State and Commonwealth protections for environment mean there are scarce laws to back up legal challenges. Yes it is stacked against the environment.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.