Home Latest Australia Shire of Murray opposes $350m agriculture facility, says ‘critical details’ missing

Shire of Murray opposes $350m agriculture facility, says ‘critical details’ missing

3
0

Source : Perth Now news

More information is needed about a $350 million agriculture development facility before it will be supported by the Shire of Murray.

Perth Food Bowl Corporation Pty Ltd, owned by Dunsborough vintner Steve Palmer, wants to develop a Peel Agri-Bio Innovation Precinct at Lot 9503 Gull Road, Keralup.

It is intended to produce premium low-carbon food, including high-quality protein and fresh produce, for both Australian and export markets.

The development consists of a bio-fertiliser soil enhancement facility for enclosed, mycelium propagation and fungus farming, with an integrated research centre component and a greenhouse facility with a 20ha production area to grow fruit and vegetables.

It would also include 6.4MW solar farm covering 7.2ha with a battery energy storage system, and a biochar and thermal energy facility where crop residues would be converted into certified biochar.

The proposal has been sent to the WA Planning Commission to decide under the State Government’s significant development pathway.

The Shire of Murray was invited to comment on the proposal as part of the WAPC’s consultation.

Shire staff had recommended the council support the application with the proviso that “critical” information was needed for a “complete and proper” planning assessment.

But at its July 23 meeting, the council unanimously backed an amendment from deputy shire president Ange Rogers that it not support the application because of that lack of information.

It has recommended the WAPC not consider the application until a range of documents are submitted and reviewed, including odour, visual impact and acoustic assessments.

The shire also wants a buffer around wetlands, traffic plans that take into account the extension of Mandjoogoordap Drive, and new emergency management and bushfire management plans.

“They’re seeking a proposal for a $400 million development, then they should be putting through the correct information,” Cr Rogers said.

“It is not a decision for us to make. This is only for our comment. The WAPC will be making this decision, but in any case, I don’t think we should be supporting it without that relevant information.”

Cr Nicole Willis said although the proposal was exciting, a lot of technical detail was missing.

“I would love to see such an innovative agri-tech project come to fruition in the Shire of Murray, so I really look forward to those technical details being supplied to the WA Planning Commission who ultimately have the approval say and hopefully see some greatness in the future,” she said.

A shire report said although the proposal had potential benefits for the area, critical matters were unresolved and it had not been shown the potential impacts could be appropriately managed.

“The development is located in close proximity to an existing composting facility and piggery, which, despite holding valid planning and environmental approvals, have generated recurring odour impacts extending to the coastal areas of Mandurah and Rockingham,” it said.

The report said this demonstrated distance was not enough to show amenity would not be affected.

“There has been no modelling of fugitive emission to demonstrate that there will be no offsite impacts, including to the developing Nambeelup Industrial Area,” it said.

There were also concerns with the bushfire and emergency management plans.

“The proposed BESS (battery energy storage system) introduces a range of emergency hazards, including thermal runaway, toxic gas release, battery fires, explosions and the escape of contaminated firewater,” the report said.

“These risks are heightened by the site’s location within a bushfire-prone area.

“The bushfire management plan asserts that the proposed land use does not include the storage of hazardous, flammable and/or combustible materials as part of its ongoing day to day operations, this is inconsistent with accepted characterisation of BESS facilities.”