Decision report- Carey's Gully Sludge Dewatering Facility - Greater ...

contaminants having an offensive or objectionable odour will be present in
concentrations in the ambient air outside of Carey’s Gully that are
approaching their physical irritation levels” Dr Robinson stated that this was
wrong. He commented that many of the 502 signatories to his petition told him
of sickness, headaches and nausea and having to stay indoors due to the stink.
In response to Dr Robinson, Mr Pilgrim stated in his closing comments his
statement in his peer review was made in regards to physical irritation
thresholds. He was not saying that it did not stink and people did not
experience nausea, rather in his opinion physical tissue irritation from the
discharges would not be experienced at the concentrations of contaminants
found in the ambient air in the outer catchment. In other words, his opinion was
it is not a physiological irritation rather a physiological irritation.
11.3.1 Findings – health effects
The hearing panel acknowledges that there have been adverse health effects
experienced by members of the community as a result of the discharges of
odour from Carey’s Gully. However, they note that the odours discharged have
largely diminished since the closure of the co-composting plant.
The hearing panel agrees with the assessment of adverse health effects
provided by Mr Pilgrim and consider that the conditions of consent, in
particular the odour management plan, will ensure that the SDF is managed
appropriately to ensure that any contribution to the odours experienced in the
catchment are minimised.
11.4 Visual amenity effects
As outlined in the site description the sludge disposal is proposed to occur at
the Southern Landfill which is located in a deeply incised, stream cut valley.
The ridges and valleys which surround the site block views of the landfill from
surrounding properties, as well as from Happy Valley Road to the east and
Ashton Fitchett Drive to the north. The matter of visual effects was not raised
within the applicant’s evidence. Mr Watson, represented by Mr Renshaw,
discussed the distance of the permitted sludge disposal level to his site and
illustrated in map which accompanied his written evidence. This concern
related primarily to the potential for odour issues to increase in the future, as
well as the visual proximity of the sludge to the submitters site.
11.4.1 Findings – visual amenity
The hearing panel agreed with the assessment of visual effects within Ms
McCashin’s report. Ms McCashin stated that the sludge disposal at the tip face,
when viewed from the transfer station, will be not different to the tipping of
any other substances and as such one would anticipate that this activity would
occur on the site. Furthermore the activity will not be visible from any other
areas that the public could be reasonably expected to access.
The hearing panel acknowledged the concerns of the submitter, Mr Watson,
but noted that the plan presented as part of his evidence was inaccurate. Mr
PAGE 21 OF 57