In this decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“VCAT”) Gippsland Environment Group (Inc) and Environment East Gippsland (Inc) (represented by Environment Defenders Office (Vic)) applied to VCAT for review of two decisions relating to a natural gas treatment facility.
Santos were hoping to upgrade an existing natural gas treatment facility. Upgrades were required in order to allow the facility to treat gas from a new gas field.
The issue before VCAT concerned an application for a planning permit and works approval to upgrade and extend a natural gas treatment plant in Corringle. The extension was to occur onto property previously zoned as farming land under the East Gippsland planning scheme.
Application for review of the works approval and the planning permit was refused by the Tribunal.
A number of applicants sought a review of the council decision to grant a planning permit, under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Mr Lawson, who appeared for himself, was the closest resident to the planning application area (his fence began 400 m west northwest of the gas plant, with his house 1 km from the plant). The main basis for Mr Lawson’s objection was an increase in traffic and noise due to the extension of the plant.
Extension of the gas plant under the planning permit would cause an increase in semi-trailers to transport gas by-products from site from 1 per month to 6 – 8 each day. The tribunal found that such traffic volumes were still within road carrying capacity and would not significantly hinder the local traffic. Further, conditions would be placed on the works approval to conserve sensitive roadside vegetation.
Gas plant noise was already regulated by an EPA licence and the tribunal considered that the distance between the plant and Mr Lawson’s house and the gas plant would make it ‘most unlikely to cause problems’. It was ruled by the tribunal that Mr Lawson and his property would most likely not be adversely affected by noise caused either by the plant or the associated increase in traffic.
The Associations argued that flooding should be a major consideration as to why the plant expansion should not go ahead. They argued that hydrocarbons within bunding areas could spread to the surrounding, unprotected environment if flooding occurred. Expert witness evidence was provided on behalf of Santos regarding the small and likelihood of flooding of the plant area. The Tribunal also considered that flood warnings in the region are sufficient and would give the plant operators enough time to shut down the plant and clear out bunded areas in the unlikely event that the plant flooded.
The validity of the works approval, granted by the EPA was also in question. The review was sought by Environment East Gippsland, Gippsland Environment Group Inc under section 33B(1)(a) of the Environment Protection Act 1970.
A works approval was required for extension of the premises, as gas treatment plants are scheduled premises for the purposes of the Environment Protection Act 1970. The Tribunal discussed the confined scope for third party review of works approvals, as defined in section 33B(2).
The associations’ put forward a submission based on speculations about floods, spills, leakages and explosions associated with the gas plant. section 33B(2)(a)(iii) was relied on by the Associations’, and states that a works approval can be reviewed if the works completed in accordance with the works approval will results in “the reprocessing, treatment, storage, containment, disposal or handling of substances which are a danger or a potential danger to the quality of the environment or any segment of the environment”. The tribunal discussed that s 33B only applies to scheduled premises and generally premises are scheduled if they handle or process dangerous materials. Therefore grounds for review must only be allowed under section 33B(2)(a)(iii) if the works subject to the works approval could not adequately cope with dangerous substances.
The tribunal stated that the essential question in regard to section 33B(2)(a) is whether the works proposed are satisfactory. It was found that if the works were carried out in accordance with the works approval, the works would be satisfactory and ‘general possibilities of disaster, mishap [or] act of god’ are not enough to satisfy review under section 33B(2)(a)(i).
Also, as plant already existed, the tribunal was only able to consider the validity of the works approval for the extension of the gas plant. The Tribunal was unable to consider the validity of building the gas plant in its current position in the first place.
Application for review of the works approval and the planning permit was refused by the Tribunal.