Planned asphalt factory proves controversial among Batemans Bay residents

Eurobodalla Shire Council approved Downer's $1.5m plans to build the factory at the end of Cranbrook Road in December, 2021.

Members of the Batemans Bay community claim not enough has been done to ensure the risk of pollutants entering both the Clyde River and the surrounding air was negated, however both the council and the EPA say all check and balances have been put in place to negate this risk.

In a letter to councillors, resident Peter Coggan claims the DA should have been held over for the new council to deliberate.

"Why was (the DA) approved without going before the new council given the fact there were 20 submissions from 17 oyster farmers?" he asked.

"(And) given there is already an asphalt plant in production near Mogo, why is a second plant needed so close to the Batemans Bay CBD?

"There are many reasons why this DA should not have been approved without stringent quality testing schemes in place for water, air and soil, but it has."

Another resident, Jo Anderson, also wrote to councillors to "express her concerns" over the DA.

"While it would appear this DA has 'ticked all the boxes', there appears to be several shortfalls," she said.

"Strong winds in the estuary are not accounted for and toxic pollutant fumes, in particular Cadmium, have not only the potential to affect nearby wetlands, but also nearby residences and the CBD.

"There appears to be no monitoring or remediation requirements in this DA.

"The riparian land zone has already be partially destroyed and it is a well known fact that the wetlands are important in keeping the rivers clean.

"Any interference to this has the the potential to destroy the nearby oyster industries on the Clyde river."

Mr Coggan told the Bay Post he wasn't against the DA full stop, he just didn't want the asphalt plant to be built so close to the CBD. He also called for independent testing of air, soil and water quality while the plant is operational.

A Eurobodalla Shire Council spokesperson said the DA did not trigger any parameters requiring it to go before the new council.

"During its caretaker role, Council must not determine "a 'controversial development application', except where a failure to make such a determination would give rise to a deemed refusal, or such a deemed refusal arose before the commencement of the caretaker period," they said.

"A 'controversial development application' means a development application for designated development under section 4.10 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for which at least 25 persons have made submissions during community consultation. Council received four objections to this DA.

"A submission was received by Council from the Clyde River Quality Assurance Program and Council did not have any control over how the submission came to Council or who was party to the submission. Furthermore, even if the oyster grower's submission was considered as 17, it would still have been below the 'controversial development application' threshold of 25."

The spokesperson said council's main aim in considering the development was to ensure "it did not impact the water quality of the McLeods Creek catchment".

"The DA was approved subject to conditions of consent which require ongoing monitoring, sampling, and analysis of the water," they said.

"Regular water testing and monitoring of McLeods Creek is required prior to the development commencing to set a benchmark, followed by ongoing testing to ensure there is no detrimental impact to McLeods Creek or the local oyster industry.

"The testing is subject to an ongoing review by Council and the Environmental Protection Authority.

"Following several meetings with the EPA, Batemans Marine Park Authority and Council staff, the applicants and their consultants provided information that indicated that the proposed development would not result in any detrimental impact to the natural waterways. For example, the applicant submitted a stormwater treatment solution which involves several measures to prevent any water pollution leaving the site.

"There have been some members of the community raising concerns about cadmium poisoning. The DA included an air quality assessment and predicted that the plant would emit levels of cadmium significantly below the NSW EPA Air quality criteria (cadmium was predicted to be 0.00004 ug/m3 (microgram per cubic metre) whereas the assessment criteria is 0.018 ug/m3).

"Other pollutants were also considered and assessed against the NSW EPA air quality criteria."