Concrete Batching Plant

Batching Plant(Picture used for illustrative purposes only and does not represent the proposed plant)

Would you like something like this within approximately 220 metres of your house? I didn’t think so, especially as it is classed a “noxious industry”. Yet this is the prospect a number of Central Ward residents, and businesses, now face. You can do something to help them though. Please help them.

It has been widely reported over the last few years that an area of Bayswater is under threat of having a concrete batching plant built in close proximity to residential homes. In addition it is right next to a business which produces materials which are sensitive to dust (such as food and beverage chemicals), and it is right next to Joan Rycroft Reserve reserve which contains a children’s playground and is also where kids play soccer matches.  The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) guidelines say that concrete batching plants should be located 300-500 metres away from these sorts of things.

I won’t go into details on the potential adverse amenity and health impacts of the additional dust and noise that might be generated by the proposed plant, however it is classed as a noxious industry for a reason. Google defines noxious as:


What could well be the community’s last chance of preventing the proposed concrete batching plant from proceeding in this inappropriate location is the EPA. Until Monday the 16th of November, the public can provide comment to the EPA. Please, go here and make a submission. It is a 5 minute process and you just need to enter your name, address and thoughts on the proposal (which can be as little as one line). I chose “

“Obviously I am not opposed to the industry, however I am very opposed to the location of this proposed plant – as too is the community. To totally ignore the EPA’s set buffer zone is reprehensible. Adjacent to the proposed plant is a sensitive land use business and an active sporting field which also has a children’s playground. Residential houses are within circa 190 metres. Food businesses are within approximately 200 metres.

The EPA must not allow the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) to be the sole decision making authority on this project. SAT wrote in their decision delivered 28 January 2014 that “It is indeed curious, given the applicant’s sustained efforts at base line monitoring and general engagement on the environmental aspects of the proposal, that such data could not be located.” Clearly the case for environmental protection has not been met.

In addition, SAT based their decision on modelling from a “typical daily production rate of 135m3” and “maximum daily production rate of 500m3”. By the applicants own “EPA Referral Form” submission the production capacity is 150m3 per HOUR. The maximum daily production rate could therefore be closer to 1,200m3. In addition, in their submission they mention that City of Bayswater officer’s have concluded the environmental impacts can be managed. In a personal capacity (not speaking on behalf of the council) I dispute this, and after re-reading the council agenda items relating to this proposal can find no comments which support the applicant’s claim.

I have faith that the EPA will not allow their own buffer zone rules to be so easily ignored, but will instead state this proposal is “environmentally unacceptable”. “

Power to the people.

(Please be aware that these views are my own and have not been endorsed by the City of Bayswater)

Previous – 12 November 2015 –
Follow up – 11 May 2016 –
Follow up – 19 August 2016 –
Follow up – 7 June 2017 –