19 October 2023 - HLPP

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel meeting of today's date, being 19 October 2023. Now, the panel has been appointed by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and the Council to determine certain categories of development applications, and the matter that's on the agenda today has come before the panel because it is designated development, and it also has more than a certain number of residents and other objectors. So this means that the panel is now the consent authority to determine the development application. Now , my name is Louise Byrne. I'm chairing the meeting today. With me, I have two other panel members, John Brunton, who is a town planner. He's an expert panel member, and Preeti Karan, who's a community panel member and is also a qualified lawyer, I believe.

Now, before I go any further, I'd like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land, the Dharug people, their elders past, present and emerging. As a courtesy to others, please keep your microphones on mute at all times unless I call on you to speak.

The meeting is being audiovisually recorded, and any part of this meeting that is held in a closed session will not be recorded. And I need to remind you, in terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, personal information provided at the meeting will be recorded. The provision of any information that's recorded is voluntary, and any person who does not wish to be recorded should not address the panel.

Recording in progress.

Now, under the panel's code of conduct, panel members are required to disclose any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in relation to matters on today's agenda, and each panelist has completed the disclosure form

To reinforce this requirement, we have to declare on the record our own positions. So I declare that I have no conflicts of interest in relation to today's agenda, and I'll ask each of the panel members whether they have any conflicts of interest to declare. Mr. Brunton?

This is John Brunton. I don't have any conflicts of interest.

And Ms. Preeti Karan?

Preeti Karan. I have no conflict of interest to declare.

Okay, so we only have one agenda item today, and as I deal with that, go through the agenda, only those persons who've registered to speak will be permitted to address the panel. Now, as we only have one item on the agenda, those making submissions can speak for up to five minutes if they desire , but if it all runs out of time, it's in my discretion to call on people and ask people to

Cease their submission .

Now, at the end of the submission, you'll please remain in the meeting to permit the panel to ask questions.

For each item on the agenda, once all submitters have addressed the panel, the panel may adjourn into closed session to deliberate. This may take some time, but generally the panel will resume the meeting to announce its decision in public. So please remain in the virtual meeting room in that time.

And the determination of the panel will be confirmed in the official minutes, which will be available on the council's website usually by next Thursday. So I'll just move on to the agenda item. The first item was to do with disclosure of interest and other matters return. I think I've addressed that when I've asked the other panel members to speak . So I'll move on to the substantive agenda item, which is the consideration of DA 0011/23, in respect of land known as Lot 3, DP 548570, Volume 11597, Folio 80, known as 54 Derrick Road, Tennyson. Now the development application is, as I said earlier, designated development, being intensive plant agriculture , and it's for the clearing of native vegetation , construction of a nutrient pond, regrading of the site for use as turf farm, and construction of retaining walls, drains and supporting infrastructure.

Now you should have in the papers the detailed report prepared by the council officer. Who is present in the forum today? Do the council officers who are present want to just introduce themselves, please, to the panel meeting?

Stephen Chong, Manager Development Assessment.

Thank you. Natalie Pigott, Senior Town Planner. Thank you. So I'm not going to obviously go all the way through this report, which I'm assuming that you have read, and I'm going to ask the persons who've nominated to speak to the meeting today to now have their say. So is there a Mr. Paul Chandler present ?

Present. Can you hear me?

Yes. Now it's helpful if you state your name and your address before you go into your discussion. Mr. Chandler.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Paul

Mr. Chandler, there's a little bit of interference happening with some, maybe if you're moving things around near the keyboard or just try and keep still. Yes. Okay. I can hear you properly. Thank you.

Okay. Good morning. My name is Paul Chandler. I live at 74 Derig Road, Tennyson. My property borders the eastern boundary of this DA, and we've lived there for 36 years. I'd like to detail the impacts on Derig Road residents if this is approved. Let me start off by quoting the Environmental Impact Statement. The consent authority is required to consider no adverse impacts will result on any adjoining property, will be impacted in so many ways. I don't have time to go over them all, but I'll cover the social, economic and environmental impacts. First and foremost, the potential to contaminate our drinking water. The DPI guidelines require a minimum separation distance of 100 metres from dwellings due to spray drift of pesticides and herbicides.

Our home is 50 metres from the proposed turf growing area. Mr Starkey and Mr Village drinking water collection is even closer. The separation distance is also required to reduce the impacts of noise, dust and odour. The applicant has not provided a spray drift assessment to support the 50 metre separation distance. I can only assume it would not be favourable to the application. The noise assessment details we will suffer exceedances and be impacted. Council rejected the previous DA stating these guidelines, although not statutory, should be implemented. And I'll quote Council here. This is the circumstance where there are three dwellings in close proximity that require extra protection from the turf farm and its operation, in particular spray drift from irrigation, fertilisers and pesticides onto neighbouring properties.

We collect our drinking water from our roofs. Would you be happy to drink it? Would you be happy for your children or grandchildren to play 50 metres from where large quantities of pesticides and herbicides are sprayed? Council has had a complete turnaround, saying if implemented it would sterilise most of the site. Well, I don't think so. That would tell you the site's not suitable. However, turf is currently growing on seven hectares where the separation distance is required. What's more important, the applicant's financial performance or the health and safety of residents? By the way, recommended separation distances have increased to 300 metres to avoid conflict. I ask you, is 50 metres appropriate?

We're all aware of the Roundup and PFAS issues that arise 20 years later. Who will be accountable if this goes unapproved? Let me talk about site suitability. This was also a reason for rejection of the previous DA. I will again quote the Council. This site was found unsuitable for the proposed development due to the close proximity of neighbouring residences. The proposed turf farm is in close proximity to three neighbouring dwellings. The proximity has the potential for creating amenity conflicts between residents of these dwellings and turf farm. Once again, Council has done a complete backflip. Why? As DPI guidelines cannot be implemented and tens of thousands of tonnes of soil are required to be moved, and large concrete block walls installed, is the site suitable?

These walls will now deprive us of the natural flow of water. How will we water our livestock? Once again, I'll quote the IAS: The consent authority is required to consider no adverse impact will result on an adjoining property. What about consultation? This is a requirement according to the applicant's submission. There has been no consultation. The first we know about these DAs is after submissions. Council also rejected my request for a meeting with residents to discuss our concerns. Why would they do that? We are ratepayers. We deserve better. We deserve to be heard. It also appears Council is satisfied with the land use conflict risk assessment. I've had professional training and 20 years' experience in this area, and this one fails the basic requirements.

The task need to be detailed, hazards and risks identified, and control measures agreed upon. This did not happen. I told Mr Sinclair, who produced this document, the minimum requirement control measure would be the DPI guidelines. Happy to discuss this one further if time permits. Not in the public interest. This was also the reason for rejection last time. How is it now in the public interest? I, along with other [unclear] residents, are also the public. Certainly not in our interest. Turf is readily available in the Hawkesbury. This is not a community or infrastructure project the community will benefit from. There will be only one beneficiary at the expense of so many. Is it in the public interest that Mr Sarkey and Mrs Starkey will have to give up fostering vulnerable children?

Consent conditions. Council may issue consent conditions. However, has not been able to enforce them in the past. The applicant has not complied with existing consent conditions in relation to buffers and drainage to protect us. Happy to discuss this one further if time permits. Would you approve this next to a childcare centre or aged care facility? That's what you have here. My wife and I are 64 and about to retire. A Starkey's foster vulnerable infants, over 100 to date. These are our forever homes. Please don't take them away from us. We couldn't sell anyway. Who would buy them? Property values would plummet if approved. Is that fair? Once again, the consent authority is required to consider no adverse impact on the adjoining properties.

And in closing, I ask, what is the point of the DPR and Dr. Wells spending all this time and money on research to develop guidelines to protect us if they are ignored? Please reject this application. It's not in the public interest. Does not comply with DPI guidelines for development to protect neighbours and will have adverse impacts on adjoining properties. All this for three and a half hectares of turf. There's turf everywhere in the Hawkesbury. The DPI recommends they should be restricted to the river flats where flooding replaces topsoil and there are no neighbours. This is also supported by Turf Australia. I ask you to please read my submission to council and the DPI guidelines once again prior to making your decision.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Chandler.

We now

Have — Any questions from the panel, or would you like to ask

Well, does the panel want to ask questions now? Yes, please. My apologies, Mr. Chandler. Thank you.

Mr. Chandler, do you think there's any way of controlling the drift of spray from the turf farm onto your property that would ameliorate what you've identified?

Well, that's where a strategic assessment would come into account, and I can't understand why one wasn't produced. There was a noise assessment document produced which says we'll be impacted, and the consultants that I employed said that should be the first stopping point for this DA.

Or a 100 metre separation distance. All these issues would disappear. That's all I'm asking for is the guidelines be observed. And would anyone else—does it pass the pub test? You know, would the public agree to have this beside them when the guidelines aren't being observed, and clearly we're going to be impacted. If you don't want to abide by the guidelines, produce documents to support that they're not sufficient. That hasn't been done in this case. And I refer back to Council's previous assessment of the previous DA on this property. We need extra protection, not less, because of the unknown impacts of herbicide drift. And it's our drinking water. And, you know, we talk about separation distances from the dwellings, but one document that I submitted from RW Corcoran Co said, yeah, but they proposed 50 metres from my house, but we get out of our vehicles on the boundary of this property.

Twenty metres from where the turf is growing. Mr Starkey and Mr Vella's drinking water from their sheds is closer. You know, this should be the DPI say this is the minimum requirement. And, you know, I've read in one document there, it says, Oh look, we won't spray when it's hot and windy. How hot? How hot? How windy? That's a motherhood statement. It's, you know, a trust me document. You know, I just can't believe that these guidelines could be ignored. And as I said, if they were implemented as they were supposed to be, and Turf Australia supports these because they don't want conflict with the turf industry and the public, which we've got now. All these issues would go away. I'm starting from 100 metres, and they're currently growing turf on that property 250 metres away, and we're feeling the impacts.

Now they want to bring it 50 metres.

All right. I think that's answered Mr Brunton. Did you have another question? Any further question, Mr Brunton, of Mr Chandler?

I understand that there's already been some vegetation planted along the boundary between your property and the development site. My understanding is that the purpose of that vegetation is to reduce the visual impact. Would you like to comment on that, or the vegetation, whether it's adequate?

Correct. The visual impact will— there will be no visual impact from the ground elevation. But if you sit on my front veranda where we spend most of our time, and Mr Starkey's back veranda, the visual impact is— it stands out. You need to see it from the elevation of where our recreation area is, not at ground level. There was a document produced with a red line on it saying, no visual impact. Yeah, I agree if you stand at that level, but for those concrete block walls, but the biggest impact of those concrete block walls, apart from the amenity, is the drains they put in behind them to divert the water back onto site, depriving my property and Mr Starkey's property of the natural flow of water that we've enjoyed for so many years to water our livestock. I'm going to have to buy water to water my livestock in dry times. Okay

Thank you, Mr Chandler. Is there anything further, Mr Brunton?

No, that'll do me. Thank you.

Ms Karan, did you want to ask Mr Chandler anything? I have no questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for your time. Okay.

Thank you, Mr Chandler. Now, Mr Graham Starkey, are you in the meeting room?

Yes.

And you wanted to speak. Go right ahead, Mr Starkey. Start with your address, please. Name and address for the record.

It's Graham Starkey speaking at 44 Derrick Road, Tennyson. Good morning, panel.

We are the neighbours on the north side. So, please may I address our concerns at the proposed turf farm at 54 Derrick Road, Tennyson. Our home is situated 12 metres from the boundary, and the shed is 5.5 metres. We collect our drinking water from both the shed and the house. The new proposal, the shed is less than 10 metres from the 50 metre buffer. The 5 metre boundary buffer is a single row of highburnum planting . The 50 metre buffer is far too close to our drinking water catchment, and it states that buffer zones are determined on each individual circumstances. The proposed buffer falls way short of the DPI guidelines. We have fostered young children, 108 to date, along with nine grandkids who love playing out in the outdoors, and they will be affected by this development, along with our entertaining of family and friends from the activities associated with the turf farm.

Derrick Road is a very narrow road and can be very dusty, having to keep the front of our house closed up when we have an easterly wind. I can clean up to two to three millimetres of dust out of our gutters on a regular basis. The extra 120 truck movements per season, when you do the maths on it, seem to be very low in numbers. The senior council engineer states in the report I was reading that the road does not require any sealing for this application.

The hours of operation for the new proposal are very unique: five days, seven to six p .m., as where most other places you see in the Hawkesbury, it is regularly seven days per week, with lights on both ends of the day. Last one, we ask if the panel could please give this great consideration, as this is not in public interest, and put yourselves in our shoes just for a moment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Starkey. Do the panel members have any questions? Mr Brunton?

Can you just explain the water process on your property? Do you only have roof water that goes into tanks for drinking, is that correct? Correct, yep. We rely

Wholly and solely on rain for our drinking and everything we use for water. So the house collects water and the shed collects water, and

That's used for the house So is there any way that you can clean water that has herbicides and fungicides in it?

Not to my knowledge, no.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms Kerran, do you have any questions? Mr Starkey? No questions, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Starkey.

Thank you.

And I'll now call on Mr Dennis Vella. State your name and address for the purposes of the record before you start your submission, please.

Mr Vella, is Mr Vella present in the meeting room? Hello Yes, hello, Mr Vella. We can hear you. Yeah, hello.

My name is Dennis Vella of 42 Jarratt Road. I've been living there for the past 14 years now. Being an ex-farmer myself, I had to get out of the industry because of my health. The sprays were causing me nosebleeds and skin irritation. So I had to get out of that industry and change my industry, where I'm doing something totally different. So we decided to move to Tennyson, where it was a clean environment.

You'd mentioned before there, Mr John Burton had mentioned about controlling sprays. Well, being on a farm and spraying chemicals, there is no control. It doesn't matter which way the wind blows, you will always affect someone, and even yourself, the person that is spraying it. So you can grow as much vegetation as you can. Around the property, you'll never, you'll never stop it. You'll always know it's there. You'll always hear it, and you'll always see it.

And I know this has been brought up twice, but it impacts on our drinking water.

I'm down from that property where the water will be diverted, and I won't have water for livestock either. A retaining wall built. Who wants to drive past that and look at that every day? We've had friends come over for a barbecue, and we've changed it and cancelled it because of the smell . No one wants to live near that. We're in a quiet street, quiet environment, and this was our retirement place to stay, but I don't know. Who wants to be there? You know, like the buffer zone is being brought in closer . You know, where we had X amount of metres, now it's the farmer's right next to my shed where I collect water . How do you filter that water? There is no means of filtering that water. It runs off your tank, off your shed, goes into a tank.

You've got your own little filter, but it's not there for chemicals. It's just for bits of fibre and whatever that it might collect off the roof, leaf or whatever. The impact on the traffic on the street. We're only a narrow street. It wasn't built for this amount of traffic.

And we'd just like someone to really think about what is going to happen here and really put a bit of thought into it, please, because it affects a lot of people . And there's a lot of people that it does affect that aren't able to speak today, unfortunately because of the short notice

That have gone away and planned other things and because of work and whatever. So we're also speaking on behalf of them as well.

Yes, so I just want to say a lot of Mr Starkey and Paul, they've covered virtually the same as what we're all saying, but I'd just like, just take a bit of consideration, please, for us that live there. And we've invested a lot of money to make this our home, and we intend on keeping it our home in a peaceful environment. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Well,

Thank you, Mr Vella. Does the panel members have any questions of Mr Vella?

Mr Vella, can I just ask you, what form of agriculture were you involved in before, and have the chemicals that are used changed or been improved in the last two decades, do you think?

Well, that I don't know. I've been out of it for a long time now. I know I used to get constant nosebleeds. Now I was on a market garden, and I was always getting nosebleeds, the dust. Nose bleeds all the time, and I had to change my career because of that.

If you need to know where I was, I was in Camden on a market garden. I was there. I was in Queensland in the sugar industry as well, and I had to get totally out of that. And the only way is to change my career. Spraying, we always were aware of trying to stay on the opposite side of spraying, but it doesn't matter how you spray and where, and they're all done with boom sprays because of experience. I did it before. You will affect someone somewhere, whether it be yourself. Like I used to wear raincoats and masks and breathing apparatus gear, and the amount of spray that I still used to have on myself. Now, I understand these days they have closed-in tractors , and that's to protect the operator. But how does that protect the person outside of the tractor? How does that protect it from not going on our roof? How does it protect it actually from not going on our livestock

As well? You can't. You mightn't see the short term of it, but you'll see the long term of it. And they've proved that with Roundup and other chemicals. You know, a lot of councils have banned certain chemicals. So what they're using on site, I wouldn't have a clue. I don't know what they use these days, but a chemical is a chemical, and it's not good for you. to be exposed to.

Thank

You.

Ms. Karan, any questions? No questions, thank you. Can I just ask you, Mr. Vella, so is your only source of water from what you collect on the roof?

Yeah, I collect it from my shed and my house, and I rely on runoff from, for my livestock, and that's going to be diverted now.

Right, but for domestic use, drinking and use in the home, it's all what's collected on the

Roof. Collected from my roofs on my property.

Right, okay. Thank you, Mr. Vella.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you. Now I have a Mr. Marcus Steele on the list. Is Mr. Steele?

Yes, I'm here. Yes, I'm here.

Oh, hi. Hello Can you say your name and address, and then your submission to the panel, please.

Yes, of course. So my name is Marcus Steele, and I am at 165 Phillip Street, Sydney.

So what's your connection? Are you a consultant for someone, or you have a property there? I'm a

Lawyer specialising in environment and planning law, and earlier this year we made a detailed written objection on behalf of Mr. Chandler.

Oh, I see. So you're speaking

For Mr. Chandler. So what additional... Did you do a written submission to Council as well? Yes

In April of this year. So there was a detailed written submission that included a legal review of the DA by our firm. It also included two detailed technical peer review assessments, if I can describe it that way, by Corkery. And by SEEC.

So can you just state your— so it's Marcus Steele. What's the name of the company? Bick

And Steele, B-I-C-K and Steele, S-T-E-L-E.

And your expertise is?

Environment and planning law.

So in addition to what obviously will be in your written documents, what did you want to say in respect

Well, I suppose I'd like to commence by, I mean, there's been various exchanges already between panel members and the various submitters, and that they're related really to spray drift and to the effect of chemicals on the various properties. And look, in my respectful submission, that really goes to the heart of the problem here. It's really about a lack of distance between the proposed development and surrounding residential receivers. And there's also the related problem about the extent to which the possible effects of that spray drift, the extent to which that spray drift will occur, has been assessed in the environmental impact statement. And certainly, the technical review and advice we've provided by Council indicates that those assessments are inadequate.

And I'd also like to point out that I mean, the panel is probably already aware of this, but a very similar development on this site was considered by this panel back in 2020. And I might just, on that occasion, the panel refused the application for development consent. And in so doing, one of the statements that I instructed the panel made was, I believe this DA falls over at the first hurdle. It does not comply with the relevant DPIE guidelines for turf farms that have been developed to protect the health and safety of neighbours. And in that regard, the panel had regard to separation distances and opined that the precautionary principle ought to be applied and that the DA ought to be refused.

Now, those very same separation distances apply in this development. Indeed, as far as I understand, the only real differences between this development and that which was previously refused relate to the site is now going to be graded so that it is more level. And I understand that an upgraded farm management plan has been developed. But in relation to that plan, please refer to the technical review contained in our objection, which is to the effect that that plan is inadequate. But I suppose all of this goes back to the fundamental point as to the weight that should be given to those DPI guidelines. They're there to protect the community from these sorts of impacts. They specify at the time, they specified a separation distance of 100 metres.

It's now 300 metres. At the very least, if this development were even going to be considered for approval, you'd want to see within the EIS very detailed air dispersal modelling, modelling of potential human health impacts, and all of that is not entirely absent, but certainly not to the extent you'd want to see in an EIS. And again, that's been the subject of technical review within the objection we provided earlier this year. So if the panel hasn't already read that review

And

The technical appendices to that, I'd implore you to do so before any final decision is made. There's various other impacts that are outlined, and I'll just summarise those briefly because they're set out in detail in the objection. But in addition to spray drift, which is obviously a key concern, there's also concerns about visual blight, the extent to which that proposed vegetation screening adequately screens the development from surrounding areas. There's also impacts of potential exceedances of the noise criteria set out in the New South Wales Industrial Noise Policy. Certainly, that was the view of our technical experts, that there were clear exceedances of those criteria both during the construction and operational phase.

One of the other reasons why this development consent was refused the first time round was because it was designated development, but no environmental impact statement had been prepared. This time around, a statement has been prepared, and it was required to be prepared in accordance with specific requirements set out in the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements, or SEARs. And if you look at our objection, one of the things we point out is you go through those SEARs and there's various important assessments that were required to be carried out but which have not been carried out as part of this assessment, and that really is a fundamental concern because it ties back to the preliminary point here about, I mean, the reason the panel is asking these questions presumably of submittees is because it's not sure of the impacts that this development would have on surrounding neighbours in terms of its spray drift impacts and so on, because that just has not been adequately assessed in the EIS.

Bare minimum, that is what the panel would need to see before it could even contemplate approving this DA. On the last occasion, it said the precautionary principle ought to be applied, and it ought to be applied here because we simply don't have enough information to know whether or not a proposed development of intensive agriculture being a turf farm, which everyone knows will have potential spray drift impacts, which doesn't even come close to satisfying the DPIE separation guidelines or other requirements in terms of the noise criteria, the land capabilities requirements for the site. All of that is entirely lacking for this development, and those are reasons why, in my submission, the panel could not approve this DA.

Well, thank you, Mr. Steele. Has the panel got any questions of Mr. Steele?

Well, seeing Mr. Steele's a legal person, perhaps I can ask a slightly legal question.

Of course.

One of the planning instruments that has to be considered is State Environmental Planning Policy Biodiversity and Conservation 2021, and it's covered in our report at page 19 and 20. And Chapter 6 of that state policy relates to water catchments, and particularly

Clause 6.6, water quality and quantity.

Now

This clause relates to whether the development will have neutral or beneficial effect on the quality of water entering a waterway. Would you like to comment on the legal test that that relates to? It says, because it says it has to be neutral or beneficial.

Well, let's step back for a moment. If you look at our objection, one of the issues raised is we deal with soil and water assessment in our objection. There's not only that issue, but there's also the issue of the capturing of runoff from the site. So there's also the quality of water running off the site, having a neutral or beneficial effect. I mean, that's a criteria that just simply hasn't been assessed. But there's also the, I mean, as I understand it, Mr Chandler relies upon runoff from this site to water his property. All of that's going to be captured and diverted back to dams on the development site. There's been no assessment, as I understand it, as to whether or not that needs to be licensed under, you know, harvestable rights under the Water Management Act.

You'd need to see that as part of the assessment. It's simply another issue that hasn't been adequately assessed in the environmental impact statement.

Well, on the legal point in that, the first part of clause 6.6 only says that— The panel has to consider these issues. But when you come to subclause 2, it says

Excuse me, Commissioner. Panel member, can you please give me a reference to that legislation so I can look along at the clause with you?

So this is the State Environmental Planning Policy Biodiversity and Conservation 2021,

Clause 6.6.

I'm almost with you.

Controls on development, water quality and quantity.

Yep. And your question is? Well, subclause 1 only says that the panel must consider these issues. Then subclause 2 says development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied. What I'm asking you is, what's the difference between just considering and being satisfied? Well,

Subsection 1 lists the issues that the panel needs to consider. Subsection 2 sets out the requisite level of satisfaction you need to reach after having considered those issues before you can determine that consent ought to be granted. That's how I would read those clauses.

So when it says that it should be neutral or beneficial, you want to comment on that?

Well, subsection 2 is plain. It says you need to be satisfied that that is the case. That is one of the considerations in subsection 1. One of the things the panel needs to consider, subsection 2 then sets out the requisite level of satisfaction you need to reach before consent needs to be granted. And it says you need to be satisfied the effect on the quality of the water entering the natural water body will be as close as possible to neutral or beneficial, and impacts on the natural water body will be minimised. That's the state of satisfaction you need to reach based on the assessment materials before you, before you could approve this development.

If I could jump in there for a minute. It's a jurisdictional fact if the wording is must not be granted until, or unless — I haven't got the section in front of me.

That's what enlivenes your power to approve this development, I would say

Right. That's why I'm just — Mr Brunt, the question Mr Brunt had .

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Is that what you were asking? No, not at

All. No, no, that's exactly right. I was trying to avoid jargon, but that is exactly right. It's a jurisdictional fact, I would say.

So we can't grant — the consent authority can't grant development consent unless it has considered it and it is satisfied.

You've considered those issues set out in 6.6, subparagraph 1, and then having considered those issues, you've reached the requisite level of satisfaction set out in subsection 2.

Right.

So is that in the EIS? You're going to tell me no.

That is the advice I've got from the technical experts. So as you know, we conducted a legal review, plus we got Corkery and SEEC to conduct a review of the EIS from an environmental perspective.

Hello? Sorry.

It's one of the areas of inadequacy of the EIS. I'm sorry, it's one of the areas of inadequacy, we would say, in the EIS. There's various ones. This is one. We say the fundamental one really is about separation distance and the modelling or lack of modelling of air dispersion of the spray drift, but this is certainly another. And I could go on. As I say, these are set out in detail in that written submission. I only wanted to hit the key points in the three minutes or five minutes I had, but the written submission details numerous other ways in which the EIS is inadequate and fails to address the fears that have been issued for it. No

That's helpful. Thank you. We don't expect you to repeat everything that's already in writing. Yes,

I was trying to hit

The high points. Yes, and appreciated, because it's to orally address the panel. Yes,

Yes.

Just provide as quick a, as complete a summary that you possibly can in three or five minutes. Yes

It's

Tricky

Are there anything further of Mr. Steele from panel members? Okay,

Well, that completes the list of people who nominated to speak. Is there any, and we might now. ask the two people who nominated to speak on behalf of the proposal . I have a list here of a Mr Chris Oliver and a Mr Ben Musket.

As those gentlemen present in the virtual meeting.

Hello, is it Chris

Oliver? Yes, I am present. And you are, sorry? My name’s Chris Oliver. I’m a director and principal consultant of Optima Planning and Development Consultants.

Yes.

We were the applicant for the proposal, and I was responsible for the preparation of the EIS.

Okay, so what would you like to — it’s now your chance to make any submissions you wish to make.

Well, basically, first of all, it’s really not my intention to go over the paper-type sort of response to the issues raised by the objectors and Mr Steele. They adequately documented their concerns in their submissions that were made to Council. The only item that I do raise is the reference to the current separation distance being increased to 300 metres in the guidelines. This is certainly incorrect, and I addressed that in my response to the Council in a further submission when the objections were made, and that submission was made on the 3rd of April in 2023. So I don’t necessarily intend to go over those items , but basically wanted to inform the panel that, yes, this is the second extension to an existing operating turf farm. The first one was approved in 2003 of 3.53 hectares at Kirmond Road, 982 Kirmond Road. That’s on the southern extremity of the— What

Was that address again, sorry ?

982 Kermond Road. Yes. That's a Massavan extremity of this property. And then again, in 2019, council granted a consent to extend that turf farm

At the rear of number 54. Sorry, in 2018 that consent was granted by the adding addition of 3.25 hectares, and that brought the total area to 6.78 hectares. Now, both those applications were within the similar distance to the watercourse, and they were approved without the necessity for an environmental impact statement. The panel in April 2020 refused an application which was more extensive than the current proposal, in the fact that it had a more extensive area. It would have taken the total area far in excess of what is currently proposed. The current proposal has reduced the amount from that original application of the turf farming area to now only being 3.52 hectares, which would make the total farm 10.39 hectares.

It avoids all of the sensitive biodiversity mapped areas. And provides what we consider to be adequate separation distances. Now, in respect of the requirements for this EIS, they were set out by the department. Critical to the first step was the undertaking of a LUCRA and the addressing of issues raised in the LUCRA. In respect of the LUCRA on spray drift, the LUCRA states that the herbicide and fertilisers are applied using spraying two times per year. So the intensity of use of these chemicals is minimal over the time frame . I would like to sort of leave it up to Mr. Ben Muscat, who is the operator of the turf farming operation, to expand on the actual application of the fertiliser and to also address the issue of the water quality from the tanks.

For subsequent to the lodgement of this application, he is undertaking some water testing of rainwater tanks existing on the existing turf farms and in other test locations to assess the likely impact on water quality from the chemicals used in the turf farm operation. And he can expand on those results. He can also provide a practical explanation of how the turf and herbicides are utilised. And address any other operational matters that the panel may have. But as far as addressing the issues raised, I think that they've been adequately documented in the various parties' submissions, and the council's report reflects their consideration of them. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Oliver. Do you have any questions of Mr. Oliver, panel members?

Or we can move on to Mr. Musket. No questions.

No questions. Mr. Brunton?

I don't have any questions. I've read through the EIS in detail, so I'm understanding.

Thank you. Okay, well, is Mr. Ben Musket, can you identify yourself, state your name and address, and then make your submission? I'd appreciate if you could keep it within the five minutes. Thank you.

G'day, panel members. Ben Musket here of Greenway. I'm the owner and operator of the proposed turf farm. I'm currently at 415 Freeman's Reach Road, Freeman's Reach, living on another one of our turf farms here. So, just want to briefly, before I get into the notes I was going to make before, I just want to roughly go through and briefly make a response to the objections so far.

So, firstly, Mr. Steele, to say that this DA and DA 014719... Was not much different from an environmental plan, and I find that absurd. Obviously he hasn't read the 470-page EIS thoroughly, or he hasn't—he's just getting informed by Mr. Chandler the wrong information from the previous refused DA, because the only relevance between the two DAs is the address, the owner, and the application itself being a turf farm. So that's all I want to say about that. Mr. Dennis Vella, firstly, the retaining walls going to be an obstruction when you go down your driveway. That's absolutely absurd. You're not going to see any retaining walls from any neighbouring dwelling or address at any way. And I invite any panel member up to the property to inspect that.

That's just absurd, especially for Dennis coming from the concrete industry. Mr. Vella, also there was a recent DA that council has approved at 1086 Kermond Road for a turf farm, which was approved with zero submissions. Now, this particular turf farm is in very close proximity to Mr. Dennis Vella's house, and its borders to his house. It's actually closer than our proposed turf farm. Not one submission was raised for that turf farm, and it was approved within one year. So I just question the facts of Mr. Dennis Vella and where he's getting all his information from. That's just all I want to say about that. Now , what's also worth noting, 35 metres away from our existing approved turf farm, 982 Come On Road, is Mr. and Mrs. Robinson.

Now, their dwelling is 35 metres away from our turf farm, and they have subsequently put in a letter of support to the current DA, which they are very happy living next to us personally and a turf farm in [unclear] Way. They have no issues or no experience whatsoever with medical conditions from water, water like quality. So we don't have up at Derrygroat and Come On Road, all the residents, we don't rely on town water. There is no town water. So everybody , not just the objectors, me myself, we all rely on tank water for drinking. Now , I've undergone vigorous testing by ALS in Wetherill Park recently. I do it every six months that clearly states without any filters, which I've tested tanks with filters and without filters and with filters, without any filters, it still is within the Australian standard, and not just by a little bit, it's remarkable.

When testing with carbon filters, the carbon filters reduce that 100%. There is zero traces of any pesticides, herbicides, any spray chemicals at all in the drinking water, and I'm happy to provide any information regarding that because I've got it all documented. It's all reported by ALS. Okay. Mr. Chandler says that he will be getting no water runoff into his dams. That's another false accusation. Anything over the 1% AEP stormwater runoff will continue as it does right now and flow into his property. It's no different at all. It's only the actual irrigation water, and this is all explained in the EIS. It's only the actual irrigation water that will be treated and reused and subsequently flowing on down Currans Creek.

It will be free of any chemicals. So that's all there as well. All the herbicides we do use are commonly, readily available from Bunnings Warehouse for the residential homeowner. Every single one of these panel members today, I can guarantee, have bought a product from Bunnings that have the chemical that we use, which is standard and very , very safe for residential and commercial use. It's not a vegetable farm that maybe Dennis Vella is thinking of. It's a turf and lawn facility where only mainly herbicides are used, all of course approved by the APVMA. So there's nothing unordinary. It's all readily available from Bunnings. We actually sell these products to residential customers all the time.

Okay.

Just another thing. So Mr. Dennis Vella is also saying that I'm diverting, the proposal is going to divert water to his property. His property is actually on the western boundary and is higher than our property. So when he can explain how water travels uphill, I will be happy to comment on that further. Okay, now I'm just going to get back to the harvestable rights, Marcus Steele. That's all explained in the EIS. I'm not sure if you haven't read the 470 pages, but that's all within our licences. All licence information is in the EIS, clearly tabled, clearly within our harvestable rights, so no further notes on that. Okay, now I'm just going to go back to what I was going to say originally. Council's engineers, ecologists, arborists, environmental officers have all raised zero objections to the proposed development.

The Department of Planning and Environment Water have granted general terms of approval, and they would have looked at water licences and harvestable rights in their regard. Natalie Pigott, the determining officer, has commented on all the objectors' concerns in the agenda and has raised zero concerns, and she states that all the reports are satisfactory and adequate. Natalie has recommended approval for the development and stated her reasons on the agenda. I believe the objectors are coming from a NIMBY approach, not in my backyard. They all suffer from the NIMBY syndrome.

I think you're getting well over the five minutes. Well

Louise, just on that, I have invested a significant amount of money in this proposal, and I really want to finish. Just give me a couple more minutes. Okay, go right ahead. Okay, as I was saying, I believe the objectors are coming from a NIMBY approach, not in my backyard syndrome, and whatever the proposal is, they're not going to be satisfied whatever we do. We have changed this DA significantly over the last four years, and we are really proud and really happy with the DA that we've just put in front of you. We're the only turf farm in New South Wales. which was subject to such a high level of reporting, especially the LUCRA and noise and vibration assessment. Now, I could only find two consultants in all New South Wales that could actually prepare a LUCRA report for me, and I'm the only turf farm in New South Wales that have done a LUCRA and a noise and vibration assessment.

I ask the panel to give this determination the due diligence and consideration and approve the proposal as per Natalie Pickett's recommendations. I'd like to especially thank Natalie for all her efforts and ease of communication, and also thank Chris Oliver, who's done a great job preparing the EIS. And I'm open to any questions that anybody has.

Thank you, Mr. Muscat. Any questions from the panel?

Yeah, I've got a couple of questions. Mr. Muscat, you talked about the herbicide that you use that is readily available at Bunnings. Yeah. And you mentioned Roundup. Is it something, Roundup or a similar herbicide ? So, Roundup— wait a minute, let me finish. And is the turf that you use bred so that it doesn't respond to the herbicide, but it's only the weeds that respond to the herbicide?

No. So, genetically modified turf, that is not something that anybody in Australia will ever approve. You know, there'll be lots of great farmers overnight if we could all go and spray Roundup over our turf, and that would, for one, be terrible for competition. But also that creates a whole other sorts of environmental problems. Roundup is, of course, readily available from Bunnings. Bromoxynil, which is a broadleaf weed killer, readily available from Bunnings warehouse, as is bifenthrin, which is an insecticide that your pest control people will spray all over your houses to keep the pests and spiders. Like, it's, yeah, it's readily available anywhere.

So that herbicide, if some of it drifted onto a neighbouring property, it would kill a broadleaf grass , but it wouldn't kill other forms of grass.

It wouldn't even kill the neighbouring — it won't kill anything, because we , you know, unlike Dennis Vella, who might have been farming some time ago, the equipment has — technology has progressed over the last 30 years. It's all GPS rate controlled. It only sprays where there is weed. So we don't spray a paddock with nozzles pouring out chemical all the time. It's massive cost saving, and all the nozzles are low drift, 500 millimetres off the ground, less than 2 bar of pressure, so very low pressures, low volume. It's not like the misters that Dennis Vella is used to. It's just a low-volume boom sprayer, all GPS rate controlled, which is all coming — you know, it's all with the 21st century.

So my last question relates to the farm management plan. Yes. Now, you prepared the farm management plan?

Yes. Well, I thought, who better to prepare the farm management plan than the owner than himself? Obviously, you know, Chris Oliver was heavily involved in the farm management plan as well, but as the owner and operator, I felt that the farm management plan had to be written by myself.

Yeah. So at page 15 of that, you talk about the application of fertilisers.

Yes.

And you refer to the use of Green Top K. Yes.

That's just

One

Of them we use.

Yeah, but— You suggest that contemporary turf farms use those sorts of fertilisers, and the list that you provide in page 15 doesn't include poultry manure. Poultry

Manure is mentioned in the, for sure, I know 100% it's mentioned in the farm management plan. We use that once per season, and once per season only, just to add a bit of organic, you know, organic compost material back into the soil, which is environmentally friendly. It's better than the synthetic fertilisers, you know, that are readily available that are cheap. Well, they're not much cheaper at the moment, but they are cheaper. But yeah, nothing beats once per year a natural composted fertiliser, especially in the clay and the shaley soils of Tennyson.

Well, the compromise seems to be that it produces greater odours, but you only apply it once a year, and the rest of the time, or the other, I think two or three times, you apply the, is it the, well, the , what is it, the, you're using the Green Top.

The Green Top K is just a complex NPK fertiliser, nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus. So as per Brian and Robinson's submission to 982 Kermon Road, the letter of approval, they commend us on the way we use our foul manures. Once per annum, they say we appreciate that as soon as the stockpile is brought to the, imported to the site, it's spread immediately, watered in within, you know, five, six hours after, and, you know, they're always notified when we spread the foul manures. And, you know, on a worst case scenario, the smell might linger on for two days.

Okay.

Anything further from the panel members? I don't

Have anything further.

Mr. Muscat, you mentioned something about— Mr. Brunton was asking about the Bunnings chemicals available. You mentioned something about GM turf . Are you growing GM turf?

No, we— so that's—

What were you saying there? Sorry, if you

Could just— In comparison, the wheat farmers out west use a GM-modified wheat product plant .

Same canola. I know canola is GM modified.

Yes. So that's not the case in a turf farm. We can't go and— if we go and spray our whole farm with Roundup, we will have no farm two weeks later. It just, it doesn't work. The— yeah, I was just referring to what John was coming from. In terms of GM, no, there's no turf readily available. It's been talked about once in the US, but they will never bring it to Australia. There's no genetically modified turf in Australia.

So GM turf potentially, though, is resistant to Roundup or doesn't need— I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand. Doesn't grow weeds at all? Doesn't get weeds through it? What was the context you mentioned it?

So, the wheat has been, and the oats and the barley have been genetically modified, the seed or the plant itself, to not take up Roundup, and the Roundup has no effect to the crop at all, but it'll kill the weeds. Right

That's what you're getting at. Okay, so that I understand. Just I didn't quite understand the reference there.

No problem at all.

Well, I don't have any questions myself of Mr. Muscat and Mr. Oliver. I think at this stage, if panel members agree, we will adjourn to private session.

Is that agreed, panel members?

Yes

Yes .

And I understand the council officers didn't want to add anything at this stage, correct, Ms. Pigott?

No.

Okay, well, we'll now adjourn the panel session.

Excuse me, Chair, may I just make one more comment?

Who is that?

It's Paul Chandler speaking. Yes May I make a comment? Just one comment to the panel members. I just want to make it quite clear that we do not have town water. Our only drinking water is the water collected from our roofs.

Yes, I think that emerged. Thank you very much, Mr. Chandler.

Thank you for your time.

Okay then, we'll now adjourn the panel meeting to private session. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The meeting of the Hawkesbury Planning Panel is resumed. I'll deal with the first item in the agenda, which was item 2.1.1 CP, disclosure of interest and other matters return . That has been addressed and has been satisfied.

I'll deal with the second item in the agenda , which is item 2.1.2 CP, which is DA, consideration of DA 0011/23. The panel determination is as follows. The panel notes that the Council recommended the application for approval. However, the panel considers that the application has not, based on the information before it, adequately demonstrated that the site is suitable and impacts can be appropriately mitigated. In this regard, the panel accepts the reasonable concerns expressed by neighbouring residents. Therefore, development application DA 0011/23, in respect of Lot 3, DP 548570 , Volume 11597 and Folio 80, being 54 Derrig Road, Tennyson, New South Wales 2754, for designated development /intensive plant agriculture/clearing of native vegetation, construction of a nutrient pond, regrading of the site for use as turf farm and construction of retaining walls, drains and supporting infrastructure, is refused for the following reasons:

Inconsistent with State Environmental Planning Policy, in brackets, Biodiversity and Conservation 2021. One , the development application is refused because the proposal fails to satisfy requirements of Clause 6.6. Of that SEP, particulars, little a, the consent authority is not satisfied that the impact on the natural water bodies will be as close as possible to neutral or beneficial on the quality of water entering the waterway.

The second reason is unsuitability of the site. Paragraph 2, the application is refused as the topography and location of the turf farm are inappropriate. Particulars, little a, the proposed turf farm is within close proximity to neighbouring dwellings. The proximity has the potential of creating amenity conflicts between the residents of these dwellings and the turf farm. Second particular, little b, the operation of the proposed turf farm has the potential to adversely affect human health due to chemical spray drift, noting that the drinking water source is solely from rainwater collected on roofs. And the panel was unanimous in its decision to refuse the development application. That will conclude the panel meeting of today, and the minutes will be published, as I referred to earlier, on the council website in due course. Thank you.