Impact study is more than reasonable
It would seem more than reasonable to ask for an Environmental Impact Study for Energy Australia's proposed substation at Empire Bay, rather than an in-house Review of Environmental Factors.
The proposed development is across the road from a National Park, has drainage that proceeds to the Cockle Bay Wetlands, has a wildlife corridor and has been identified by National Parks and Wildlife Service to have a number of threatened species
The bigger question for councillors is how the orders of the Land and Environment Court from 2003 that apply to this site are being ignored both by council officers and Energy Australia.
The site has "covenants and restrictions as to user" that clearly show "bush regeneration areas, preservation zones and open areas to be retained".
The fact that the land was subdivided after the construction of the petrol station and for some reason before the regeneration was completed does not extinguish those land and Environment Court Orders.
The proposed substation is sited on an open an area marked "to be retained" on the court documents.
The development will encroach onto bush regeneration areas and will not observe the minimum setback requirements from the road for this zoning and will not comply with the setback from the watercourse shown on mapping on the site.
Even the proposed site works (sheds, storage, machinery, toilets and parking for workers) will occupy a preservation zone during construction.
Many have been critical of the stance taken by local residents in opposing this construction.
People fear a loss of electricity supplies if the substation does not go ahead.
The fact is that no one should be allowed to be "Above the Law" and the end does not always justify the means.
There are alternative sites.
They may be more expensive but perhaps Energy Australia or council staff should have done their due diligence before proceeding with a plan that defies the Land and Environment Court orders.
Online submission, 22 Sep 2010
Martin Wild, Empire Bay