¶ COLLIE Shire councillors voiced strong objections at their August meeting to a proposed grid-scale battery and solar farm in Palmer.
Councillors Michelle Smith, Brett Hansen, Dale Hill-Power and Paul Moyses expressed frustration with the proposal as questions arose about council’s jurisdiction and State Government planning priorities.
The 200 megawatt battery and 66 megawatt solar farm, proposed by Hesperia property group subsidiary Enpowered, is marked for development in rural zoned land around 14 kilometres north-east of Collie.
Under the local planning scheme, shire officials advised that discretion to approve the facility is permitted by local government.
A shire report recommended the Regional Development Assessment Panel, which will consider the matter next Wednesday, provide the project planning approval.
However, residents in surrounding landholdings objected on the grounds the development is incompatible with rural amenity.
Cr Smith questioned why the project could not proceed in an area such as the Coolangatta Industrial Estate.
“Why are we using rural land when we have great swathes of industrial land?” she asked.
“Why are we using rural land when rural land is so very important to the ecosystem?”
Urbis WA regional director Karen Wright, speaking on behalf of the project proponents, told councillors there is “a presumption against large-scale renewable energy projects” in industrial estates.
“From the government’s perspective, the preference is not to be putting solar or wind into the general strategic industrial estates,” Ms Wright said.
Cr Moyses said he felt for residents who have the project “at their back door”.
Cr Moyses said Collie had been told by the government it has “to accept projects”.
“We have to put up with these projects surrounding our town for the next 20 years, I imagine,” he said.
“Renewable projects cannot provide employment for our town.”
The project is expected to create up to 100 jobs at the peak of its construction, however this will be reduced to under 10 once it is operational.
Cornerstone Legal lawyer Tim Houweling, engaged by one of the landholders, argued the development does not accord with the local planning scheme.
“The State Government can’t come along and say ‘you must,’” Mr Houweling told council.
“When you’re thinking about what it is that you want to have for your district, you rightly ought to ask yourself, ‘do we want our district to become a bank of rural areas for solar farming?’”
Mr Houweling said a “strong voice” should be directed through council ahead of the Development Assessment Panel’s meeting on the matter.
Shire president Ian Miffling and deputy shire president Joe Italiano are the local government panel members.
“Let me say, each one of you is able to decide and say to members who go to the panel please refuse this development because it does not fit within the definition which we’ve adopted for ourselves of the rural zone,” Mr Houweling said.
“Councillors are important in this process.”
Councillors declined to endorse the shire report’s recommendations, objecting to the project on grounds including the specialised nature of the industrial development in a rural location, its proximity to neighbours and the fire risk posed by batteries.
The motion was carried eight to one, with councillor Leonie Burton, the sole dissenter, stating she did not agree with the increased fire risk.