“LIP service” and “more spin”. This is how the people of Dalton and Gunning described energy giant AGL’s attempts to convince them the Gas Fired Power station, which will be located 3km from the village, would not have a negative impact on their lives.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The company held a community consultation meeting on Wednesday night to respond to concerns raised during the NSW Department of Planning’s submissions process and come up with measured solutions to the issues.
However, the 100 or so locals in attendance, were not impressed with the company’s presentation. The community made it clear that they wanted straightforward answers to their concerns and, after the meeting, few felt as though they’d received them. The strong sentiment amongst the group was that they did not want a power station so close to their homes. But it was made clear to them that this issue would not even be discussed.
“First off AGL is not going to move the power station. That is not negotiable…” the meeting’s facilitator Kath Elliott, from GHD consultants said.
“Having an argument with AGL about the Power Station is not the right avenue. AGL is a proponent for the power station, they won’t get into an argument about whether it is there or not, it is in their interest to put it there.”
She said the protesters would have to lobby the state government and suggested locals have “a foot in either camp”, meaning they could actively oppose the development, but, if it did gain approval, work with the company to help “alleviate” some of the community’s concerns.
Resident and actor Max Cullen wanted to see “people power” stop it from going ahead. “We don’t want a power plant in this area but they’ve told us today that there is going to be one, we will have to go to government to make a change, so I suppose that is our next step,” he said after the meeting.
“There is absolutely no necessity for it. We don’t need more power. We don’t need this power plant… We’re using less and less power all the time… We will just keep fighting the good fight and try to get the public on side, particularly the shareholders of AGL.”
When the development application went on display last year, the company received 22 submissions from both government agencies and community groups which covered a wide array of issues including air quality, noise, vibration, potential health ramifications, water requirements, traffic, environmental and socio economic impacts and quality of life.
AGL proposed a range of solutions including moving the gas pipeline to reduce impacts on the Box Gum Woodlands, possibly building a concrete batching plant during construction to reduce traffic, sourcing water independently for the facility from onsite bores, vegetation screening to improve the visual amenities, pay for the resealing of roads that are affected and ongoing noise, air and water level monitoring. They also confirmed the turbines would be F-Class. However, the community was far from satisfied with the responses.
There were still question marks hanging over a number of issues including air pollution levels, what impacts the bores would have on the water table, what the potential vibration levels would be and how that would impact on people’s health.
AGL promised to find the answers before the next meeting and proposed the establishment the Dalton Community Consultative Committee (DCCC). AGL’s Head of Generation Development Nigel Bean told the group that his company had not been good at community engagement in the past and that this committee was designed to improve that.
The DCCC would have an independent chair and see up to a dozen locals appointed as a go between for the company and the community. Mr Bean said this would help improve communications and get relevant information both to the proponents and the community. However, the proposal was met with scepticism. After the meeting, Dalton resident/ vocal opponent of the project Phil Waine said the meeting was nothing more than an exercise in corporate spin.
He said AGL had not committed to anything substantial and that he would continue to protest the development.
“We’ve heard it all before… they weasel their way out of everything and don’t commit to anything,” he said.
“We have serious problems with the Part 3A process, under which this proposal is being applied under with Department of Planning. The environmental assessment was completely inadequate. The submissions response report is completely inadequate.
“We’re not satisfied that any of the risks that are inherent in the proposal will be mitigated by anything that they aren’t required to do by government. So, we want them to make these commitments to government, have them included in the conditions of consent and we want those conditions to be so onerous that they just p... off.”
Local man Allan Fowler agreed.
“I think they are steering around issues and just trying to push it through,” he said.
“This thing they want to set up (the DCCC) is just a little smoke screen to make people believe they are doing something and that they do have concerns for the community. If they did have concerns for the community they wouldn’t be putting it so close to town in the first place.” Mr Cullen believes the money being spent will be recouped by a rise in energy costs.
He also believes the plant will eventually be used more than just five to 15 per cent of the year and questioned if the money could be better spent on the development of renewable energy.