Judgement.pdf [As Published] · 132007.1259

 

IDAS.C-6

e considered unwarranted by a UXO contractor due to the extent of any prior excavation or ”
earthworks or, conversely, of any filling proposed as part of the development program; or

¢ prevented or made impracticable by the presence of a structure, stockpile, natural barrier or
mefal waste.

In the latter case, alternative action may be appropriate to minimise the risk in the first instance, For
example, where the risk of exposure to any UXO that may exist is reduced by the presence ofa
structure or natural barrier, issuance of the standard UXO waming (see Condition 4.2) may suffice
while the structure, stockpile or barrier remains in place, Where a stricture is to be removed or
reduced as part of the development prograin, protective precautions, commensurate with any greater
risk to which workers might then be exposed, may need to be considered. Progressive assessment
will be necessary where such circumstances exist. Unless, at the completion of preliminary works,
there is evidence then available to the UXO contractor that any residual xisk is negligible, the use of
detection equipment will typically be required to confirm the site’s status,

Where investigation, along with any subsequent remedial action and assessmeni, is to be
implemented by stages to satisfy Condition 4.1 and 4,3, a preliminary investigation report should be
submitted by the applicant to the EPA along with a management plan for the proposed work. Staged
investigation/remediation is most likely to be applicable where development of smaller, built-on lots
.(which oan present ciroumstances such as those discussed above) or broadheotare sites is proposed. In
such cases, the EPA’s assessment of the report and advice to Council in regard to approval ofthe
development will be dependent on agreement with the management plan. .

Where Condition 4.1 is to be satisfied by a wholo lot or broadhectare development stage being
subjected to investigation and any necessary remedial action, the BRA, based on the subsequent
investigation/remediation report’s findings and reéommendation/s, may reassess the lot, or that portion

comprising the development stage, as being remediated dr not needing remediation, and advise the
applicant and Council accordingly. Otherwise, any balance of land that has not been further
investigated will retain the risk assessment made by Defence. This is unless evidence obtained from
tho investigated pari/s can be used to refute Defenco’s assessment in regard to all or part of the
balance. In the latter case, the EPA may reassess all of the balance or the applicable partis as being
unaffected by UXO,

6 Additional information

This concurrence response applies only to contaminated land issues and does not remove the need to
obtain any further approval for this development which may be required by this or other legislation, ,
State and/or Commonwealth, Applicants are advised to check with all relevant statutory authorities,
Applicants should also comply with all relevant legislation.

The EPA has not provided a notification to native title parties for this application, The State’s
Native Title Work Procedures indicate that the responsibility for assessment of native title issues for
at IDAS application rests with the Assessment Manager. It is recommended that the Assessment
Manager determines whether native title notification is required for this application.

*End of response*

WAS C-6 CLM

VER 2