From left: RATWISE members Eleanor Wakelam, Lotte Dawes, Lisa Dawes, Robyn Thompson, Thelma Wakelam, Jean Marriner, Janine Sillett, Stuart Marriner, Marjorie Gipp, Robert Gipp, Geraldine Gonsalvez, Raymond Posslethwaite and Mark Dreyfuss QC.By Shaun Inguanzo
THE Supreme Court is expected to hear appeals by the Lyndhurst tip operator and an environmental authority after a civil tribunal declared the tip was wrongly taking hazardous waste.
Last week the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) declared the Lyndhurst tip was in breach of old Shire of Cranbourne planning permits – one from 1990 and the other from 1992 – by taking in hazardous wastes such as cadmium and mercury.
It was golden news for Residents Against Toxic Waste In The South East (RATWISE), a group of residents who have for 14 years argued the tip should not be receiving hazardous hard, chemical and liquid wastes.
“We are ecstatic. It vindicates our group and everything we have been fighting for,” RATWISE member Thelma Wakelam said.
The City of Greater Dandenong took tip operator SITA to VCAT after Mark Dreyfuss QC presented a legal opinion late last year hinting the council had a case.
Mr Dreyfuss last week said the declaration had cleared up the inconsistency between an Environment Protection Authority (EPA) licence and the permits.
The licence allowed the tip to accept wastes such as cadmium and mercury, but residents had argued these were hazardous and were in breach of the council-issued permits.
Under the VCAT declaration, such wastes are now defined as hazardous and are therefore in breach of the Shire of Cranbourne permits
The tip’s operator SITA and licencor the EPA are individually preparing appeals for the Supreme Court.
But both are remaining tight-lipped.
SITA did not respond to inquiries before Star’s deadline and the EPA refused to answer questions, instead issuing a one-line statement.
“We have sought legal advice and will now seek to have matters clarified,” an EPA spokeswoman said.
City of Greater Dandenong development services director Mal Baker said the council still had an application for an enforcement order before the matter was fully resolved, however that would have to wait until appeals were heard.
