It’s now been just over a year since the Watkins Rd Waste Transfer Station was hurriedly closed due to asbestos contamination.
Since then, a site investigation has discovered that surface fragments of asbestos ‘likely’ came from people dumping it there since it opened three years ago.
But asbestos was also discovered throughout the landfill cap, with consultants theorising that asbestos-polluted material had been inadvertently used to cap the landfill areas over 20 years ago.
Concept plans have also been drawn up to remediate the site and reconstruct the WTS, either partially or fully restoring its previous functions.
Each plan comes with its own eye-watering cost, which the shire intends to pass onto ratepayers in the form of rate rises.
The rub is that even if the site is never reopened to the public, it will still cost millions for the shire to recap it and fulfil its environmental obligations.
It’s a delicate situation; nothing has sparked as much fury in the community as the lack of a tip, and recent rate rises.
In August, council decided to take the choices public, so that residents and ratepayers could have a say in what happens, with $40,000 put aside to do so.
The ‘Let’s Talk Rubbish’ campaign and corresponding survey was launched earlier this month and will run for six weeks, until Monday November 18. The shire has received more than 500 responses to date.
But it seems that ‘Let’s Talk Rubbish’ is a rather fitting name; the survey has already attracted online ire from many in the community, with some pointing out that the supplied preamble and particular questions are ‘leading’ and seem to be directing people towards a foregone conclusion – the permanent closure of the WTS.
“It doesn’t take a psychologist to see that the Let’s Talk Rubbish Survey has been designed with a very clear outcome in mind,” Oakford resident Vanessa Reynolds said in her statement to council on Monday.
“The survey states seven times that the cost of the option to reopen the transfer station will cost approximately $8m and will take at least two years, and even mentions it twice in one question and response option.
“It also states that these costs are ‘substantial’ and ‘significant’ and reiterates the length of time that will be required to see any outcome.”
She notes that nowhere is it stated how much the alternative will cost residents. With no WTS, more ratepayer funds will be needed to pay for verge collections, and cleaning up the illegal dumping that has exploded since the WTS was shut.
Another site would need to be found to manage waste from the shire’s drainage, pruning and street sweeping operations.
Plus, millions would still be needed to remediate the site, regardless. A figure of $3.1 million is quoted in the August council minutes.
Then there’s the question of where this anomalous “$8 million” figure has even come from.
Again, in the August council minutes, shire officers have provided “high-level cost estimates” of the two concept plans which total $7.1 million at worst for the redevelopment of the entire site, and $5 million for the partial redevelopment.
The Examiner asked the shire to explain this perplexing cost blowout from figures quoted only two months ago but we were met with crickets.
We asked why there has been no mention in the survey of how many millions remediation will cost regardless of whether the WTS is opened or not, and, whether the shire thinks ratepayers deserve to know there will be costs regardless of whether the WTS is opened.
And, again, our direct questions were ignored.
The third last question in the survey gives two options: reopen the WTS at a cost of $8 million, or don’t and continue with verge waste collections.
We asked why this binary of choices was presented in what is possibly the most important question in the survey, especially given there are two different concept options for redevelopment.
But there was no attempt to justify this glaring oversight.
Since the WTS closed in October last year the rumour mill has been churning out persistent accusations of a conspiracy to keep the tip closed for good.
Shire President Rob Coales came out to directly refute those rumours last December.
“There is no conspiracy theory,” he said. “We’re not keeping it closed to save money – in fact the opposite is true.”
But the biased nature of this waste survey has reignited those fears again.
We asked the shire whether the survey was created ‘in-house’, or whether some of that $40,000 had been paid to outside consultants to knock it up. And again, questions from Examiner Newspapers were left unanswered.
We then asked the shire whether it thinks this survey has accurately represented the choices available for residents. And, therefore, whether the results will be a genuine representation of what the public wants.
“The shire is providing multiple avenues for residents and ratepayers to share their preferences, including pop-up events, online surveys, open comment box, hard copy surveys, and through the YourSay SJ engagement platform,” Shire President Rob Coales said.
“The shire welcomes and encourages all feedback on this important community matter.”
But not everyone is buying that line this time. After all, there was initially no space in the survey for comments until a significant community backlash forced the shire to include it.
“How is this survey genuinely seeking resident feedback?” Vanessa Reynolds asked.
“How can anyone justify spending $40k for the results of this and a delay of five months for making a decision.
“If you really aren’t genuinely seeking resident feedback in order to actually undertake actions that align with that feedback, why bother wasting $40k of our money and conducting it at all? Why not just tell us what decision has been made?”
Clearly something stinks, and it’s not the rubbish.
To have your say visit: yoursaysj.sjshire.wa.gov.au/letstalkrubbish
