A decision whether or not to grant a third extension of time for the development of a chicken poo power station near Mt Cotton State School will be made by Redland City Council at its next general meeting on 14 December.
The developer is reported to have experienced a delay in obtaining funding for the project.
The original development application was lodged in 2004 and approved (on appeal) on 7 November 2007.
The officers report to Council recommends that a further extension be granted. Their report states that concurrence agencies ( usually government agencies) advise there are no objections to the extension.
Officers reported that they consider the application to be consistent with current laws and policies and deemed that no new issues are likely to be raised in submissions if the application were to be lodged anew.
But have the officers adequately considered the possibility of new issues being raised, by a community which has changed significantly over the past 12 years?
Let the community have a say
Redlands2030 has previously written articles on the chicken manure incinerator
Overall, we believe public interest needs to come to the fore in the deliberations of the Council.
Given the original application is now more than 12 years old it can be expected there have been significant changes in biomass technology, science, health and environment risk assessments, community expectations and assessments of performance from comparable projects.
Such information should be put before the community as part of a rigorous re-assessment of this project.
Many hundreds of people have moved into the area (on new lots and existing houses) who could now be impacted by the proposed incinerator.
In addition there are those people NOW using the already crowded roads to be impacted by cartage of poultry manure to the proposed plant and those families NOW with children at the Mt Cotton School who would not be aware of the proposal or the approval.
In this case it must be of concern that all the people who will (or might) be affected by the biomass plant be given an opportunity to make comment on something in “their backyard”.
The court made a decision in 2013, was held as relevant in 2015 and so two extensions have already been granted. But enough is enough.
The community now living in this area deserve to have their say on this controversial project.
Councillors should refuse the application for a third extension of this development application.