Asphalt Batching Plant, Tomago - Department of Planning - NSW ...

MAJOR PROJECT ASSESSMENT: 

Asphalt Batching Plant, Tomago 

Director-General’s 

Environmental Assessment Report 

Section 75I of the 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 

December 2007


Director-General’s Environmental Assessment Report 

© Crown copyright 2007 

Published December 2007 

NSW Department of Planning 

www.planning.nsw.gov.au 

Disclaimer: 

While every reasonable effort has been made to 

ensure that this document is correct at the time of 

publication, the State of New South Wales, its agents 

and employees, disclaim any and all liability to any 

person in respect of anything or the consequences of 

anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon 

the whole or any part of this document.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Tropic Asphalt Pty Ltd proposes to establish an asphalt plant and associated infrastructure in a new 

industrial area at Tomago (Lot 1 DP 589915) in the Port Stephens local government area. 

The asphalt plant would produce up to 150,000 tonnes of asphalt a year for the Newcastle and Port 

Stephens regions. 

It has a capital cost of $1 million and would employ 6 people during operation. 

The proposal is classified as a major project under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment 

Act 1979 (EP&A Act) because it is a designated industrial development in the coastal zone. Consequently, 

the Minister is the approval authority for the project. 

During the exhibition period, the Department received 7 submissions on the proposal: 2 from government 

agencies and 5 from the general public. 

The Department of the Environment and Climate Change and the Roads and Traffic Authority do not object 

to the project, however four of the five submissions from the general public object to the project. These 

objections were from local residents and businesses that were concerned about the potential air quality, 

noise and traffic impacts of the project. 

The Department has assessed the merits of the project in accordance with the relevant requirements in the 

EP&A Act, and is satisfied that the impacts of the project can be mitigated and/or managed to ensure an 

acceptable level of environmental performance. It is also satisfied that the project is unlikely to have any 

adverse impacts on the coastal zone, as it is located in a designated industrial area and is consistent with 

the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection. 

As the project would produce up to 150,000 tonnes of asphalt a year for the Newcastle and Port Stephens 

regions, attract a capital investment of $1 million and employ 6 people during operation, the Department 

believes the project is in the public interest and should be approved subject to conditions. 

NSW Government 

Department of Planning 1



1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 

1.1 Project Description 

Tropic Asphalt Pty Ltd proposes to establish an asphalt plant and associated infrastructure in a new 

industrial subdivision ‘Hunter Industrial Park’ at Tomago (Lot 1 DP 589915) in the Port Stephens local 

government area. 

The asphalt plant would produce up to 150,000 tonnes of asphalt a year for the Newcastle and Port 

Stephens regions. 

The proposal is summarised in Table 1, depicted in Figures 2 and 3 and described in full in the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in Appendix E. 

The site is located in new industrial subdivision off Tomago Road, close the Pacific Highway and the 

Tomago Aluminium Smelter. There are some residences within 700 metres of the site, with the closest being 

located about 300 metres to the west of the site (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Project Location 





Table 1: Major components of the project 

Component 

Project 

Summary 

Asphalt Plant 

Associated 

Infrastructure 

Site Access 

Construction 

Hours of 

Operation 

Capital Cost 

Employment 6 

Description 

Construction and operation of an asphalt plant and associated infrastructure to produce 

up to 150,000 tonnes of asphalt a year for the Newcastle and Port Stephens regions. 

The asphalt will be located on the south-eastern corner of the site. Asphalt would be produced 

by mixing aggregates, recycled asphaltic product (RAP), bitumen and fillers. These imports 

would be delivered to the site by trucks and stored in purpose built storage facilities. 

A range of associated infrastructure is required to support the asphalt plant, including: 

• roadworks off Kennington Drive; 

• storage facilities for raw materials and LPG; 

• stormwater management system to retain “dirty” water on site; 

• fencing to secure the site; and 

• landscaping. 

Access to the site would be via two driveways to be constructed on Kennington Drive. The 

eastern driveway will be an entry and the western driveway will be an exit. Driveways will be 

designed to comply with AS2890.2 - 2002. 

20 weeks between 7am and 6pm Mon to Fri and 7am and 1pm Saturday. 

24 hours, 7 days a week. 

$1 million 

Site Access 

Office / 

laboratory 

Underground LPG 

tank 

Truck unloading areas 

Recycled asphalt 

storage area 

Tank bund 

Control building 

Asphalt plant 

Aggregate storage 

area 

Figure 2: Project Layout 





2. STATUTORY CONTEXT 

Figure 3: Site Elevations 

2.1 Major Project 

The proposal is classified as a major project under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment 

Act 1979 (the Act) because it meets the criteria of Clause 1 of Schedule 2 of the State Environmental 

Planning Policy (Major Projects) 2005, namely Clause 1(e) development for the purposes of a bitumen premix 

industry that is designated development and within the coastal zone. 

Consequently, the Minister for Planning is the approval authority for the project. 

2.2 Permissibility 

Site is zoned 4(a) Industrial (General) under the Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 (PSLEP 

2000) and the proposed asphalt plant is permissible with consent in this zone. Consequently, the Minister for 

Planning may approve the carrying out of the project. 

2.3 Exhibition and Notification 

Under Section 75H(3) of the EP&A Act, the Director-General is required to make the environmental 

assessment of a project publicly available for at least 30 days. 

After accepting the environmental assessment for the project, the Department: 

• made it publicly available from 14 September 2007 until 17 October 2007: 

o on the Department’s website, and 

o at the Department’s Information Centre, Port Stephen City Council, Raymond Terrace library 

and the Nature Conservation Council; 





• notified relevant State government authorities and Port Stephen City Council by letter; 

• notified landowners in the vicinity of the site about the exhibition period by letter; and 

• advertised the exhibition in the Newcastle Herald and Port Stephens Examiner. 

This satisfies the requirements in Section 75H(3) of the EP&A Act. 

2.4 Objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 

The Minister is required to consider the objects of the EP&A Act when he makes decisions under the Act. 

These objects are detailed in Section 5 of the Act, and include: 

‘The objects of this Act are: 

a) to encourage: 

i. the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, 

including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for 

the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better 

environment, 

ii. the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land, 

iii. the protection, provision and co-ordination of communication and utility services, 

iv. the provision of land for public purposes, 

v. the provision and co-ordination of community services and facilities, and 

vi. the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals 

and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their 

habitats, and 

vii. ecologically sustainable development, and 

viii. the provision and maintenance of affordable housing, and 

b) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning between the different levels of 

government in the State, and 

c) to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning 

and assessment.’ 

The objects of most relevance to the Minister’s decision on whether or not to approve the project are found 

under Section 5(a)(i),(ii),(vi)&(vii). 

With respect to ecologically sustainable development (ESD), the EP&A Act adopts the definition in the 

Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. Section 6(2) of that Act states that ESD ‘requires the 

effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in decision-making processes’ and that 

ESD ‘can be achieved through’ the implementation of the principles and programs including the 

precautionary principle, the principle of inter-generational equity, the principle of conservation of biological 

diversity and ecological integrity, and the principle of improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms. 

In applying the precautionary principle, public decisions should be guided by careful evaluation to avoid, 

wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment and an assessment of the riskweighted 

consequences of various options. 

The Department has fully considered the objects of the EP&A Act, including the encouragement of ESD, in 

its assessment of the project application. 

The assessment undertaken by Tropic Asphalt Pty Ltd integrates all significant economic and environmental 

considerations and seeks to avoid any potential serious or irreversible damage to the environment. 

Tropic Asphalt Pty Ltd has also considered a number of alternatives to the proposed project (including the 

alternative of not proceeding), and considered the project in the light of the principles of ESD. 

2.5 Environmental Planning Instruments 

Under Section 75I of the EP&A Act, the Director-General’s report is required to include a copy of, or 

reference to, the provisions of any State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) that substantially govern the 

carrying out of the project. 

The Department has considered the project against the relevant provisions of several SEPPs (including 

SEPPs 33 and 71) and is satisfied that the proposal is generally consistent with the aims and objectives of 

these instruments (refer to Appendix C). 





2.6 Statement of Compliance 

Under Section 75I of the EP&A Act, the Director-General’s report is required to include a statement relating 

to compliance with the environmental assessment requirements with respect to the project. 

The Department is satisfied that the environmental assessment requirements of the project have been 

complied with. 

3. ISSUES RAISED DURING CONSULTATION 

During the exhibition period, the Department received a total of 7 submissions on the project: 

• 2 submissions from public authorities; and 

• 5 submissions from the general public. 

A summary of the issues raised in submission is provided below. A full copy of these submissions is 

attached in Appendix D. 

3.1 Public Authorities 

The Department of Environment and Climate Change did not object to the project, but recommended a 

number of conditions of approval covering: 

• noise and vibration management; 

• waste management; 

• dust management; 

• emissions monitoring; 

• stormwater/sediment control; and 

• general monitoring and reporting conditions. 

The Roads and Traffic Authority did not object to the project. 

3.2 Community 

Four of the five submissions from the community objected to the project. These objections were from local 

residents/business and primarily raised concerns about the potential air quality, noise and traffic impacts of 

the project. 

The main grounds for objection from the community were (in decreasing order of priority): 

• Air quality – 4 of the submissions raised concerns about the amenity and health impacts associated 

with dust emissions from the project on people, local businesses and the environment; 

• Noise – 2 of the submissions raised concerns about the noise impacts on residents, and the 

environment; and 

• Traffic – 2 of the submissions raised concerns about the traffic and access impacts on surrounding 

businesses. 

Submissions also raised a number of other concerns, including visual amenity, soil and water, and land use. 

3.3 Response to Submissions 

The Department has considered the issues raised in the submissions in its assessment of the project (see 

Section 4). 

4. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

4.1 Air Quality 

A detailed air quality assessment has been undertaken for the proposal. This assessment included 

dispersion modelling of the potential air quality impacts of the proposal against the relevant dust deposition, 

total suspended particulates, and PM 10 criteria. 





The results of this modelling suggest that the proposal would make a very small contribution to dust levels in 

the surrounding area, as both transfer conveyors from the storage areas and storage areas would be closed 

systems, and would comply with all the relevant criteria (see Table 2). 

Table 2: Range of Predicted Air Quality Impacts at Closest Sensitive Receptors 

Pollutant 

Criteria 

Predictions - Resident 

1 2 3 4 5 

Dust Deposition (Annual) Proposal: 2 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.00 

2g/m 2 /month 

Cumulative: 4 

Total Suspended Particulates 90 1.32 0.92 0.30 0.47 0.00 

(Annual) (ug/m 3 ) 

PM10 (Annual) (ug/m 3 ) 30 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 

PM10 (24 Hour) (ug/m 3 ) 50 5.3 4.4 2.3 3.9 2.0 

Nevertheless, due to the high background levels (45 ug/m 3 ), under worst case scenarios the project may 

contribute to some marginal exceedances of the cumulative PM 10 (24 Hour) criteria of 50 ug/m 3 on the 

nearest residences (see Figure 4). 

Figure 4: Maximum Predicted Cumulative PM10 ground level concentrations (24 Hour Average) 

However, it is important to note a few things about these predictions. 

The National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) allows up to 5 exceedances of the PM 10 (24 Hour) 

criteria a year, primarily to accommodate times when background levels are high due to bushfires or some 

other similar events. 





Tropic Asphalt Pty Ltd has predicted that on one occasion in each baseline year 1 , the maximum measured 

24-hour average concentration would exceed the NEPM goal of 50 ug/m 3 . 

Furthermore, for the proposal to cause additional exceedances, the elevated background levels would need 

to coincide with the proposal’s maximum output, which would cause exceedance of NEPM goal of 50 ug/m 3 

at residence 1 only (see Figure 4). 

Therefore, the Department considers that the likelihood of additional cumulative exceedances would be low. 

All other air emissions (e.g. heavy metals, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, 

etc.) would be below the relevant impact assessment criteria. 

The key issue raised in submissions from the general public related to the impact of dust and odour on 

nearby businesses. However, the Department is satisfied that the measures proposed by Tropic Asphalt Pty 

Ltd, including sealing of all road surfaces and keeping them free of dust, unloading the aggregate from the 

truck directly into a below ground hopper at a controlled rate, storing the aggregate in fully enclosed and 

covered overhead storage bins, cleaning the exhaust from the process heater/dryer by a fabric filter 

baghouse, using automatic temperature control storage tanks and use of activated carbon filters to capture 

volatile organic compounds and their odours would minimise air quality impacts of the project. 

Nevertheless, the Department believes Tropic Asphalt Pty Ltd should be required to: 

• comply with the stack emissions requirements under the Protection of the Environment Operations 

(Clean Air) Regulation 2002; 

• comply with the relevant criteria for pollutants, and in particular dust, particulate matter and total 

suspended particulate matter; 

• not cause offensive odour emissions; and 

• commission an audit of the air emissions of the plant within 6 months of commencement of operations 

to ensure that it is complying with all the relevant air quality criteria. 

4.2 Noise 

4.2.1 Construction 

The asphalt plant would be constructed over 20 weeks during daylight hours. 

A construction noise assessment has been undertaken for the proposal. 

This assessment predicts that the construction works would only generate significant noise impacts during 

piling activities on site. 

Given that these activities are manageable, would only occur over a 2 day period and would be carried out 

during daylight hours, the Department is satisfied that the construction noise impacts of the proposal are 

acceptable. 

4.2.2 Operation 

A detailed noise assessment has been undertaken for the proposal. This assessment included noise 

predictions of both the potential intrusive (LAeq 15 minute) and amenity (LAeq period) impacts of the 

proposal. The lower of the two (i.e. intrusiveness criteria) was adopted for the noise assessment criteria, 

which would ensure compliance with the amenity criteria of the DECC’s Industrial Noise Policy. 

The results of this modelling suggest that the proposal would make a small contribution to increased noise 

levels during night time near residence 5 (see Figure 5) due to noise emissions from the exhaust fan. To 

minimise noise emission from this source, Tropic Asphalt Pty Ltd proposes to enclose this fan if subsequent 

monitoring indicates that the plant is not complying with noise goals. 

With these measures in place Tropic Asphalt Pty Ltd predicts that the treated received noise levels would be 

within the night time criteria for all receptors, including the residence 5 (see Table 3). 

1 

There has been no background monitoring undertaken specifically for the proposal, but data for Beresfield (located approximately 7 km 

west of the proposal) for years 2004-2006 from the DECC monitoring network was used. 





Table 3: Predicted Noise Impacts 

Criteria 

L eq15min 

Daytime criteria (7am to 6pm Monday to 

Saturday and 8am to 6pm Sundays and Public 

Holidays) 

50.5 

Evening criteria (6pm to 10pm any day) 

51.0 

All other times 

45.0 

Total received noise level dB(A) L eq15min 

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 

37.8 38.0 39.7 36.5 37.5 36.3 

Figure 5: Sensitive noise receptors 

Two of the submissions from the general public raised concerns about the noise impacts on local residents, 

and the environment. However, the Department is satisfied that with the implementation of appropriate 

mitigation measures, including the construction of the exhaust fan enclosure, the proposal can comply with 

the relevant intrusive noise. 

Nevertheless, the Department believes Tropic Asphalt Pty Ltd should be required to: 

• comply with the project specific noise criteria; and 

• commission an audit of the noise emissions of the plant within 6 months of commencement of 

operations to ensure that it is complying with all the relevant noise criteria. 

4.2.3 Traffic Noise 

A traffic noise assessment has been undertaken for the proposal. 





The assessment indicates that the maximum daily output (1,500 tonnes per day) would generate up to 39 

truck movements and 14 car movements during evening peak hours and up to 7 light vehicles and 84 heavy 

vehicles in total. On a base flow on Tomago Road of approximately 9000 vehicles Annual Average Daily 

Traffic, or approximately 500 vehicles per hour, the additional 83 trucks per day and total of 38 vehicles per 

hour would be inconsequential in terms of traffic noise. The impact on potentially affected residential 

receptors on Punt Road would be minimal and the additional traffic flows on the Pacific Highway are even 

less significant than the effect on Tomago Road. Tropic Asphalt Pty Ltd has indicated that night time trucking 

movements would not depart via Tomago Road but would depart north along old Punt Road, thereby, 

avoiding night time traffic noise exposure to the residents in Old Punt Road. 

None of the submissions raised concerns related to noise impacts from traffic movements. The Department 

is satisfied that the road traffic noise of the proposal is likely to be indiscernible from the existing traffic noise 

of the Pacific Highway and the wider regional road network. 

4.4 Traffic 

The proposal would generate about 38 vehicle movements (7 car movements and 31 truck movements) a 

day during peak hour normal operating conditions (see Table 4). 

Table 4: Predicted Trip Generation During Operations 

Morning Peak In 7 car trips 16 truck trips 

Hour Trips Out 0 car trips 15 truck trips 

Afternoon 

Peak Hour 

Trips 

In 0 car trips 15 truck trips 

Out 7 car trips 16 truck trips 

Total/day 7 car trips 84 truck trips 

Maximum daily output (1,500 tonnes per day) would generate up to 39 truck movements and 14 car 

movements during evening peak hours, in unusual circumstances. Tropic Asphalt Pty Ltd predicts that the 

total number of vehicles assessing the site would include 7 light vehicles and 84 heavy vehicles. 

These vehicles would use the existing Pacific Highway, Tomago Road and Old Punt Road to access the site. 

Few vehicles would use Nelson Bay Road and Cabbage Tree Road. These roads have sufficient capacity to 

cater for vehicles generated by the project. 

The junction of Old Punt Road and the Pacific Highway has been upgraded. The junction of Tomago Road 

and the Pacific Highway is currently under construction and works are scheduled to be completed by the end 

of 2007. Both of the upgraded junctions would satisfactorily cater for the additional traffic generated by the 

proposal. The roundabout at the intersection of Old Punt Road and Tomago Road would provide safe 

turning manoeuvres in all directions. The Department considers that the traffic generated by the proposal 

would have minimal impact on local and regional roads. 

The site would be accessed via Kennington Drive. The eastern driveway would be an entry and the western 

driveway would be an exit. The site provides sufficient room for turning movements. Eight car spaces would 

be provided on site including one disabled space. 

Nevertheless, 2 of the submissions from the general public raised concerns about the traffic and access 

impacts on surrounding businesses. However the Department is satisfied that the proposal would not 

significantly affect the level of service, capacity, vehicular and pedestrian safety of Kennington Drive and 

Tomago Road as the proposed site is located in the new estate, designed to cater for heavy vehicles 

generated by new developments in the area and the proposed site is located on a no through road which is 

mainly used by local business. Additionally, to ensure that vehicles generated by the project do not impact 

on local roads, the Department’s recommended conditions prohibit heavy vehicles associated with the 

project from parking and queuing on local roads in the vicinity of the site at any time. 

Given the above, the Department is satisfied that the traffic impacts of the proposal are likely to be minor. 





4.5 Other Impacts 

Other issues raised during the assessment process and the Department’s consideration of the issues are 

summarised in Table 5 below. 

Table 5: Summary of Other Impacts 

Aspect Comment Recommendation 

Soil and Water 

• Water supply from Hunter Water 

Corporation. 

Hazards/Risks 

Flora and Fauna 

Aboriginal Heritage 

Waste 

Visual 

Energy and Water 

Efficiency 

• Run-off from the site conveyed to the open 

earth drain to the west of the site, which 

drains into the Hunter River. 

• Potential pollution sources from dust 

particles, fine aggregate, hydrocarbon 

spills and spills from other products. 

• Potentially acid sulphate soils (PASS) 

identified onsite. 

• Acid Sulphate soil management plan has 

been prepared. 

• Hunter Water Corporation verbally that 

they had no concerns with the proposal. 

• Very low risk. 

• A preliminary risk screening was 

undertaken in accordance with the State 

Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 – 

Hazardous and Offensive Development, 

which found that the proposed project is 

not considered potentially hazardous 

and/or potentially offensive. 

• Previously disturbed site with little or no 

habitat value. 

• Previously disturbed site with little or no 

archaeological or cultural significance. 

• Generate a range of regular waste 

(excavated material, general construction 

waste, domestic waste, and green waste) 

during construction. 

• Generate waste during operation including 

domestic waste, filler, used hydrocarbon 

solvents and toluene and spill absorbent 

material. 

• Proposed site part of new ‘Hunter 

Industrial Park’ subdivision. 

• Site is zoned ‘Industrial General’. 

• Proposed plant is featuring most up-todate 

technology to maximise energy 

efficiency. 

• Reuse of onsite stormwater maximised to 

minimise uptake of town water supply. 

• Implement standard erosion and 

sediment controls during 

construction. 

• Install a detailed stormwater 

management scheme during 

construction that is capable of 

capturing any dirty water on site 

during operations, and treating it to a 

suitable standard. 

• Implement management measures 

outlined in the Acid Sulphate Soil 

Management Plan contained in the 

EA to manage PASS found onsite. 

• Store and handle all dangerous 

goods in accordance with all 

relevant Australian Standards and 

the DECC’s Environment Protection 

Manual Technical Bulletin Bunding 

and Spill Management. 

• Minimise impacts on aquatic ecology 

with good soil and water 

management. 

• Worimi Local Aboriginal Land 

Council representative to be present 

on site during earth moving 

activities. 

• Reuse and recycle as much of 

construction and operation waste as 

possible. 

• Provide landscaping at the site in 

accordance with the Port Stephens 

Development Control Plan PS4. 

• N/A 

• The Department is satisfied with the 

measure proposed by Tropic Asphalt 

Pty Ltd. 





5. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 

The Department has prepared recommended conditions of approval for the project. These conditions are 

required to: 

• prevent, minimise, and/or offset adverse impacts of the project; 

• set standards and performance measures for acceptable environmental performance; 

• ensure regular monitoring; and 

• provide for the ongoing environmental management of the project. 

The Department has provided the draft conditions of approval for the project to relevant government 

authorities for comment, and has incorporated these comments into the conditions of approval where 

appropriate. 

6. CONCLUSION 

The Department has assessed the merits of the project in accordance with the EP&A Act, and is satisfied 

that the impacts of the project can be mitigated and/or managed to ensure an acceptable level of 

environmental performance. It is also satisfied that the project is unlikely to have any adverse impacts on the 

coastal zone, as it is located in a designated industrial area and is consistent with the aims and objectives of 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection. 

Granted the project would produce up to 150,000 tonnes of asphalt a year for the Newcastle and Port 

Stephens regions, attract a capital investment of $1 million and employ 6 people during operation, the 

Department believes the project is in the public interest and should be approved subject to conditions. 

7. RECOMMENDATION 

It is recommended that the Minister: 

• consider the findings and recommendations of this report; 

• approve the project application, subject to conditions, under section 75J of the EP&A Act; and 

• sign the attached project approval (see Appendix A). 

David Kitto 

Director Development Assessment 

Chris Wilson 

Executive Director 

Major Project Assessment 

Sam Haddad 

Director-General 





APPENDIX A - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL



APPENDIX B - STATEMENT OF COMMITMENTS


Director-General’s Environmental Assessment Report


Director-General’s Environmental Assessment Report



APPENDIX C - CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PLANNING INSTRUMENTS



State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development applies to the site. 

SEPP 33 aims to identify proposed developments with the potential for significant off-site impacts, in terms of 

risk and/ or offence (odour, noise etc). A development is defined as potentially hazardous and/ or potentially 

offensive if, without mitigating measures in place, the development would have a significant risk and/ or 

offence impact on off-site receptors. 

A preliminary risk screening was undertaken in accordance with the SEPP 33, which found that the 

quantities and classes of hazardous materials that would be encountered on site and number of vehicle 

movements required to transport these materials did not reach the threshold to be classified as ‘potentially 

hazardous’. Therefore, the proposed project is not considered potentially hazardous and/or potentially 

offensive and no preliminary hazardous analysis is required to be undertaken. 

The Department is satisfied with the consideration of SEPP 33 contained in the Environmental Assessment. 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land applies to the site. SEPP 55 aims to 

ensure that potential contamination issues are considered in the determination of a development application. 

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 states that: 

7(1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless: 

(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and 

(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will 

be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be 

carried out, and 

(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is 

proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used 

for that purpose. 

The project would be located in a new industrial subdivision. The Department is satisfied that contamination 

is not a significant issue for this site. 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.71 – Coastal Protection 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection applies to the site as it is within the coastal 

zone. In broad terms SEPP 71 aims to ensure that the natural, cultural, recreational and economic assets of 

the NSW coast are protected and appropriately managed. 

The relevant matters for consideration in clause 8 of the SEPP 71 include: 

• the aims of the SEPP 71; 

• the suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the 

surrounding area; 

• the scenic qualities of the New South Wales coast, and means to protect and improve these qualities; 

• measures to conserve animals and plants, and their habitats; 

• measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of 

Aboriginals; 

• likely impacts of development on the water quality of coastal waterbodies; and 

• the conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or historic significance. 

The Department is satisfied that the proposed development is broadly consistent with the aims and other 

matters for consideration in the SEPP 71. The Department considers that the site is suitable for the 

proposed asphalt plant and the project would be compatible with surrounding land uses. It would have a 

negligible impact on scenic qualities and water quality protection measures would ensure that adequate 

protection is provided for animals, plants and their habitats, including the Hunter River. The site is unlikely to 

contain any Aboriginal sites and does not contain other items of heritage/historic significance.



APPENDIX D - SUBMISSIONS


Assessment Report 

Director-General’s Environmental 

APPENDIX E - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Asphalt Batching Plant, Tomago - Department of Planning - NSW ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?