THE first shots have been fired in the renewed fight over an abalone farm on Dutton Way – and it seems certain that the main stage will shift to Portland to find out the controversial project’s fate.

Yumbah Aquaculture is seeking a change in the Glenelg Planning Scheme that would effectively ‘turn off’ the Rural Living Zone controls for its site to allow the abalone farm to proceed.

An application for the change is before Planning Panels Victoria’s Standing Advisory Committee, the same type of committee that heard the Cape Bridgewater resort proposal last year.

A plan for a 1000-tonne farm was rejected by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in 2020, on the grounds the development was incompatible with the Rural Living Zone, and the latest proposal is for a 500-tonne farm.

A directions hearing was held online last Friday, December 2, at which a range of issues relating to the full hearing were discussed before committee members chairman Lester Townsend, deputy Mandy Elliott and Ian Hamm.

Mr Townsend told the hearing that while a decision on the date and time of hearing wouldn’t be made on the day, a decision wasn’t far away – it hadn’t been made at time of the Observer going to print.

However, the full hearing should take about two weeks, starting in late February, and it was likely to be held wholly or mostly in Portland.

Mr Townsend floated the idea of a “hybrid hearing” where opening submissions could be held online and the remainder in either Melbourne or Portland.

However, this was quickly questioned by some of the opponents who live in and around Dutton Way with unreliable internet service.

Pam McLeod said she had “all sorts of troubles” even logging in to the directions hearing and pleaded for the full hearing to be held in Portland.

“I had to actually go out into the garden (to get internet service), luckily it’s a nice day,” she said.

Rachael Matuschka said there were a range of issues.

“We are four hours away from Melbourne and the internet access here is incredibly poor,” she said.

“Currently there’s a lot of areas along Dutton Way that don’t actually have good internet access at all.

“The use of (meeting software) is not as well known here, we weren’t as affected by COVID as Melbourne.

“There’s still a lot of people here who don’t know the technology and are having trouble with it.

“I would please ask that it be held in Portland so it is seen as a just hearing and a fair hearing.”

Shea Rotumah said: “If you want to make decisions about country, you need to do it on country.”

Gunditjmara woman and local resident Amy Saunders said holding the meeting locally would enable more Gunditjmara people to attend, especially young people who would see in person “how to deal with constant invasion”.

The previous VCAT hearing began in person with sessions in Warrnambool and Melbourne, before the coronavirus pandemic forced the remainder of the hearing to be held online.

The case for the proponent

Chief among the issues raised at the directions hearing was what should actually be discussed at the full hearing.

Adrian Finanzio SC, representing Yumbah, argued that the previous 27-day proceeding in VCAT had already ruled on many issues that should not be revisited, including the likes of noise, odour, dust, traffic and other environmental impacts.

These had been decided in favour of Yumbah – the decision of the Environment Protection Agency to grant a works approval for the original project was upheld – and should not be heard again, and the only item that should be revisited was the refusal to grant a permit due to the conflict it would create with the Rural Living Zone.

“For a project that’s double the size of the one before you it stands to reason… when you halve the size of the project… you have a diminutive effect on the impacts,” Mr Finanzio said.

“If the project is diminished in scale it simply isn’t open to argue again that the diminished scale is somehow worse or somehow inappropriate.

“It wouldn’t profit you one bit to open every issue that was before VCAT when those issues were so comprehensively dealt with.”

Mr Finanzio said “even visual amenity was acceptable on the community around, rather than above”, referring to the success of the residents living above Dutton Way in the VCAT proceeding.

“If you have got a basis for saying why the tribunal was wrong, say so,” he told the objectors.

“But don’t let’s assume we have to go through the process of a 27-day hearing for no good reason.”

Mr Finanzio referred to the Port of Portland’s views at the hearing as “gibberish”.

“I have no idea what (it) says it is going to do,” he said.

“We are deeply concerned that this is just another attempt to wrap this proceeding up in games.”

Christine Giles, who represented the EPA, said environmental matters were raised and discussed at the VCAT hearing and ultimately the works approval it issued was upheld.

“It is our position the environmental matters should not be debated once again,” she said

Opponents respond

Mr Townsend said the committee’s expectations were there were environmental concerns and from people who weren’t part of the works approval challenge (which was done by the Port of Portland).

The views of Yumbah and the EPA were disputed by a range of opponents to the project.

Kayla Gregg, representing the Port of Portland, said: “It’s our view that the findings of the tribunal are relevant to the proceedings and these items do warrant further consideration.”

“In our view this is the same project, it’s a smaller project but the same project,” she said.

“(It) would be over two years since the decision of the tribunal (VCAT) was handed down.

“The landscape is likely to have changed in this time.”

Ms Gregg said opponents should be given the opportunity to respond to all the documents in the amendment proposal.

“This is a new application and we say we should be given an opportunity to respond,” he said.

That was echoed by several other opponents.

Keith Kelly, who is Ms Saunders’ partner, said Yumbah wanted all the parts of the VCAT decision in its favour to go uncontested while only arguing over the matter that went against it.

“I don’t think you should try to eliminate topics when they are trying to bully their way to get this across the line,” he said.

Ms Matuschka, whose argument was successful before VCAT, said she did not agree the project was as much smaller as Yumbah said it was.

“Just saying it’s going from 1000 tonne to 500 tonne does not mean it is halved,” she said, arguing the issues before VCAT should be reconsidered.

Dutton Way resident Lesley Yuill said Yumbah’s claim that the farm could be screened by planting trees was not borne out by the fact that trees planted there 15 years ago were still stunted and residents “will never ever be hidden from the black plastic cloth”.

She also claimed that the proposal was a stalking horse for a larger one eventually.

“We feel they’re trying to get through a stage one on a slightly reduced scale but there is a stage two,” she said.

While the abalone farm would profit Yumbah, locals were doing it tough.

“You have no idea of the stress these people have been living through for four years,” Ms Yuill said, referring to the original project first becoming public in 2018.

Mr Townsend told Mr Finanzio Yumbah would have to address the issues about tree growth, but ruled out considering any further expansion.

“In terms of stage two, if that’s not before us that will be a separate process in the future, we can’t speculate on that.”

Mr Rotumah said: “The whole environment planning thing is about changing the Rural Living Zone to something so that the abalone farm can fit in.”

“The tribunal did make that decision and that was not to come here… it’s up to them mob (Yumbah) to explain themselves why the people who live there who’ll be there a lot longer than the ab farm should give up the Rural Living Zone… it’s them people’s homes,” he said.

“Everything’s up for explanation again, I’d be pretty annoyed if I was the VCAT mob.

“Half the damage is not acceptable, all the damage to all those people’s lives is not acceptable, (all the damage) to my way of life is not acceptable.”

Tony Wright, who would live across the road from the entrance to the abalone farm, called on the new panel to inspect the site beforehand “so that you have a visual understanding of what this project entails”.

Mr Townsend said “there is absolutely no doubt that we will be inspecting the area”.

Mr Wright also brought up two local crayfish species, the Portland burrowing crayfish and the hairy burrowing crayfish which the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning itself listed as an endangered and “under pressure” respectively.

“This area contains a very large colony of Portland burrowing crayfish all of which… would be wiped out by the earthworks required for this proposal,” he said.

Mr Wright called on DELWP to “please explain why it would be acceptable to wipe out an endangered species”.

Mr Townsend said the committee had received an email from Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation indicating that it would participate in the full hearing.

Ms Saunders said she had been vocal in expressing that opposition to Gunditj Mirring “and I will be keeping them informed”.

“I’ll protect this with every inch of my spirit,” she said.