HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-05-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

POLLUTION COMPLAINTS

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (15:54): Recently I had a number of complaints from constituents concerning the failure of a local council to police planning conditions that that same council had put in place on development approvals for light industry.

I am just going to relate two separate complaints that I have been attempting to work through with the residents. The first relates to a constituent who complained about noise, dust and fumes emanating from a metal fabrication property and coming over his back fence. The constituent had raised the issue with council more than four years ago. The complaint related to dust coming from a truck and other vehicles using a vacant block next to the factory.

There were also complaints about noise caused by heavy metal being dropped onto a concrete driveway outside the factory, as well as fumes and smoke given off by the oxyacetylene cutting equipment used to cut large steel sheets on the factory driveway. So, it made a lot of noise. The constituent obviously became very frustrated with the lack of action being taken and he was forced to seek the release of the planning approval documents for the site under the Freedom of Information Act. These documents clearly showed that the council had placed conditions on the site, which included measures designed to limit dust.

The constituent came to my office seeking assistance and he also lodged a complaint with the state Ombudsman's office. It is clear that the owner of the land failed to comply with the original development approvals and that the lessee of the factory had failed to adhere to the various conditions, with some work being conducted outside the factory. When I became involved, it was also apparent that the relationship between the constituent and the council had hit an all time low. Quite clearly, it should not have taken so long for the council to take the resident's complaints seriously and, as a result, the relationship between the resident and the factory workers had become caustic, I think is one way of putting it.

We have been able to go through the various issues with the resident, the factory owner and the council and, after several months, most of the issues involving this factory have been resolved. Fortunately, the relationship between the resident and the workers has also markedly improved, but mainly because of the goodwill of the resident and the factory owner. The issue caused my constituent significant anxiety and, given the delay in resolution, it is no wonder. Unfortunately, new concerns have arisen which are yet to be resolved. Again the residents—and it is not just one resident, there are several—are frustrated at the apparent delay in council dealing with these new complaints, despite the fact that there is considerable merit in the residents' concerns.

Clearly, as I said, it should not have taken so long for a council to take the resident's complaints seriously. I suspect part of that might have been because the constituent was considered a whinger, and so his complaints were fobbed off. What is interesting in this case is that the investigating officer from the Ombudsman's office had verbally expressed concern with the council's complaints handling procedures and requested that it take immediate action to improve the procedure. Had there been a better procedure, the frustration and anxiety caused to this one particular resident (and others) would quite possibly have been diminished. Certainly in this case it seems that it is far easier for a resident to resolve a dispute with a neighbour over noise when that noise emanates from a nearby factory.

The second case (which is just a few hundred metres from the previous case) involved residents complaining that employees from a nearby commercial property were choking the street by parking in it all day. Again this was raised with the council—I am talking about the same council—over four years, and the council at the time advised one resident that it was going to impose some parking restrictions in the street, but it did not do that either. We have been able to resolve that issue because, fortunately, the business has moved on. The point is that councils have a duty to monitor and manage light industry, particularly when it is close to residential properties. They approve light industry going into that area, therefore they have an obligation.

I know that sometimes it can be a difficult task when dealing with residents' complaints, but certainly ignoring them is not a satisfactory way to deal with these matters. While we still have some ongoing issues with this particular council—and I am sure the Employee Ombudsman does as well—I hope it gets its act together.

Time expired.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT