Paintback to review planning application for West Footscray site after community objections

A proposed paint recycling facility to be built close to home in West Footscray has been halted by group of determined residents

A paint recycling facility proposed for the inner west could be knocked back after residents exposed health and environmental issues as well as technical errors within planning documents.

A ‘circular economy’ facility proposed for West Footscray would oversee the end-to-end sorting and separating of paint from original products, with up to 10,000 tonnes of paint processed each year.

The site would be located at Wattyl Paints’ existing Graingers Rd facility and managed by Paintback, a not-for-profit organisation established by the paint industry to collect and repurpose unwanted paint and divert it from landfill.

Paintback has proposed a new paint recycling facility at Wattyl Paint’s existing West Footscray site. Picture: Nilsson Jones

However, more than 100 objections have been received, with community members claiming the “toxic, hazardous and disruptive” facility does not belong within the heart of a residential space.

A 300-strong petition also claims the facility would increase air pollution, traffic and noise within a short distance of homes, a childcare centre, a park and a number of small businesses.

The closest home on Robbs Rd, just 34m from the proposed site, was omitted from Paintback’s original impact assessment and is located on industrial-zoned land due to incorrect planning boundaries.

According to EPA guidelines, an ink, paint mixing, or processing plant should not be within 500m of residential land.

Paintback’s proposed permit will be reviewed after it requested Maribyrnong Council postpone a planning forum with stakeholders, including community objectors, originally scheduled for Wednesday night.

Resident Ashley Norriss said he was surprised the council did not request Paintback to withdraw its application entirely after a number of issues and inaccuracies were exposed by “novice” residents.

Resident, Ashley Norriss said planning documents in Paintback’s application to council was full of technical errors and failed to include the most affected property. Picture: Nilsson Jones

“The council has granted them a free pass to re-jig the numbers, and it took novice residents to expose damning technical issues with an application by big business to council,” he said.

“Now we see evidence of this as they scuttle away to recalibrate their numbers and subsequently cancel a forum where these issues would be presented without sufficient responses by Paintback itself.

“It is astonishing they have also been given leeway to access the objections and granted ‘extra’ time to prepare counter arguments ... I doubt this would work the other way around.”

Paintback Chief executive Karen Gomes said the forum was deferred to allow planners to seek further technical input from a variety of experts following matters raised by the local community, as well as the EPA and the council.

Paintback chief executive Karen Gomez said the organisation was committed to the highest environmental standards and to being a good neighbour. Picture: Supplied

“Paintback is committed to the highest environmental standards and to being a good neighbour”, Ms Gomez said.

“We do not collect industrial coatings or chemicals ... our role is to address household paints that have already been manufactured and are no longer required.

“Paintback takes the consultation process very seriously.

“Holding the Planning Forum before we have received these reports would not allow us to discuss them — in any meaningful way with residents ... and risks Paintback’s genuine interest in this consultation, frustrating the residents and having them lose faith in the process.”

An EPA spokesman said because it required additional information to advance the application, the timeline was halted.

However, the EPA has decided to keep the submissions channel open and the engage.vic website will be updated.