Group opposed to Bulla tip calls for environment court to be set up

FOLLOWING an “embarrassing” bureaucratic bungle, a group opposed to a tip where asbestos was dumped without approval is calling for a new environment court.

Bulla tip north of Melbourne. The tip has links with underworld financial advisor Tom Karras.

A LOBBY group fighting against a tip in Bulla has called for an environment court to be established in Victoria to deal with landfill concerns.

It comes just weeks after the Environment Protection Authority admitted to an administration bungle allowing asbestos to be dumped at the Bulla Tip and Quarry on Sunbury Rd without proper approval. It prompted an independent review into landfill asbestos licences.

EPA chief executive Nial Finegan said it was a “bit embarrassing” but they were holding themselves to account and would wait for the results of the review.

“What my gut tells me is there was a break in communications internally around the Bulla tip,” Mr Finegan said.

“We’ll see what it brings.

“If it comes back and it’s all a dire mess (involving more than one landfill), I’ll have to sit and scratch my head and take action on that. I’ll be very disappointed if it is.”

Residents have campaigned for years to shut the tip amid concerns over litter, pollution, odour and potential asbestos exposure.

RELATED: Bulla tip asbestos administrative blunder sparks state review into landfill licences

RELATED: People urged to get medical checks amid claims of asbestos at Bulla tip

In June, VCAT agreed to extend the tip’s operating permit to 2023, overriding a Hume Council decision to prolong it by just two years and residents’ calls to close it down.

Hume Council chief executive Domenic Isola earlier expressed angst over the revelations.

“Our community has relied on the EPA to ensure that the Bulla tip does not pose a risk to public health and we are concerned by the EPA’s own admissions of failure,” he said.

Stop Bulla Toxic Tip member Carmel Egan is now calling for an environment court to be started to streamline landfill inquiries.

“We can’t rely on VCAT to deal with these sorts of issues because their parameters seem to be very much focused on the legal implication of the planning decision,” Ms Egan said.

“They don’t really seem to have the scope to be able to take into account community and environment concerns. I think in the long run it would work better for the landfill operators as well.”

Environment courts already exist in other states including New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. And it’s not the first time calls have been made.

In 2011, Slater and Gordon Lawyers outlined the need for an environment court following a
$23 million payout to Cranbourne residents in the Brookland Greens estate who were evacuated from their homes in 2008 due to a methane gas leak from nearby landfill.

Environment Minister Lisa Neville said while the establishment of an environment court was not being considered, a Government inquiry into the EPA would examine the regulator’s powers and resourcing to ensure it was “best prepared to act on community concerns and tackle modern-day challenges such as pollution and contamination”.

Ms Egan said her group would now focus on the state inquiry into the EPA.

“It needs the government at the end of this inquiry to hopefully come out and give this organisation some muscle to refocus and empower them to act against rogue operators,” Ms Egan said.

Mr Finegan said setting up an environment court was a matter for the government to decide, but encouraged people to make a submission to the inquiry.

Applications to VCAT’s planning and environment list account for about 3 per cent of the tribunal’s caseload, according to a spokeswoman. She said such matters could be complex and lengthy but that tribunals were faster, cheaper and offered more flexible solutions than court.

The results of the state inquiry will be published on the EPA website within the next month.