Lara incinerator: VCAT rules in EPA’s favour, refuses application by Bisinella Developments

A legal bid by a developer to stop a controversial waste-to-energy plant being established at Lara has been dealt a blow by the state’s planning umpire.

Lino and Richard Bisinella at the site of the proposed Lara incinerator on McManus Road. Picture: Mike Dugdale

Opposition to the planned incinerator at Lara faces an uphill battle, after a the state’s planning umpire rejected a legal bid against it.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal last month refused a bid by L Bisinella Developments to declare the Environment Protection Authority (EPA)’s December 2023 decision to grant a development licence unlawful, it can be revealed.

Concept art of the proposed Lara Incinerator. Source: Prospect Hill International

The Bisinella Group had asked the tribunal to make a “declaration” under the Environmental Protection Act, arguing the EPA’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error.

Under the act, VCAT has the power to make certain declarations, including whether a decision made by the original decision making authority is valid.

VCAT deputy president Carol Daicic refused Bisinella’s application for declaratory relief in a roughly 160,000 word ruling on June 20.

The decision came almost a year after the tribunal heard arguments in the matter across July and August last year, followed by further submissions in September.

Bisinella’s case relied on four grounds; including that there was failure on the part of the EPA to exercise jurisdiction and a failure to take into account mandatory relevant considerations.

Richard Bisinella speaking at a rally in Lara to protest the Victorian Environment Protection Agency’s decision to grant the licence. Picture: Alan Barber

The company also argued the EPA’s decision resulted in uncertainty as there was “no effective approval” and lastly that the decision was “beyond power” because significant issues were deferred without the ability for third parties to review.

Prospect Hill International, the company behind the proposed incinerator, argued Bisinella’s grounds are all based on the same proposition, likening it to a fancy restaurant that has “duck cooked three ways”.

Both PHI and the EPA contended that Bisinella did not discharge the burden of proof, and Ms Daicic agreed.

“Ultimately, I have found Bisinella has not satisfied me that EPA’s decision of 6 December 2023 is affected by jurisdictional error,” Ms Daicic said.

“I am not persuaded by Bisinella’s central proposition that, on the balance of probabilities, that either EPA misunderstood its statutory obligations or failed to take into account mandatory relevant considerations.”

Further, Ms Daicic said the EPA had not failed to exercise its discretion

“The Application (by PHI) was lawfully made on the basis of a concept design and the Development Licence approves what was applied for, with conditions ensuring verification of what is intended is approved,” she said.

PHI’s facility aims to process 400,000 tonnes of waste annually, generating 35 megawatts of electricity.

The proposal has attracted widespread opposition from the community, businesses, state and federal MPs and members of the opposition.

Concerns include its proximity to homes – just 350m away – potential health risks, environmental impact, and the towering 80m-tall chimney altering the region’s skyline.

Ms Daicic reserved costs in the matter, with any applications for costs needing to be made by July 20.

Originally published as Lara incinerator: VCAT rules in EPA’s favour, refuses application by Bisinella Developments