Issues with the DSDBI & Work Plans / Work Authority Applications or Variations

WORK Authority and Work Plan applications and variations have been on the CMPA’s agenda since 2005 when in September that year a workshop was held at LaTrobe University to specifically review the ‘Checklist for Work Plans’ and the ‘Triggers for Work Plan Variation’.

The draft strategies proposed by attendees at that point with the (then) DPI included:

• That all parties work together to release both documents
• That the DPI inspectorate and consultants who specialise in Work Plan applications meet on a regular basis to discuss current protocols (this could include formal, refresher training)
• That the DPI reports to the industry on the time frames and performance of the Work Plan process
• That the DPI establishes a steering committee to address particularly issues raised as a result of the forum, namely:
  • Accountabilities and recommended time-frames to prevent applications becoming stalemated
  • Development of a glossary of terms and phrases to ensure clarity and consistency
  • Development of a covering letter for planning permit applications detailing the significance of the DPI’s processes
  • Development of a comprehensive listing of referral bodies and primary contacts by region that an applicant may be required to consult

Although some of these issues have been addressed (notably the reporting to industry), many have fallen by the way-side and continue to present applicants with difficulties.

Below are some frustrating issues that have come across our desk in the last couple of months. These examples are not in any particular order, but please come forward and contact the CMPA with your own examples.

• Work Authority/Work Plan Fees. Confusion as to what is the correct application fee and when is it required, lost cheques and the lack of an official DSDBI invoice
• The inaccuracy of the DSDBI historical data relating to the Work Authority boundary definitions resulting in Work Authority Variations, and the associated implications
• Inspectors with a lack of practical knowledge and understanding of quarrying activities often issuing unrealistic directives
• Differing interpretations as to what is or is not allowed to occur in “buffer zones”
• Differing interpretations as to what is acceptable in a Community Engagement Plan
• The “DSDBI” asking for “simplified” submissions, but individual inspectors/regions requesting “more specific” information, particularly with respect to “..showing staged rehabilitation”
• Differing interpretations of the triggers for AAV & the need for a CHMP.
• DSDBI reluctance to challenge/discuss unrealistic “conditions” from referral authorities, notably Melbourne Water.
• Dealing with often contradictory conditions/requirements from referral agencies under the statutory referral process (with no support from DSDBI)
• Impracticality of agreeing to a rehabilitation bond with no current liability, and Work Authority conditions and Planning Permit conditions being first finalised.
• Inconsistencies between Work Plans and Planning Permits. Often changes/compromises are required to get a planning permit through, particularly at VCAT, and these changes not reflected in the “stamped” Work Plan.
• Contradictions between the “Stamped” Work Plan & Work Plan Conditions, particularly when the two documents often do not reside together, the “Stamped Work Plan” may often be a plan on the wall for all to follow, whilst the Work Plan Conditions get buried in a draw.
• The blind adoption of the Geotechnical Risk zone without any common sense approach, particularly in single bench basalt quarries and sand pits where near vertical faces have been stable for many years
• An overly conservative approach to geotechnical factors
• Clarification as to who needs to provide advice and what form this takes (i.e. current planning status is required from the council; CHMP status signed off on a DSDBI form)
• The limited provision of the standard Work Authority conditions and the poor wording of individual conditions (i.e. “DPI” remains in use in conditions
• issued in December 2013)

To be more specific, these are some examples of reasons why various Work Plan Submissions have been found to be deficient:

• General Location plans with “incorrect” scales
• Site plans that include aerial photography
• Rehabilitation plans that do not specify the power supply to dewatering pumps
• Soil stockpiles higher than 2m
• No “detailed location” of soil stockpiles on development plans
• Specific directives to remove OH&S comments from the Work Plan Submission.
• The insistence of a 1V:3H rehabilitation batter in a
• multi bench quarry, when all that is legally required is
• safe & stable

The Secretariat would greatly appreciate your comments on this matter so that we can recommence in-depth discussions with the DSDBI to hopefully and finally address the uncertainties surrounding Work Authority and Work Plan applications and variations.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login