Public hearing into train stabling facility wraps up

A PUBLIC hearing run by the state government about the proposed Waurn Ponds Train Maintenance and Stabling Facility Project concluded last week.

If accepted, the proposal will see the state government acquire about 61 hectares of land, now used for farming, at 255 Reservoir Road Mt Duneed.

At the Government Land Standing Advisory Committee hearing, both the Surf Coast Shire and City of Greater Geelong councils gave submissions in opposition.

Both councils acknowledged the need for such a facility but questioned the planned location.

The shire, in its submission, stated it was unconvinced of “the strategic merit of the selected site”, and the facility’s negative effect on locals would be profound.

“It is likely that the facility will be readily visible from many locations in the north of the Surf Coast Shire, both during the day and night.

“Other impacts common to train stabling yards, and likely to be amplified by the particular characteristics of the location, would include noise generation and storm water runoff.”

In Rail Projects Victoria’s closing submission, representative Chris Townshend criticised both councils and stated their submissions lacked “intellectual rigour”.

He conceded the facility may affect some people negatively but argued this was inevitable, and changing the location would “only shift the problem,” a point he believed was overlooked by the councils.

“While both councils seemingly recognised the vital role that the infrastructure will serve, neither advanced a positive position regarding its future provision.”

A central part of RPV’s submission was highlighting the scope of the hearing. Mr Townshend noted many submissions opposing the facility fell outside this remit. He also told the committee the purpose of the hearing was not to consider alternatives to the proposed site.

A major frustration for many of the parties involved was the lack of transparency over alternative sites for the facility.

The City of Greater Geelong voiced this in their submission. Similarly, last year, Member for Western Victoria Stuart Grimley criticised the lack of openness about the plan.

“I note that I was also shocked to hear that a Freedom of Information request was required for the landowner to find out why their land was chosen to be acquired over other options,” he said.

The committee is due to file their report in May.