WHY THIS CORRIDOR? WHY NOT AVOID OUR COMMUNITIES AND VALLEY?

Chalice Mining has selected a preferred infrastructure corridor through established rural residential communities in the heart of the Chittering Valley. But why was this route chosen, and why haven't residents been shown the evidence that alternatives avoiding their communities were properly considered?

For families who have built homes, raised children, established businesses, invested their savings and planned their futures here, this is not simply an engineering decision.

It is a decision with potentially enormous consequences for people's lives, properties, livelihoods, financial security and the natural environment they have chosen to live amongst.

Yet one fundamental question remains unanswered.

Could these impacts have been avoided in the first place?

ALTERNATIVE ROUTES — BUT ALTERNATIVES TO WHAT?

In its original 2024 Commonwealth environmental referral, Chalice identified two water-route options, two power-route options and additional contingencies.

Further investigations and environmental surveys followed during 2025.

By May 2026, Chalice had identified a preferred infrastructure corridor and was contacting landholders along that alignment.

Its subsequent environmental amendment proposed a single preferred corridor for the water pipeline and powerline.

But the alternatives publicly identified do not demonstrate that Chalice seriously evaluated a route avoiding the Chittering Valley's established rural residential communities altogether.

Instead, the published options concentrated on different alignments through the broader affected region.

Were routes bypassing these communities ever genuinely investigated?

If so, where are the maps, comparative assessments and reasons for rejecting them?

And if they were not investigated, why not?

Simply comparing several routes through the same affected communities does not answer the larger question of whether those communities could reasonably have been avoided altogether.

AVOIDING IMPACTS SHOULD COME FIRST

Western Australia's Environmental Protection Authority recognises a fundamental principle in environmental assessment: the mitigation hierarchy.

The first step is to avoid adverse environmental impacts wherever reasonably practicable.

Only then should attention turn to minimising, rehabilitating or offsetting impacts that cannot be avoided.

The EPA also recognises social surroundings as an environmental factor, including the social, cultural and aesthetic values of places important to communities.

So why shouldn't avoiding established homes, rural residential estates and environmentally sensitive areas be a priority when planning major mining infrastructure?

Chalice has discussed measures to reduce the impacts of its preferred corridor, including undergrounding the powerline through the rural residential zone near Maryville Heights.

But undergrounding a powerline does not remove the pipeline, excavation, construction disturbance, vegetation impacts or the ongoing presence of infrastructure.

Reducing the consequences of a chosen route is not the same as demonstrating that those consequences were unavoidable.

Before asking communities to accept decades of potential disruption and change, shouldn't the first question be whether there was a reasonable way to avoid imposing those impacts on them at all?

WHY WEREN'T COMMUNITIES MEANINGFULLY CONSULTED BEFORE THE ROUTE WAS CHOSEN?

This may be one of the most troubling aspects of the entire corridor-selection process.

Chalice says it undertook landholder engagement during 2025, including seeking access to properties for environmental surveys along potential routes.

Some landholders were contacted during those investigations.

But many residents along the subsequently preferred corridor did not learn that their properties and communities could be directly affected until May 2026.

By that stage, Chalice had already identified its preferred corridor through their rural residential estates.

Why weren't these communities meaningfully involved while the broader alternatives were still being investigated?

Requesting access for environmental surveys is not the same as consulting residents about the potentially life-changing consequences of selecting a particular route.

These are not empty parcels of land on an engineering map.

They are people's homes. Their retirement plans. Their livelihoods. Their children's futures. Properties purchased, developed and cared for over many years, often representing a lifetime of hard work.

Residents understand their local wildlife, waterways, fire risks, vegetation, seasonal conditions and the practical realities of living in these communities.

They also understand something that cannot be fully appreciated from an engineering drawing: what their homes and surroundings mean to them.

That knowledge, and the consequences of potentially losing the quiet enjoyment and security of their properties, should have informed the earliest comparison of alternative routes.

How can community impacts be adequately weighed if the people who would bear those impacts were not meaningfully involved while the options were being narrowed?

Consultation should not begin, for many affected residents, when the question has effectively changed from "Where should this infrastructure go?" to "How can we make this preferred route work?"

And being informed that a preferred corridor has been identified is not the same as being given a genuine opportunity to influence where that corridor should go.

The community should have been part of the decision-making process, not simply informed of its outcome.

WHAT WAS GIVEN THE GREATEST WEIGHT?

Chalice says its preferred corridor was identified using engineering data, environmental survey results and landholder feedback.

But identifying the information considered does not explain how competing priorities were weighed against one another.

Were construction costs and engineering convenience given greater weight than avoiding established communities?

Were alternatives that would have reduced impacts on homes and private properties rejected because they were more expensive?

How were impacts on mature woodland, wildlife habitat, waterways, farmland, bushfire risk and rural amenity compared between different routes?

Were the long-term consequences for affected families assessed before the preferred corridor was identified?

And how much importance was given to avoiding those impacts altogether?

We do not know.

It would be unfair to assume that construction costs determined the outcome without seeing the evidence.

But it is equally unreasonable to expect affected communities to accept that the preferred route represents the best overall outcome without being shown how that conclusion was reached.

A route that is cheaper or easier to construct is not automatically the route with the least overall impact.

And the full consequences of a decision cannot be measured by construction costs alone.

THE IMPACTS WON'T END WHEN CONSTRUCTION FINISHES

Chalice's proposed infrastructure includes a lengthy water pipeline, high-voltage electricity infrastructure and associated construction and maintenance requirements.

The preferred assessment corridor is approximately 100 metres wide. Chalice says this does not represent the final clearing footprint, which would be narrower.

But the physical footprint of infrastructure is only part of its potential impact.

There are also consequences for adjoining properties, vegetation, wildlife movement, waterways, access, amenity and the ongoing use and enjoyment of private land.

For some families, uncertainty has already affected how they view their future in the Valley.

These impacts deserve consideration from the earliest planning stages, not simply after an alignment has been selected.

The Gonneville Project has not yet received its required environmental approvals, and a final investment decision remains outstanding.

Yet residents are already facing the prospect of significant and potentially long-lasting changes to their homes and surroundings.

Why should communities be expected to accommodate these consequences without first being shown that reasonable alternatives to avoid them were properly examined?