ROADS TO RUIN
When the risks are recognised, what preparations are underway for Gonneville?
A serious collision involving a heavy vehicle can close a country road for hours. Add a fuel spill, a bushfire or an evacuation, and the consequences can reach well beyond the scene of the accident.
For Chittering and Toodyay families, these are roads to school, work and home. For emergency volunteers, they are the routes needed to reach people in trouble.
With Chalice Mining proposing decades of activity at Gonneville, we need more than assurances that road transport will be assessed. We need to know how the potential demands on emergency services and surrounding communities are being considered.
THE SHIRE ALREADY RECOGNISES THE VULNERABILITIES
The Shire of Chittering's 2026 emergency management documents identify transport incidents as a local risk. They also acknowledge that road closures can isolate rural communities, that alternative routes may be limited and that prolonged or simultaneous emergencies can place pressure on volunteer responders.
The documents recognise potential impacts on waterways, agricultural land, essential services and public resources.
Those are existing vulnerabilities, recorded by the Shire itself. They do not establish what additional risk Gonneville would create; that requires project-specific assessment.
But they give us a compelling reason to ask whether additional mine-related traffic and freight demands have been considered against the district's existing emergency capacity.
MORE THAN ONE HAULAGE ROUTE.
Chalice's published information continues to describe transport options as under investigation. The Shire's 2 October project update also confirmed that the latest environmental proposal amendment does not address the transport route.
A final concentrate haulage route matters, but it will not account for every mine-related movement. Construction equipment, fuel and chemical deliveries, supplies and other vehicles may travel on different roads.
Until the full transport task is explained, communities cannot properly understand which roads could be affected, what kinds of incidents need planning for, or whether existing emergency arrangements would be sufficient.
In September, Protect Our Valley – Chittering submitted a nine-page road safety and emergency response document to the Shire and relevant authorities.
It called for coordinated consideration of heavy vehicle incidents, hazardous materials, road closures, bushfire evacuation, emergency response capability and the potential costs of additional equipment or resources. It also requested formal consideration through the Shire's Local Emergency Management Committee.
After almost four weeks without a substantive response to those requests, the matter was followed up in October.
The Shire outlined its advocacy over freight routes and advised that further detailed consideration depended on a defined haulage route and transport proposal. However, the correspondence received did not confirm that the submission had been referred to the committee or that a coordinated, project-specific emergency risk assessment had begun.
We are not suggesting that no work is being done behind the scenes. We are asking what work has been undertaken, by whom, and when the community will be told.
MUST EVERYTHING WAIT FOR A FINAL ROUTE?
Detailed response plans clearly need information about vehicle types, traffic volumes and routes. But identifying the issues that require investigation need not wait until every detail is settled.
The proposed mine's scale and long operational life are already known. Authorities can begin identifying which agencies must be involved, what information Chalice needs to supply, and how potential risks across different roads and Shire boundaries will be assessed.
Emergency preparedness should help inform decisions about transport impacts, not simply follow them.
WHEN THE LOAD IS HAZARDOUS
Western Australia has specific requirements for transporting dangerous goods, including emergency arrangements for qualifying loads. Whether a particular material, including any mineral concentrate, is classified as dangerous goods depends on its actual characteristics and applicable rules.
For Gonneville, the community needs to know what relevant materials could be transported, in what quantities, and what response arrangements would apply.
How quickly could specialist help reach an incident? What happens if a spill threatens a winter creek, farmland or residential rainwater supplies? And how would the response work if a road is already closed or local volunteers are dealing with a bushfire?
Existing legal requirements matter. So does showing how they will work in this district.
TWO EMERGENCIES, ONE ROAD NETWORK
Imagine a serious truck collision closing a key road during a bushfire. Residents need to leave, emergency vehicles need access and traffic must be redirected, potentially onto smaller rural roads.
The Shire's emergency planning already recognises that incidents can produce compounding consequences. Gonneville's potential contribution to those pressures deserves specific examination, especially in communities with limited access options.
This is not criticism of emergency volunteers. It is about ensuring that the people who protect our communities have the information, planning and resources needed to respond.
WHAT ACTION HAS FOLLOWED?
UPDATE – 16 OCTOBER 2026
Shire CEO Melinda Prinsloo has confirmed that Gonneville-related road safety concerns were raised at the Local Emergency Management Committee (LEMC) meeting on 9 September 2026.
The CEO also confirmed that the Shire's advocacy extends to cumulative traffic impacts, emergency response and bushfire evacuation. We welcome this clarification.
However, the correspondence does not identify what specific actions or recommendations resulted from that meeting, or confirm whether our subsequent community safety submission of 14 September has been formally considered by the committee.
This does not mean that no action has been taken. It means important questions about coordinated emergency preparedness remain unanswered.
With the proposed mine located in Toodyay and potential transport impacts extending through Chittering and beyond, emergency planning cannot be considered within just one council boundary.
WHO CARRIES THE COST?
Additional safety works, specialist training, response equipment, road repairs and recovery activities may all have financial implications. Existing laws and insurance arrangements may determine liability in particular incidents, but the community should not have to guess how project-related requirements will be funded.
The Shire's emergency assessment already recognises that recovery costs can divert money from other community services.
Any additional needs arising from Gonneville should be identified, responsibilities clearly allocated and costs addressed before they fall on local services and ratepayers.
PREPAREDNESS BEFORE PRODUCTION
No one can eliminate every road accident or emergency. But governments, regulators and a project proponent can identify foreseeable risks, assess whether existing arrangements are adequate and explain what safeguards are needed.
The public deserves to know whether that coordinated work is occurring, which authorities are responsible, and how its findings will influence decisions about Gonneville.
Our roads are not merely transport connections on a project map. They are lifelines for families, farms, emergency volunteers and entire communities.
The mine would create additional transport demands. The people who live here should not be left uncertain about who is preparing for their consequences.
Public safety must be considered before those demands arrive.
Protect Our Valley – Chittering | AHMAG Subcommittee
13 October 2026
SOURCES & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Shire of Chittering – 2026 Local Emergency Management Plan
https://www.chittering.wa.gov.au/lemc
Source 2 – Shire of Chittering, March 2026 Emergency Management Committee Documents
Includes the emergency risk assessment, particularly pages 14–16
Source 3 – Chalice Mining: Gonneville Project FAQs
Chalice's published information about its proposed transport routes, including road and rail options.
https://www.gonnevilleproject.com.au/faq/
Source 4 – Shire of Chittering: Gonneville Project Update, 2 October 2026
Confirms that Chalice's latest environmental proposal amendment did not address the transport route.
https://www.chittering.wa.gov.au/news/chalice-mining-gonneville-project-update/10956
Source 5 – WorkSafe WA: Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods
Information about Western Australia's regulations governing dangerous goods transport.
https://www.worksafe.wa.gov.au/safe-transport-dangerous-goods
Source 6 – WorkSafe WA: Emergency Responders for Dangerous Goods Transport
Explains the requirements for approved emergency responders when transporting qualifying dangerous goods loads.
https://www.worksafe.wa.gov.au/emergency-responders-dangerous-goods-transport-emergencies
Source 7 – WorkSafe WA: Route Restrictions for Dangerous Goods Transport
Explains route selection considerations, including schools, populated areas, narrow roads, water catchments and environmentally sensitive areas.
https://www.worksafe.wa.gov.au/route-restrictions-dangerous-goods-and-explosives-transport
8. Protect Our Valley – Chittering
Gonneville Project – Road Safety, Emergency Response Capability and Community Risk, September 2026. Formal submission and subsequent correspondence with the Shire of Chittering. Documents retained by the group.