Shire Of Chittering Responses

The Shire of Chittering is not the decisionmaker for the Gonneville Project, but the project and its proposed infrastructure have significant implications for the Shire, its residents and surrounding districts.

As the elected local government representing the district, the Shire also has opportunities to make formal submissions, raise concerns, advocate for its community and participate in relevant consultation and approval processes. Its institutional voice is therefore an important part of how community and local impacts are represented to State and Commonwealth decision-makers.

This section records questions raised with the Shire of Chittering, the responses provided, and matters where further information or clarification has been sought.

It is intended to provide an accurate public record as community understanding of the project develops.

15th September 2026 Ordinary Council Meeting

At the Shire of Chittering Ordinary Council Meeting on 15 September 2026, residents submitted a series of questions concerning the proposed Gonneville Project and its potential impacts on Chittering.

The following records the questions put to Council and the responses provided during Public Question Time.

AIR, RAINWATER AND HUMAN HEALTH

QUESTION

Many Chittering landholders rely on roof collected rainwater for drinking. Has Council obtained or requested independent assessment of potential human health and drinking water risks to Chittering residents from Gonneville-related dust, contaminants and increased project traffic, including the need to establish baseline air and rainwater quality before construction begins? If not, will Council please seek that independent assessment for its ratepayers?

SHIRE RESPONSE

The Shire has not commissioned a separate air, rainwater or human health assessment. As outlined in the opening statement, dust and contaminants arising directly from the mine site are matters for State and Commonwealth assessment processes. Council will advocate for potential impacts on Chittering residents, including project traffic impacts and the need for appropriate baseline information to be properly considered.

A separate Shire-funded assessment could duplicate those processes and create a significant unbudgeted cost for ratepayers.

REGULAR PUBLIC REPORTING

QUESTION

Given the scale and potentially permanent consequences of the Gonneville mine and associated infrastructure for Chittering, including the potential industrialisation of the Chittering Valley, why is Gonneville not a standing or regular item on Council agendas, with public reporting on project developments, Council advocacy and correspondence with State and Commonwealth Ministers and agencies?

Much of the work of identifying and communicating these developments to Chittering residents has instead fallen to unpaid community volunteers.

As regular public reporting does not require Council to support or endorse the project, will Council commit to regular public reporting so ratepayers can see what action is being taken, what responses are being received and how this project is progressing?

SHIRE RESPONSE

The activity outlined in the opening statement demonstrates that the Shire has been closely engaged, despite Gonneville not being a standard agenda item. Council agendas are primarily for matters requiring a decision.

Significant developments will be reported when reliable information, a submission, an advocacy position, or Council direction is required. Council focus remains the freight and infrastructure corridor impacts within Chittering, rather than approval of a mine site outside our Shire.

Resident: “So that was a no?”

Council: “Well, that’s our response.”

MENTAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL IMPACTS

QUESTION

People in Chittering are already suffering significant stress and mental-health impacts from the Gonneville Project before it has even started. Landholders facing the proposed corridor are living with uncertainty over their homes, land and futures, while the wider community faces the cumulative impacts of a major mine and its associated infrastructure.

Has Council independently assessed the mental-health and wellbeing impacts already being experienced, and what that cumulative human cost could become if Gonneville proceeds? If not, on what basis can Council consider this project acceptable or inevitable in this location without first understanding the human cost to the ratepayers it represents?

SHIRE RESPONSE

Council acknowledges the stress and uncertainty reported by affected landholders. The Shire has not commissioned a separate mental health or social impact assessment, and Council has not determined that the project as a whole is acceptable.

Council’s June resolution expressly acknowledged and supported affected landowners objecting to the infrastructure corridor. Council will continue advocating for social wellbeing, land use and property impacts to be properly assessed.

A separate Shire-funded study could duplicate statutory processes and impose an unbudgeted cost on ratepayers.

CATCHMENT AND WATERWAY IMPACTS

QUESTION

The Ellen Brook and Brockman River catchments form the Ellen Brockman sub-region of the Swan Catchment. Together they cover 2,240km² of water catchment. Local government authorities within the catchments include Chittering, Gingin, Victoria Plains, Toodyay and Swan. Chittering’s waterways form part of that connected catchment, and feed directly into the Derbal Yirragan Djarlgarro - Swan Canning river system. The Ellen Brook catchment within Chittering is identified as the major contributor of nutrients to the Swan Canning Estuary. Impacts can extend well beyond an infrastructure footprint and any increase in sediment transport and nutrient mobilisation through mining and associated infrastructure is an unacceptable risk for waterway health. The state government body charged with protecting these waterways in association with local government and community groups says that “Land use and developments must protect and enhance the ecological health, cultural significance, community benefits, amenity and heritage values of the Swan Canning river system”.

What assessment or advice has the Shire obtained about the potential impacts of Gonneville-associated clearing, earthworks and infrastructure on the catchment, and has that information been provided to the authorities assessing the proposal?

SHIRE RESPONSE

The Shire has not commissioned a separate catchment-wide assessment. Hydrology, sediment, water quality and cumulative catchment impacts are specialist matters for State and Commonwealth environmental assessment.

However, Council has already raised drainage lines connected to the Ellen Brook catchment and cumulative environmental impacts with the State Environment Minister and the State and Commonwealth Ministers responsible for water and environmental matters.

The Shire has advocated for rigorous consideration of drainage, catchment and watercourse effects and for avoidance to be considered before mitigation.

BIODIVERSITY AND ECOLOGICAL LINKAGES

QUESTION

The Shire’s Local Biodiversity Strategy 2022 identifies ecological linkages as essential for maintaining biodiversity across Chittering, particularly where habitat is already fragmented. The proposed Gonneville infrastructure corridor would involve further clearing through areas of remnant vegetation and wildlife habitat.

Has Council assessed the proposed infrastructure corridor against its own Local Biodiversity Strategy, including the potential loss or fragmentation of ecological linkages, and will Council provide its biodiversity mapping and strategy to the proponent and the State and Commonwealth authorities assessing the proposal?

SHIRE RESPONSE

The Shire has not undertaken a separate specialist assessment of the corridor against the Local Biodiversity Strategy 2022.

Council has already raised tree preservation areas, wildlife habitat, vegetation, drainage and cumulative impacts with relevant State and Commonwealth ministers. It has advocated for transparent environmental trade-offs, avoidance before mitigation, and assessment of cumulative impacts on Chittering’s landscape, amenity and environmental values.

The Shire can also provide its Local Biodiversity Strategy and relevant mapping to the proponent and assessing authorities.

CARNABY’S BLACK-COCKATOO BREEDING HABITAT

QUESTION

Carnaby’s black-cockatoo is a threatened species whose recovery depends on retaining breeding habitat, including mature hollow bearing trees and the habitat needed to support breeding birds.

Given that Carnaby’s breeding and nesting habitat occurs within and around areas potentially affected by Gonneville associated infrastructure in Chittering, what advocacy will Council undertake to ensure significant breeding habitat and mature hollow bearing trees are not sacrificed for infrastructure serving a mine outside this Shire?

SHIRE RESPONSE

Council has already advocated to State and Commonwealth environment decision-makers for vegetation and habitat impacts to be avoided where practicable, for alternatives to be rigorously tested, and for cumulative impacts to be assessed.

Council will continue advocating for Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo breeding and feeding habitat, mature hollow-bearing trees, vegetation connectivity, and lower-impact corridor alternatives to be properly considered.

Final threatened species, clearing and environmental approvals are determined by State and Commonwealth authorities.

HABITAT AS A FUNCTIONING SYSTEM

QUESTION

Carnaby’s breeding habitat is not simply an individual nest tree. Successful breeding also depends on surrounding feeding habitat, water and vegetation connectivity.

Will Council advocate for the cumulative impact of clearing and fragmentation from Gonneville associated infrastructure on Carnaby’s breeding, feeding and movement habitat in Chittering to be assessed as a functioning habitat system rather than considering individual trees or vegetation patches in isolation?

SHIRE RESPONSE

Yes. Council supports cumulative impacts being assessed across the functioning habitat system, including breeding habitat, feeding resources, water and vegetation connectivity, rather than individual trees or isolated areas alone.

This is consistent with the Shire’s existing ministerial advocacy for avoidance before mitigation and for cumulative effects on habitat, landscape and local environmental values to be assessed.

Council can advocate for that approach but cannot prescribe the assessment methodology or determine a final decision.