PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

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.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY

QUESTION

Has Council assessed whether the Shire’s existing emergency response arrangements and local capability are adequate for the potential increase in road crashes, hazardous material incidents, structural fires and other emergencies associated with Gonneville related construction and heavy vehicle movements? If so, what was the outcome; and if no assessment has been undertaken, why not?

SHIRE RESPONSE

The Shire has not undertaken a Gonneville-specific emergency capability assessment.

The briefing provided by Chalice today included general information about route options and potential mitigations, but it was not an independent assessment of emergency response capability.

Council has already asked the Transport Minister for proper consideration of local road safety and freight effects associated with the proposed transport corridor.

As sufficient verified information becomes available, credible corridor-related risks can also be considered through the Shire’s emergency arrangements and Local Emergency Management Committee. The committee cannot direct State emergency agencies or allocate their particular resources.

A separate Shire-funded review could duplicate agency responsibilities and impose an unbudgeted cost on ratepayers.

PRIVATE LAND, PRODUCTIVE FARMLAND AND ALTERNATIVES

QUESTION

What information has Council received about the number of Chittering properties and farming operations potentially affected by the proposed Gonneville infrastructure corridor, including permanent access or maintenance requirements, and has Council been told what happens where a landholder does not consent?

SHIRE RESPONSE

Yes, Council’s position remains unchanged and is supported by its formal resolution of 17 June 2026 and subsequent ministerial advocacy.

Council has called for existing transport and utility corridors to be used wherever practicable, lower-impact alternatives to be genuinely assessed, and settled rural residential areas to be avoided where possible.

Council has also advocated for deep underground solutions where a corridor cannot avoid those communities and can be designed without materially restricting use or enjoyment of the land.

Chalice advised Council today that route options and mitigations remain under active investigation and consultation is continuing. That information was supplied by the proponent today and does not alter Council’s advocacy position whatsoever.

FUTURE-PROOFING

QUESTION

Gonneville associated infrastructure has been described as being “future proofed”. Has Council sought an explanation of exactly what that means, including whether the infrastructure could later be upgraded, expanded, retrofitted or used by other projects, and if so, what has Council been told?

SHIRE RESPONSE

The Shire has sought greater clarity about the long-term implications and potential future use of the proposed infrastructure.

During the briefing provided to Council immediately prior to this meeting, Chalice advised that references to future-proofing arose from earlier discussions regarding broader electricity network upgrades proposed elsewhere in the region, including infrastructure associated with future renewable energy generation.

Chalice advised that those broader network upgrade timeframes do not currently align with the Gonneville project. Chalice further advised that the current proposal relates specifically to a 132 kV transmission line supported by on-site solar generation, and that this infrastructure is intended to meet the project’s forecast power requirements.

Chalice also advised that the infrastructure being proposed and the approvals being sought are directly linked and should not be regarded as separate authorisations for future expansion.

Council was advised that any future proposal requiring materially different infrastructure or capacity would be subject to its own assessment and approval processes.

This information was provided by the proponent during this afternoon’s briefing and has not been independently verified by the Shire.

While that explanation provides some additional clarity regarding the current proposal, Council will continue to seek transparency regarding any future implications for affected landowners and communities and will continue to advocate for infrastructure solutions that minimise the impacts on rural residential properties, landscape character and community amenity.

HAULAGE ROUTE

QUESTION

Has Council been advised of the proposed Gonneville haulage route through Chittering and, if so, what is that route?

SHIRE RESPONSE

During the briefing provided to Council immediately before this meeting, Chalice advised that route options and mitigations remain under active investigation and consultation is continuing.

Chalice has requested that detailed investigation outcomes not be publicly released at this stage ahead of any public confirmation of a final route.

Accordingly, the Shire can confirm that no final haulage route has been advised or approved.

Council has already raised local road, freight and community safety impacts with the Transport Minister and remains concerned about sustained freight movements on roads serving residents, agriculture or tourism operations.

The Shire cannot simply prohibit lawful road use, but it can assess impacts and seek proponent-funded upgrades, maintenance, monitoring and restoration once a route is sufficiently developed and formally proposed.

WORKFORCE AND TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

QUESTION

Has Council been advised of the proposed Gonneville haulage route through Chittering and, if so, what is that route? Given the Gonneville PFS forecasts a construction workforce of up to 1,200 people, has Council also received quantified forecasts of the additional workforce, construction, delivery and heavy vehicle movements that would use Chittering roads, including shift change traffic?

SHIRE RESPONSE

The briefing provided to Council just before this meeting included indicative freight information as part of Chalice’s ongoing route investigations.

Chalice has requested that the detailed transport investigation outcomes not be publicly released at this stage.

The Shire has not received final quantified forecasts covering all workforce, construction, delivery, shift change and heavy vehicle movements that may use Chittering roads.

Further detail will be required before the Shire can properly assess road impacts, community safety, maintenance requirements and project-attributable costs.

This is consistent with the Council’s existing advocacy for proper consideration of local road safety and freight effects.

COUNCIL POSITION ON GONNEVILLE MINE

QUESTION

In 2009, the elected Council representing the people of Chittering refused planning approval for the proposed expansion of bauxite mining within the Shire, following concerns about its impacts on the environment, rural land and community.

In 2025, in alignment with that approach, the Shire of Mundaring rejected Alcoa’s proposed exploration and mining in the Northern Jarrah Forest, stating it had a responsibility to “safeguard our environment now and into the future and to advocate strongly on behalf of our residents.”

Many people in Chittering reject the Gonneville mine, but we want to work with our Shire, united as one community. We want our Councillors to stand with us, represent the people who elected them, and be a strong voice for Chittering and its future.

Years from now, we hope this Council will be remembered in the same way we remember those who came before it—as Councillors who understood what was at stake, had the courage to take a stand, and put the long-term interests of the community they represented ahead of the interests of those who do not live here and will not inherit the consequences of the decisions made today.

Can Council please answer its community clearly: does the Shire of Chittering support the development of the Gonneville mine and its associated infrastructure through our valley, or will it, as Councillors before you have done, stand with its community and advocate for the long term protection of Chittering’s established identity, environment and the future this community has spent decades planning for?

SHIRE RESPONSE

Council has not adopted a position supporting or opposing the Gonneville Mine itself.

The examples referred to in the question involve proposals within the relevant local government area. The Gonneville Mine is located outside the Shire of Chittering and is being assessed through State and Commonwealth approvals processes.

Council is not directly involved in assessing the mine site itself and does not have all the information necessary to make an informed determination on the project as a whole.

Council does not have a general policy position opposing mining. Any proposal for the Shire to adopt a blanket anti-mining position would have implications beyond the Gonneville project and would warrant broader consideration and consultation with the wider community.

What Council has done and continues to do is strongly advocate on the matters that directly affect Chittering. This includes the proposed infrastructure corridor, freight corridor impacts on private property, rural residential amenity, environmental values, tourism assets and local roads.

Council has consistently advocated for lower-impact alternatives, use of existing corridors where practicable, protection of affected landholders and proper consideration of environmental impacts.

That remains Council’s strong position.