Capital Recycling Solutions’ bid to transport rail freight from its Fyshwick base is one step closer, lodging plans for a $1.2 million terminal at the site.

It comes as the Supreme Court delivered a decisive victory for the waste management firm on Friday, ruling the ACT Planning and Land Authority had invalidly revoked an earlier approval for the first stage of the project.

Director of Capital Recycling Solutions Adam Perry, Dean Ward from ActewAGL, and project manager Ewen McKenzie at the former Shell site marked for development as a waste recycling facility. CREDIT:SITTHIXAY DITTHAVONG

Capital Recycling Solutions wants to build a terminal off Ipswich Street so it can transport recyclable materials via railway to Goulburn, then Port Botany.

The company trucks about 30 shipping containers a week from Fyshwick to Goulburn, a process it’s director, Adam Perry, described as “crazy”.

“We should be loading trains with freight in Canberra, not trucking them down the highway to Goulburn to go on the train,” Mr Perry said.

“Every capital city in Australia has a railway freight terminal. In NSW towns such as Griffith, Wagga, Albury, Dubbo and Bathurst all have railway freight terminals, from where shipping containers are taken directly to the port. This gets trucks off our highways.”

The land earmarked for the rail freight terminal is zoned for rail use, meaning the application is unlikely to attract the same controversy which has so far plagued the project.

In 2017, the planning authority approved the company’s application to build a concrete slab – known as a handstand – at its site to allow for truck access. The decision came despite Capital Recycling Solutions having yet to finalise a deal with the ACT government to secure the land.

But in August last year, the authority revoked the approval, conceding it should never have been given because the proposed works were not permitted on the site under the territory plan.

The company immediately launched legal action to challenge the decision, arguing the government did not have the power to overturn the original approval.