1. Mr Kane submits quite correctly that if the proposal is not compliant with Code then by operation of the various relevant clauses of the planning scheme, the proposal would be a prohibited land use.[6] The allegations of non-compliance made in the Winter's submissions go primarily to issues about the location of the broiler farm and its size, related separation distance requirement, the minimisation of adverse amenity risks to surrounding sensitive land uses, the affect on uses and development of adjoining land and impacts to water quality. Mr Kane submits that the proposal lacks the necessary detail to demonstrate how such matters are satisfactorily addressed. On this basis, it is submitted that the proposal is not compliant with the Code, accordingly it is a prohibited land use and so the Tribunal cannot direct the grant of permit.
2. It follows from the findings we set out in these reasons, that we are not persuaded that the proposal is non-compliant with the Code. We are satisfied that the necessary detail on which a planning permit decision can be made is provided and that such information satisfactorily demonstrates this proposal's capacity to acceptably meet the requirements of the Code and more widely with proper and orderly planning outcomes under the scheme's zone and other planning provisions. For these reasons, we do not find we are constrained from directing the grant of permit in this application.

1. Submissions from the neighbouring landholders, particularly those for the Winter family and Mr Guinaine, question whether a broiler farm in this farming district is appropriate. Their submissions highlight the sensitive nature of the nearby Barwon River and raise concerns about impacts to adjoining farm land. It is contended that other districts, such a Lethbridge, have existing clusters of broiler farms and that further broiler farm developments should be directed to there, rather than extend into their district.
2. The Winter family submits that the extension of separation distances over their property, thereby constraining future development of a dwelling on their land, is inequitable and effectively amounts to 'compulsory acquisition' of their land.
3. It is also argued that the proposal does not comply with 'many' standards, objectives or best practice guidelines set out under the Code of Practice. We here address the orderly planning matters. Later in our reasons we address the issues of water quality.
4. A clear concern for Mrs Allworthy is the encroachment of the broiler farm buffer zone over some 45.7% of her property. She submits that this coverage limits their ability to extend their dwelling towards the broiler farm. She is also concerned about airborne contaminants causing health impacts, relying on various material to support her case that the buffer and setback guidelines are insufficient to address dust emissions. With her family suffering from pre-exiting asthma conditions, she does not believe that the buffer distances are sufficient to address more vulnerable people.

1. The subject land lies within the Farming Zone.[7] Pursuant to Clause 35.07.1, a broiler farm is a section 2 or 'permit required' use. An accompanying condition requires that a farm must meet the requirements of Clause 52.31- Broiler Farms otherwise it is prohibited. Further, a permit is required for buildings and works associated with the section 2 use. The decision guidelines of the Farming Zone also apply. These go to issues about land use compatibility, land capability, achieving the purposes of the zone for agricultural production and achieving sound environmental outcomes.
2. The subject land is partly within an Environmental Significance Overlay[8] and partly within a Floodway Overlay. However, the proposed broiler farm is situated outside of both overlays and well above the floodway. We thus do not refer to them further in our reasons.
3. Another purpose of the zone is to implement the state and local planning policy frameworks as relevant. The following state planning policies are relevant to the proposal:

Clause 11.05-3 rural productivity, Clause 13.02-1 floodplain management, Clause 13.04 - 1 noise abatement, Clause 13.04 -2 air quality, Clause 14.01 - 1 protection of agricultural land, Clause 14.01 - 2 sustainable agricultural land use. And as noted earlier the Broiler Code is an incorporated document in the planning scheme and must therefore be afforded the weight of the scheme.

1. The following clauses of the local planning policy are relevant:

Clause 21.02- key issues affecting the Council's land use planning and development, Clause 21.03 municipal vision, Clause 21.04 - 3 agriculture, Clause 21.04 - 4 natural environment built environment and heritage, Clause 22.03 intensive animal husbandry.

1. There is little dispute between the parties that there is planning policy support and encouragement at a state and local level for intensive agricultural production and for the facilitation of intensive poultry farming. Where the positions diverge however is that the Winter family and Mr Guinaine consider that this site is not typical farming land and this proposal will not achieve a balance with other policy outcomes that seek to mitigate unreasonable impacts on the environment or amenity.
2. In citing these concerns, it is acknowledged by Mr Kane that the farming zone is a working zone, and therefore the test for amenity may not be as high as for residential or other sensitive land use zones. It is contended however that the failure to comply with certain requirements of the Code of Practice will lead to an outcome that will not meet farming amenity standards.
3. It is true for most planning applications that there may well be tension between various planning scheme and policy requirements. The various state and local planning policies that are relevant to this application we have referred to above seek to support intensive poultry farming while also seeking to protect air and water quality and address potential noise impacts. We note that in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme there is specific local policy support for more intensive agricultural use of land, particularly identifying land in the south-east of the shire that includes Murgheboluc to be suitable for such intensive agricultural and broad acre enterprises.[9]
4. In taking account of all of this policy direction we agree with the principles put forward by Mr Kane that a balancing of whole of policy is necessary to achieve orderly, fair and proper planning outcomes. However state planning policy and the purposes of planning go further in so far as the balancing of such outcomes is to achieve these outcomes to achieve a net community benefit for all Victorians and sustainable development.[10] In balancing such outcomes then, it is the net benefit to the Victorian community and not just local outcomes that is to be accounted for.
5. Thus in having regard to the policy and scheme provisions, we do not accept that just because there are no broiler farms currently in this particular area or that the site has alleged constraints, whether real or perceived, that it must automatically follow that it is an inappropriate location for a broiler farm. There is strong policy support for intensive farming in broad acre areas, where separation distances from sensitive land uses can be achieved. We agree with the applicant and the Council that this proposal falls within such an area.
6. It can be said that the collective purposes of the farming zone are to provide of sustainable agricultural production from the land so zoned. The Code of Practice, which must be complied with, establishes objectives, standards and guidelines for broiler farm proposals that serve to address this collective purpose. Compliance with the Code of Practice does not of course mean that all other relevant planning scheme requirements are met and that further consideration of planning policy and the applicable zone is required. Subject to being satisfied that environmental policies for the protection of air and water quality and amenity are addressed, we are not persuaded that there are policy reasons that outweigh the facilitation of this proposed broiler farm.

1. A key element but not the only relevant element of the Code of Practice is the establishment and maintenance of separation distances from property boundaries, other farming properties and from sensitive land uses, the latter sometimes loosely referred to as buffer distances. The Code of Practice sets out that:

The separation distance is required to minimise the risk of routine and abnormal odour and dust emissions from the broiler sheds adversely impacting on nearby sensitive uses.

1. The Code of Practice establishes standards about the extent to which separation distances may extend over another property in other ownership to the broiler farm proponent/operator.
2. A broiler farm containing 300,00 birds requires a separation distance from any proposed shed to the nearest sensitive land use of 588m. Mrs Allworthy'3s dwelling, is 598m from the nearest broiler shed, while the next nearest dwelling, Mr Guinaine's, is some 869m to the east. Other dwellings are located over one kilometre from the respective nearest shed.
3. The proposed farm thus meets the requirements for separation from a sensitive land use and therefore can be seen to have 'minimised the risk from routine or abnormal odour and dust emissions'. Because of the size of the farm at 300,000 birds and the ability to meet the separation distances, albeit with this separation not being fully contained within the broiler farm boundary, the proposal is classified as a Class B farm. In complying with the separation distance for a Class B farm, the Code of Practice does not require an odour risk assessment to be undertaken as part of the assessment. Thus the calls made by the Winter and Allworthy families for more detailed assessment of odour and dust impacts from air quality modelling are not supported by the application of the code.
4. Further we have not been referred to any particularly abnormal or unusual topographic or meteorological influences that persuades us that additional assessment above and beyond the calculation of separation distances is necessary.
5. Element 1(E1) of the code further addresses the location, siting and size of broiler farms. The objective of Element 1 is:

To ensure the location and size of the broiler farm, and the siting of the broiler sheds, temporary litter stockpiles, compost piles and litter spreading areas:

• minimise the risk of adverse amenity impacts on nearby existing, planned and potential future sensitive uses as a result of odour, dust and noise

• do not adversely affect the use and development of nearby land

• avoid adverse impacts on the visual quality of the landscape

1. Five standards are established to address this objective,[11] attached to which are measures to address each standard. If these measures are met (or adopted) then the Code deems the standard to be complied with and hence objective of Element 1 met.[12]
2. Standard E1 S1 of the Code sets out the following measures that are deemed to demonstrate compliance with the standard and hence achieve the objective of amenity protection:[13]
   • A set back of 1000m for a shed from the nearest boundary of a residential/urban growth or other urban zone with the primacy purpose of providing for housing.
   • A set back of 750m for a shed from zones that provide for rural living.
   • The minimum separation distance of a shed to nearby sensitive use as prescribed by Formula 1 of the Code of Practice (i.e. 588m), taking into account prevailing meteorological conditions and topographic features.
   • A minimum setback of 100m from any new shed to the broiler farm property boundary (the boundary setback).
3. All of these setback distances and the separation distance are achieved by Mr O'Ryan's proposal. As noted earlier, we have not been taken to any particularly special topographic or meteorological circumstances that persuade us that the separation distance needs to be increased over that calculated under Formula 1 of the Code.[14]
4. Farm design and operation elements 2, 3 and 4 also have objectives that address or seek to minimise adverse amenity (or related environmental) impacts including from dust, odour, noise, light spill and landscaping. Various standards and measures are set out to address these objectives.
5. Mr Kraan's evidence in chief includes an assessment of the proposal against all the measures contained in the Farm Design and Operation Elements of the Code.[15] He concludes that the proposal complies with these measures, including those under Elements 2, 3 and 4 that address the potential for amenity impacts from such design elements as the orientation of ventilation fans, vermin control, noise management, vehicle access points, shed façade finishes and landscaping. Having regard to the plans and other details of the proposal, we concur with this evidence.
6. In terms of amenity impacts we find that this proposal is compliant with the measures and hence the standards established under the Code to achieve the appropriate protection from or minimisation of adverse impacts to amenity. This component of the objectives is thus achieved and in terms of this aspect of the proposal it is acceptable.

1. The Winter family and Mrs Allworthy allege that the extension of the separation distances over their properties is unfair and symptomatic of a poor planning outcome. The Winter's go so far as to assert that it amounts to 'an excision' or 'compulsory acquisition' of their land. Mrs Allworthy submits that the extent of the separation distance over her property will unfairly prevent an extension of the family dwelling.
2. Standard E1 S5 deals with the future use and development of adjoining land requiring that broiler sheds are sited so as:

...offensive odour, dust and noise emissions will not adversely impact the orderly and sustainable use and development of land located beyond the farm property boundary, including the ability to establish a dwelling (excluding a bed and breakfast or caretaker's house) on a vacant property, having regard to:

• the existing and likely future use and development of the land including any approved sensitive uses

• the existing physical and environmental characteristics of the land

• the purpose and requirements of the zone applying to the land

• any applicable land use decision guidelines, policies and strategies in the planning scheme.

1. Two measure are provided to achieve this standard for Class B farms:
   • The minimum separation distance does not cover more than 50% of a property outside the broiler farm boundary; and
   • If an adjoining property (i.e. one outside the broiler farm boundary) is not developed with a dwelling, the area not covered by the minimum separation distance must be capable of containing a 20x30m building envelope. This requirement need to take account of any limitations that might apply to the location of such a building envelope including:
     • Applicable planning scheme requirements, whether for a permit required use or as of right use of the land;
     • Topography, native vegetation, other environmental conditions or other adjoining land use characteristic; and / or
     • Flooding, landslip or other form of hazard.
2. The Winter family property known as 'Denehurst' lies to the south of the broiler farm site. This property comprises of three north-south rectangular lots of similar size with a total area of approximately 124 ha. There is currently no dwelling on Denehurst. Mr Kane advises that the Winter family have fenced an area of land adjacent to the road reserve on the south side of Mr O'Ryan's property for the planting of trees in anticipation of constructing a dwelling on this land in the future. In fact in January 2013 the Winters lodged a planning permit application for such a dwelling. The site of the proposed dwelling is located within the area of Denehurst covered by the separation distance for the proposed broiler farm.[16]
3. Mr Tobin advises that:

The Winter application was accompanied by a crude, hand drawn plan depicting the proposed dwelling 150 m west of the Barwon River boundary adjoining the subject land. In response to the Winter application, Council sent a Request for Further Information pursuant to section 54 of the act. To date, no response has been received by Council.

1. The Council has subsequently advised Mr and Mrs Winter that their application for the dwelling would not be processed until the Tribunal has determined the broiler farm application.
2. Mr Kane submits that the Winter family had always identified the proposed location on the property for their future home on the basis of its visual amenity and accessibility from Windermere Road. It is asserted that the proposed broiler farm will effectively quarantine this and other portions of Denehurst that lie along the scenic escarpment overlooking the Barwon River, removing the Winters development entitlements and right to enjoy their land.
3. Mr Kane asserts that to deny the Winter's of their long held plans and place the proposed broiler farm ahead of their plan is contrary to fair and orderly planning and applies a 'first in best dressed approach' that 'runs contrary to notions of forward planning and integrated development'.
4. We do not accept Mr Kane's assertions made on the Winter family's behalf that we are applying a 'first in best dressed approach' or applying principles that run contrary to forward and integrated development planning. Nor do we accept assertions that the application of the separation distances are a form of property acquisition.
5. The Code has established various objectives, standards and measures to achieve these standards and objectives. This includes those set out above for the coverage of separation distances over adjoining land. The Code is a document that is incorporated into the Planning Scheme, i.e. it is part of the scheme. By way of clause 53.21 it must be complied with. Similar to the reasons of the Tribunal in Barac[17], we must take the adoption and incorporation of the Code into the planning scheme to be a State Government policy decision with the consequence that compliance with the Code achieves the purposes of planning in Victoria including amongst other outcomes, the fair and equitable development of land while balancing 'the present and future interests of all Victorians'.[18]
6. The Code is thus the means by which a responsible authority and this Tribunal adjudicates on a broiler farm proposal. It is not for this or any other Tribunal to go behind the Code and apply some other test or standard asserted to be fairer or more equitable.[19]
7. Turning then to the case put on behalf of the Winter and Allworthy families, we find that the proposal is compliant with the Code in that:
   • The separation distances do not result in coverage of 50% or more each individual property; and
   • Each property so covered by the separation distance is capable of containing a 20m x 30m building envelope.
8. Such compliance is sufficient enough to conclude that the extent of coverage over the adjoining properties is acceptable. If we were to consider the case put by each party further we find that:
   • While assertions are made by the Allworthy family about building extensions, it is apparent from the tabled property plans (and aided by our inspection) that sufficient area exists on this property for building extensions to occur.
   • In respect to both cases put to us, consideration of the applicable farming zone highlights that the use of the land for a dwelling on the Winter's asserted chosen location is not as of right, as the associated lot is less than the required 100ha minimum lot area for a section 1 use,[20] Similarly in the case of the Allworthy property an extension of more than 50sqm floor area is not as of right. Further there is considerable state and local planning policy, aside from the provisions of the farming zone itself, that seeks to avoid residential development of farming land.
   • In the case of the Winter's proposition, if pursued, there remains considerable areas of land outside the separation distance coverage to build a dwelling (although we stress that this observation must not be taken to be a judgment as to the suitability of such a land use).
9. Given the above points, it cannot be fairly said that any future development of either property by way of a new dwelling or an extension to an existing dwelling is an unfettered 'property right' as has been asserted. What ever opportunities that do exist under planning law for future development of these properties remains available for each owner to pursue.
10. For these reasons we do not accept the assertions that this broiler farm proposal is in conflict with notions of orderly or fair planning outcomes or is not compliant with the Code.

Conclusions as to amenity and orderly planning grounds

1. It follows from the above reasons that we do not find that the proposed broiler farm presents an unacceptable risk of amenity impacts to neighbouring properties. Nor do we find that the assertions of unfair restrictions to the future development of adjoining land are sustained.
2. We find that the proposal meets the requirements of the Code in terms of separation distances from sensitive uses and other measures designed specifically to address potential amenity impacts from dust, odour, noise and other sources of nuisance. The application of separation distances has been applied across adjoining land consistent with the Code requirements and does not represent an unfair or disorderly planning outcome.

1. The overall site comprises three drainage areas. The first is a small portion of the land which drains to the east on to Windermere Road. The only works associated with the broiler farm situated on this land is a portion of the access road from Windermere Road to the broiler sheds and is not in contention. We therefore do not discuss this aspect further. The second drainage area comprises approximately 40% of the land and is situated to the north of a tree line, which runs diagonally from the north-east to the south-west of the site. No works associated with the broiler farm are proposed on this land. The third drainage area comprises approximately 40% of the site and is situated to the south of the diagonal tree line. The broiler farm is proposed to be wholly contained within this area.
2. The Code highlights that the key environmental issue for broiler farms is associated with the contamination of runoff by nutrients or waste with subsequent impacts to waterways and groundwater.[21] The Code goes on to identify that the main waste products of concern are spent litter, dead birds and 'general farm wastes, including chemicals'.
3. Mr Guinaine and the Winter family assert that the boiler farm application before us lacks the necessary detail to demonstrate that the waste management and associated water quality issues can be adequately addressed. The Winter's in particular highlight that runoff from the drainage area of the sheds runs across the southern extension of Windermere Road, onto their property and down the steep escarpment to the Barwon River. Apart from water quality concerns from the farm itself, they assert that the additional concentrated volume of runoff from the sheds and hardstand areas will increase the erosion occurring on this escarpment and so be detrimental to the land and add to sediment load into the river.
4. It is their contention that until detailed design for all aspects of the broiler farm are completed the Tribunal could not be assured that the requirements of the Code for stormwater discharge quality will be achieved.
5. Mr Guinaine raises concerns about the impact to groundwater, highlighting that a number of springs or soaks at the base of the escarpment drain directly into the Barwon River.
6. Standard E1 S2 of the Code addresses waterway protection through the siting of the broiler farm operations under Objective 1 to provide adequate separation or use of other risk mitigation measures. The following measures to achieve this standard are set out in the Code:
   • Provide a natural vegetated 30m wide buffer along the waterway (or a width as specified by the local Catchment Management Authority). No works or litter storage or spreading is to occur in this buffer.
   • A further 20m clearance between the buffer zone and the nearest external shed edge.
   • No liquid or solid waste (including litter stockpiles, compost piles or dead bird composting) within 800m of any potable water supply take off point controlled by a statutory authority, 200m of any potable water supply waterway or 100m of any other waterway.
7. Application plans show the nearest distance between broiler farm sheds and east bank of the Barwon River to be approximately 490m directly west. The flow line distance for water would be longer than this, being directed in a south-westerly direction as noted above. The plans also show a 30m buffer and the 20m additional clearance to be accommodated on the flood plain of the Barwon River, below the line of the escarpment.
8. While Mr Kane is critical of the late details about deleting storing and spreading litter on the site and not composting dead birds, it is nevertheless a site management step that addresses what the Code identifies to be a potentially major source of contamination of runoff. That said if the proposed farm were to include these activities, further measures are set out in the Code to address this risk. We have no need to refer to these however in view of the position of Mr O'Ryan not to undertake these activities on site, thereby all but removing these risks.
9. Compliance with the Code does not solely rely on separation distances from waterways. Waste management and details of farm design also address requirements that include runoff management. Because of the absence of on-site litter storage and spreading and dead bird activities, we will confine our reasons here to the farm layout matters.
10. The objective of Element 2 of the Code is to:

...ensure the design and construction of the broiler farm minimise the risk of adverse amenity and environmental impacts, and support the cost effective operational efficiency of the farm.

1. Our focus here is on the objectives to minimise environmental impacts, having addressed amenity matters elsewhere in our reasons. In light of the issues to hand, it is not necessary for us to set out here matters about farm efficiency. It is sufficient to record here that there was no particular challenge to the farm layout in terms of its efficient operation.
2. Mr Rennie, a water technology specialist called on behalf of the Winter family, notes the deletion of litter spreading but highlighted that litter storage may still occur in both the northern and southern catchments. We rely on our reasons given earlier on this issue and repeat here that we are satisfied that small volumes of wet litter can be collected and stored without undue risk to stormwater quality.
3. Under cross-examination, Mr Rennie acknowledged that there would be no issues related to stormwater contamination from these small volumes of litter. However his evidence in chief highlighted concerns about the ability to provide the required stormwater storage capacity for the site's stormwater dam and for contaminated stormwater to be discharged offsite from the broiler sheds area.
4. Mr Rennie noted that the Barwon River is considered to be under stress from eutrophication, siting algal blooms and closure of the river for public access in recent years. In his opinion the stormwater dam proposed was too small for the anticipated run-off in a one in 10 years storm and could result in excess flows off the site from the southern catchment. Mr Rennie asserted that the requirement of the Code was to collect and manage stormwater within the site rather than allowing discharge off-site. In his opinion the dam would overflow and discharge contaminated stormwater off-site. This discharge would enter the road reserve to the south and onto the Winter property and before discharging down the escarpment and into the Barwon River. He was also critical of the ability of the drainage system's ability to drain into what he termed the retention dam and the capacity, if such flow could occur, to contain water under prolonged rainfall conditions when the dam may be full.
5. In contrast to Mr Rennie's evidence, Ms Verrocchi gave evidence that:
   • All stormwater not associated with the broiler farm would be diverted around the broiler site by bunds and discharged offsite as per current practice.
   • All stormwater collected inside the bunds would be directed to the stormwater dam.
   • All sheds are fully enclosed with the floor level well above the adjacent ground level. As a result stormwater is unable to enter the sheds.
   • Internal cleaning of the litter in the sheds is undertaken using bobcats or similar equipment and loaded into trucks for off-site disposal. Following completion of litter removal the sheds may be cleaned using chemicals and high-pressure low-water usage equipment, which does not result in either internal or external run-off.
   • All dead birds, chemicals and other potential contaminants are stored within the various service buildings associated with the broiler farm.
   • The vehicle access areas around the broiler sheds are sealed and will therefore not result in sediment contaminated run-off.
   • The stormwater dam will be designed such that a small diameter outlet pipe with a capacity less than the current run-off rate from the equivalent pasture area will restrict the outlet flow rate from the stormwater dam. The dam will have a capacity of equal to or greater than the critical one in ten year recurrence interval flow above the outlet pipe. As a result the water which is discharged rapidly from the rooves of the sheds and the sealed access roads will be collected in the stormwater dam and then gradually discharged via the outlet pipe.
   • Discharge from the stormwater dam outlet pipe can be directed to a contoured surface drain which would overflow into a grassed filtration area before discharging offsite as a dispersed flow consistent with current flow conditions.
   • Additional planting of vegetation and maintenance of a 30m buffer along the boundary of the property before the escarpment rather than at the eastern bank of the Barwon River would be a better water management outcome. However she also considered that if a grassed filtration area was provided this additional buffer might not be needed.
   • With appropriate design both the stormwater diverted around the broiler farm and the discharge from stormwater pond could be adequately dispersed across the south west corner of the site to ensure that water quality is maintained and erosion is minimised.
6. Ms Verrocchi's evidence is that based on the above points the stormwater harvested from the broiler farm area would likely be cleaner than the existing stormwater run-off from fertilised pastures, etc; would be discharged off the property at a similar rate under existing conditions and would have little if any potential impact on nutrient or sediment levels within the Barwon River.
7. Ms Verrocchi also opines that the Code requires detention and treatment of stormwater rather than retention on-site as asserted by Mr Rennie.
8. Based on Ms Verrocchi's submission and information provided under cross-examination, we accept that the stormwater system can be designed to maintain offsite flow rates at or below the current values and with a stormwater quality that is equivalent or better than at present. We find such a treatment approach to be consistent with the Code requirements under Standard E2 S5. Approved measure E2 M5.6 in particular requires that runoff from a one in ten year storm is retained not higher flow events. Approved measure E2 M5.2 requires the stormwater from sheds and hardstand to be 'collected and managed on-site'. When read together, these measures indicate to us that the system that is required is one for detention rather than retention in all circumstances. Clearly it is desired to retain flows from a one in ten year event and in doing so treat the initial flows and smaller flow events that could contain contamination if such sources were present in the broiler farm area. Beyond this the system is intended to treat flows in the way described by Ms Verrocchi, through settlement and controlled discharge so as to not present any increase in runoff flows over and above existing conditions or present a risk of contamination.
9. We are satisfied from our consideration of such evidence that such a stormwater treatment system is feasible and we have prepared permit conditions to require the detailed design of stormwater management systems in this way.

1. Apart from the dwelling associated with the broiler farm, the only other dwelling situated on Windermere Road , is at 70 Windermere Road and belongs to the Allworthy family. The dwelling is situated approximately 30 m from the road on the western side of the road.
2. The property along the eastern side of the road comprises pasture and is owned by Mr Guinaine. Primary access to his dwelling, which is approximately 400 m East of Windermere Road is from the Hamilton Highway. The land to the South of the site is owned by the Winter family and currently has no dwelling on the property.
3. Issues relating to amenity impacts from the increased traffic on the road are raised by the Council, the Winter family, Mrs Allworthy and Mr Guinaine. Their concerns centre around noise and dust issues and the impact of the night-time removal of chickens using semitrailers.
4. Mrs Allworthy is concerned that dust generation, both from trucks on the internal access road of the broiler farm, to the south-west of her dwelling and on Windermere Road, at the front of her dwelling would impact on quality of water in their rainwater tanks due to the increased dust, and also in relation to respiratory impacts, noting that the members of the family have pre-existing asthma conditions.
5. Mrs Allworthy is also concerned about the impact of the lights and vehicle noise on the sleeping patterns of her family. She is particularly concerned that due to the chicken growing cycles there would be an average of forty-five trucks passing the family home between 10 pm and 7 am over a few nights every 6 to 8 weeks.
6. Mr Guinaine supports the Council's proposed conditions to address the condition of Windermere Road, submitting that in his experience the road had not been properly constructed and would be subject to rapid deterioration due to the increased heavy vehicles. He is also concerned about the impact that the heavy vehicles, particularly night-time movements might have on stock in the paddocks adjacent to Windermere Road.
7. Mr Turnbull's evidence confirms that over 300 trucks per year would be required for bird collection during the night time period. Mr Peake confirmed that during bird pickups there would typically be ten semitrailers required on each of six nights for each batch.
8. As part of their review of the proposal the Council sought input from VicRoads, although not as a referral authority. The VicRoad's response has resulted in permit conditions being proposed to address traffic movements between Windermere Road and the Hamilton Highway. Council has also proposed conditions to address the physical state of Windermere Road said to be needed to support the increased level of traffic, as well as requirements to seal that part of the road to reduce noise and dust impacts to Mrs Allworthy's property.
9. The Proponent called expert evidence from Mr Turnbull in relation to traffic engineering issues and Mr Altmann in relation to road pavement issues. Both experts addressed the various concerns raised by other parties as part of their submissions. Mr Burton an acoustic specialist, provided evidence in relation to both operations and vehicle noise from the broiler farm, and from the vehicles travelling along Windermere Road, particularly in relation to night-time impacts.
10. The following reasons address these issues.

1. The Council proposes conditions requiring the re-sheeting of the road from the intersection with the Hamilton highway to the entrance of the broiler farm to a depth of 100 mm.
2. Mr Altmann's evidence is that gravel roads typically require re-sheeting each 10 years with approximately 100 mm of gravel. He advises that based on his inspection, Windermere Road was close to needing re-sheeting. He notes that sections of the road required reforming, grading and pothole removal and that his inspection had been undertaken after a prolonged dry period. He observes that there are drainage swales some distance away from the pavement on either side of the road and that he expects that the pavement would fail in the forthcoming winter if the pavement was not upgraded and the swales maintained.
3. Mr Altmann refers to geotechnical investigations[22] undertaken along the road which measured the pavement thickness between 100 and 200 mm in the northern half of the road and between 150 and 200 mm in the southern half. He identifies that the required total pavement thickness for the existing traffic volume is approximately 230 mm for a gravel surface and that for the predicted traffic loading would be 265 mm .
4. In his opinion it would be unreasonable to expect the proponent to meet the total cost of the re-sheeting as he had not caused the current state of wear. Rather he felt that the proponent should be responsible for the provision of the additional pavement required to meet the extra traffic loading, i.e. 35 mm not 100 mm which would be required under proposed permit condition 8.
5. The Tribunal notes that Mr Altmann identifies a requirement for a re-sheet of 35 mm over a 4 m width, whereas Mr Turnbull identifies a road width of five and a half metres with sections of the shoulder having grass cover. Under cross-examination, he confirms that he assumed 4 m at 35 mm, with a half metre shoulder taper on either side, giving a pavement and shoulder width of approximately 5 m.[23] He further advises that the pavement is comparatively thin compared with design requirements and the sub-base soil has a poor bearing capacity when wet, being largely an expansive clay. He advised that heavy vehicles would bog if they moved off the shoulder in winter and that semitrailers would need to remain on the pavement at all times.
6. Mr Altmann acknowledges that for a 4 m wide pavement, it would take considerable care for two heavy vehicles to pass, particularly during wet weather. However, he emphasised that while it would be difficult, it would be possible on the rare occasions when it was necessary.
7. The Tribunal accepts Mr Altmann's evidence and on this basis that the proponent should not be required to re-sheet the pavement by the full 100mm amount desired by the Council. However, we accept that the existing pavement thickness is not up to existing design standards and that heavy vehicles will be unable to move off the shoulders during wet weather. Given the increase in heavy vehicle traffic given in evidence we agree with the submissions made on behalf of the Council that this proposal is an agent of change that reasonably should bear some responsibility in the upgrade of infrastructure. There is thus is a nexus between the proposal and some need to respond to the existing conditions of the road such that it is provided with suitable levels of infrastructure.
8. In our opinion, while the proposal may not lead to regular events of two heavy vehicles passing on Windermere Road, it will not be possible to avoid potential conflicts between private vehicles and heavy vehicles associated with the broiler farm. As the heavy vehicles will be unable to move off the pavement; in the interest of road safety we have adopted a more conservative approach to the re-sheeting width based on Mr Turnbull's measured pavements width, together with Mr Altmann's observations about the drainage swales. We therefore will modify draft Condition 8c. to require the regrading of the parallel swales and the provision of a 35mm thick re-sheeting for a 5m width of pavement plus half metre tapered shoulders from the Hamilton Highway to the entrance of the broiler farm.

Upgrading of the Windermere Road / Hamilton Highway Intersection

1. As noted above, the Council sought comments from VicRoads in relation to the upgrading of the Windermere Road/Hamilton Highway intersection and has incorporated these requirements into the notice of decision conditions.[24]
2. The Council has also proposed a number of other conditions which relate to the intersection. In particular, the Council has sought to have Windermere Road sealed for a minimum of 40 metres from the Hamilton Highway to allow for the length of B double trucks.
3. In his evidence Mr Turnbull expressed the view that this length should be 25 metres as opposed to 40 metres based on his observation that stones and debris from vehicles exiting Windermere Road are generally deposited on the first 0.5 metres of the highway sealed shoulder with no evidence of such debris reaching the highway. Under cross-examination and as noted in his statement of evidence Mr Turnbull identified 25 metres as an appropriate length of seal.
4. We find the evidence and submissions from all parties to be inconclusive in justifying various lengths of road seal at the intersection. Ultimately, we agree with Mr Turnbull's suggestion that as VicRoads is the relevant road authority, it should be it that specifies the length of seal required at this intersection in order to address its concerns about the impact on the Hamilton Highway. We have modified the conditions to reflect this requirement.

Sealing the road at the front of the Allworthy property.

1. Mr Tobin confirms that the requirement to seal the road in front of the Allworthy property is intended to reduce dust and noise impacts on this property. While the Council accepts that the interface between the gravel road and sealed road sections would require increased maintenance, it was Council's opinion that the amenity improvement of the sealed section offset the increased cost of maintenance.
2. Mrs Allworthy strongly supports these conditional requirements.
3. Mr Turnbull has provided estimates of the current traffic volumes along Windermere Road, based on assumed farm cropping vehicle requirements together with VicRoads estimated traffic volumes on the Hamilton Highway. He estimates that current truck traffic along Windermere Road is in the order of 150 trucks per year and that the broiler farm would generate approximately 750 vehicle movements per year. While he acknowledges that this would be a considerable increase in the number of trucks on the road his evidence is that this volume is considerably below the capacity of the road and the volumes experienced on other rural gravel roads.
4. The Tribunal notes that in Mr Altmann's evidence the traffic volume typically adopted for the sealing of rural roads is approximately 55,000 vehicles per year [150 vehicle trips per day]. This figure was confirmed by Mr Turnbull, who advises that Golden Plains Shire - Road Strategy 2010 adopts this figure.
5. Local landholders submit that the number of trucks currently using Windermere Road is considerably less than 150 trucks per year. Given the limited development and number of individual landholdings accessed from Windermere Road, we accept that this is more than likely the situation. The increase in traffic, particularly heavy truck traffic set out by Mr Turnbull will represent a noticeable change in conditions.
6. Mr Burton's acoustic evidence is that truck movements around the broiler sheds and on the internal access road should be limited to 20 km/h to minimise noise impacts on the Allworthy dwelling. This evidence is based on noise level recordings undertaken at a broiler farm in Inverleigh. He also confirms that there is no Victorian standard relating to noise levels for sleep arousal in Victoria. However, NSW guidelines[25] are often adopted in traffic noise evaluations. This guideline recommends an internal noise level of 50-55dB(A), which equates to a maximum of 60 dB(A) outside bedroom window, to minimise sleep arousal. He notes that the peak noise levels from trucks moving around the broiler farm were well below the recommended avoidance of sleep arousal criteria of 60 dB(A).
7. Mr Burton opines that based on the setback distance of the Allworthy house from the road surface, a bypass speed of 40 km/h, would result in a night-time noise level of approximately 60 dB(A) outside the Allworthy house. If a speed of 80 km/h was adopted the noise level would be approximately 70 dB(A). He further advised that if the road was sealed the noise level would only be reduced by approximately 3 to 4 dB(A). His evidence clearly points to controlling traffic speed would be more beneficial in reducing noise levels rather than sealing the road surface.
8. Messer's Altmann and Turnbull confirmed that issues relating to dust generation, and traffic noise on gravel roads are considerably mitigated when the speed of the trucks is reduced.
9. Mr Peake advised that Mr O'Ryan would support the imposition of a 40 kph speed limit on Windermere Road and would be prepared to incorporate such a requirement within the operating procedures for the vehicles associated with the broiler farm.
10. Having acknowledged that the volume of traffic traversing Windermere road will increase, it follows that the potential for dust and noise impacts to the Allworthy property is also increased. We are cognisant also of the fact that their dwelling is located in a farming zone, and as was submitted and recognised by all parties, subject to general farming activity that generate noise and dust, sometimes at odd hours of the day and night. That said, the Allworthy property is deserving of a level or reasonable amenity and there is a difference between limited intervals of amenity impact from grazing and cropping activities and those from regular and prolonged activity. We thus agree with the Council that it is appropriate to take steps to ensure a reasonable level of amenity.
11. We disagree with the Council and other submissions however that the most appropriate step to take is to seal the road in front of the Allworthy property. The evidence from Messrs Burton, Turnbull and Altmann cumulatively indicate that any such seal would have limited effect in reducing road noise and introduce additional costs for maintenance. A limited length of seal will, as pointed out by Mr Turnbull, will not prevent raised dust from unsealed length being blown over the property (under northerly or southerly winds).
12. We concur with the evidence that a limit on speed of heavy vehicles will be more effective, having the benefit of limiting raised dust, road noise and engine accelerating noise. We will therefore include a condition requiring all traffic associated with the broiler farm to travel along Windermere Road at no more than 40 kph without requiring the road in front of the Allworthy's property to be sealed.

DO ANY OTHER MATTERS WARRANT REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL?

1. Several other matters were raised in submissions and the objections originally lodged with the Council including the provision of water and electricity to the site, aboriginal heritage issues in the general vicinity, health impacts and financial impacts on land value.
2. In our opinion, none provide the basis for rejecting the permit application or requiring additional conditions. For reasons given in the course of the hearing, we are satisfied that no Cultural Heritage Management Plan is required for this proposal, principally because the works lie outside areas of Aboriginal cultural sensitivity. This is the more so given our conclusion that no changes are required to the proposed location of the sheds.
3. Matters of how the broiler farm provides water and electricity to the site are beyond the jurisdiction of this planning application save to be satisfied that such infrastructure can be adequately accounted for. Similarly impacts to land values is not a planning matter.
4. Mr Guinaine's issues about risk to groundwater we consider to be satisfactorily addressed by the fact that under the Code and as indicated in part by the application, the shed floors, hard stand areas and stormwater dam will all have low permeability sealed surfaces or floors. In the first instance, it follows from our earlier reasons that the stormwater quality will generally be uncontaminated, but in the event that some spill/or contamination occurs, sealed conditions is an accepted practice for demonstrably minimising the risk of leaching to groundwater.
5. In respect to concerns raised about impacts to stock or amenity from vehicle lights at night sweeping across stock paddocks, we are not persuaded that such events are of such substance to warrant rejection or modification to the proposal.

1. Mr O'Ryan has sought review of the Conditions 1, 2(a), 7, 8, (a) - (g), 10, 23, 27 and 33 contained in the Notice of Decision. As a matter of course in the combined hearing of the objector and conditions appeal all conditions were discussed. We here address those conditions under challenge, using the numbering of the notice of decision rather than the draft 'without prejudice' conditions circulated at the hearing. Other conditions have been prepared having regard to the requirements of the planning scheme and other controls and regulations applying to this proposal and the discussion of conditions undertaken in the course of the hearing.

1. The Proponent was prepared to accept condition requiring an increase the separation distance between the Allworthy dwelling and the broiler farm. However, the Tribunal notes that the dispersal area for the stormwater system would be pushed closer to the edge of the escarpment if this condition was applied. In view of our findings that the existing location complies with the Code requirements we are of the opinion that the more appropriate action would be to maximise the area available for stormwater treatment prior to discharge off the site rather than increase the buffer zone further above that which is required by the Code. Accordingly we will delete the requirement to amend the location of the sheds.

1. This condition requires the construction of a 30 m vegetated buffer on the Barwon River flood plain to treat stormwater run-off prior to discharge to the river. It was accepted by all parties that the provision of the 30 m buffer on the floodplain would be problematic as the current discharge point was not on land owned by the Mr O'Ryan and there would be difficulties with access and maintenance.
2. It was agreed that the provision of the 30 m buffer prior to the discharge point of stormwater from the broiler farm area would be a superior outcome and easier to provide and maintain as it would be on land owned by the proponent and away from the river floodplain.

1. Condition 7 required the permit holder to comply with the Code. We accept the agreement of the parties that this condition be deleted as it is superfluous. Compliance with the Code is required under the planning scheme.

1. These conditions deal with various aspects of Windermere Road and provision of other infrastructure, which are addressed below.
2. The differences between Council's position and that of Mr O'Ryan in relation to the proposed conditions are summarised as follows:
   • Condition 8a. duplicates the content of VicRoads Condition 8d and should be deleted.
   • The length of seal specified by Condition 8b is excessive for the intended purpose of preventing stones and debris is being carried onto the highway. The length of seal required in Windermere Road should be left to VicRoads and would be adequately covered by VicRoads Condition 8d.
   • Condition 8c relates to the upgrading requirements for Windermere Road, the degree which the proponent should undertake is disputed rather than outright rejection.
   • Condition 8e relates to relocation of signage on the Hamilton highway, which is not disputed.
   • Condition 8f requires the sealing of the road in front of the Allworthy property which is resisted.
   • Condition 8g relates to the upgrading of power and water supplies along Windermere Road, which is disputed as being unrelated to the required planning permissions.
3. It followed from our reasons that 8a, 8b, 8f and 8g should be deleted while condition 8d shall be retained. Mr O'Ryan seeks to have the requirement of re-sheeting Windermere Road reduced to 35mm, a position we agree with for the reasons outlined and for this obligation to be achieved by a cash payment in kind.
4. We have prepared conditions that require the re-sheeting to 35mm and associated drainage clearance works before the use commences. This is appropriate timing in light of the evidence about the condition of the road. While we require the works to be done by way of this condition, we do not assign who should do the works.
5. We restate here that in requiring no seal to the front of the Allworthy property, we will require the preparation of a Traffic Management Plan, which will include amongst other matters the imposition of a speed limit of 40kph on truck and transport vehicles associated with the broiler farm to address noise and dust issues from such traffic.

1. Condition 10 addresses the design of the entrance to the Broiler Farm requiring the design to be to the relevant Australian Standard AS 2890.2 - 2000. Mr Turnbull's evidence is that this will require the broiler farm entrance road to intersect with the road at right angles. He noted that traffic to the subject site would be concerned only with right in and left out movements as Windermere Road ends to the West of the property.
2. In his opinion an alternative design which he submitted to the Tribunal is a superior outcome and complies with the Code.
3. The Council accepted Mr Turnbull's evidence and accepted that provided Condition 1 was amended to include the requirement this revised farm entrance plan Condition 10 could be deleted.
4. The Tribunal concurs with this approach.

1. The Council submits that this condition was included to address concerns about the noise associated with the loading and unloading of food supplies to the farm. Mr Peake advised that the unloading of feed supplies etc is normally carried out during business hours. However, in an emergency it may be necessary to bring food or gas supplies to the site out of normal hours to avoid bird fatalities. The Council and proponent agree that provision for emergency delivery of supplies out of business hours should be allowed and has been reflected in the revised conditions.

1. The proposed condition referred to now outdated noise guidelines. This correction was not opposed and has been amended in the permit conditions.

1. The Tribunal concurs with the proposed amendment to this condition to allow for four years for the use of the development to commence to align with the completion of the development over the same time frame.

1. To a large extent, the objections and grounds raised against this broiler farm proposal are about perceptions of change to the amenity of surrounding properties. However it ought be remembered that farming by its very nature and its history is subject to ongoing change, both in practices and agricultural products produced. It is evident to us that the establishment of this broiler farm will bring about such a change to the current rural atmosphere of the area, through changes in landscape, traffic and other activity.
2. That said the development of a broiler farm is a legitimate rural enterprise which is encouraged by the local planning scheme and should not be refused simply to maintain the existing amenity. The matters we are required to consider and balance are whether or not this proposal will present an unreasonable level of change and impact to amenity and to the environment, in this case air and water quality. It follows from our reasons that we do not find this to be the case. Accordingly the challenges made to the decision of the Responsible Authority will be dismissed.
3. It also follows from our reasons that the decision of the Responsible Authority should be varied, as we have found that a number of conditions require redrafting as agreed between the parties or are found to be unjustified in the test of merit. Our order sets out the revised conditions to attach to the permit.

The permit allows the use and development of the land for a broiler farm (maximum capacity of 300,000 birds) including the construction of six sheds and associated buildings and works in accordance with the endorsed plans and permit conditions.

1. Before the use and development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but amended as follows:
   • (a) All references to litter storage and litter spreading on the site deleted.
   • (b) All reference to dead bird composting deleted.
   • (c) The broiler farm entrance off Windermere Road in accordance with condition 11 of this permit.
   • (d) Amended locations for land set aside for landscaping in accord with amended landscaping plans prepared pursuant to condition 3 of this permit.
   • (e) Amendments to the location and extent of earthworks required for the collection and dispersal of stormwater pursuant to condition 29 of this permit.
   • (f) The extent of sealing of Windermere Road, as agreed to by VicRoads in accord with condition 9 of this permit.
2. The layout of the site and the size of the buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the consent in writing of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts, amended landscape plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plans must be generally in accordance with the landscape plans submitted with the application but modified to include:
   • (a) Vegetated Buffer Zone and Barwon River Escarpment: This shall comprise of additional planting of trees, shrubs and grasses below the 70m elevation contour within a continuous 30m vegetative buffer zone along the southern, western and northern diagonal boundary fences of the broiler farm development area,. The buffer zone on the southern boundary must be above the steeply inclined land adjacent to the boundary, i.e. the Barwon River escarpment.
   • (b) Grass Filtration Area: The location and details of a grass filtration area aligned with and downstream of the contour drain discharge from the proposed stormwater detention dam designed to collect run-off from the broiler farm sheds and associated infrastructure. A notation on the plan must indicate that the Grass Filtration Area is to be planted concurrent with the completion of the drainage/stormwater detention dam works.
   • (c) Screen Planting Zone: Screen planting with eucalyptus species at two (2) metre centres, 10 metres wide, located adjacent to the southern boundary and located generally adjacent to the internal boundary fence located to the east of the proposed sheds. The screen planting must extend for a distance of thirty (30) metres north and west of the proposed sheds. A notation on the plan must indicate that the Screen Planting Zone must by planted before the commencement of the development, other than at the northern end of the planting to the east of the proposed sheds, which planting must be established within six (6) months after completion of earthworks related to the development.
   • (d) A schedule of plantings indicating each species, which must be indigenous to the locality for the Vegetated Buffer and Screen Planting Zones, anticipated tree and shrub heights and widths at maturity, timetables for all plantings and arrangements for maintenance of the all landscaped areas.
2. All landscaping included in the endorsed Landscape Plan must be planted in accordance with the following schedule:
   • (a) The Screen Planting Zone must by planted before the commencement of the development, other than at the northern end of the planting to the east of the proposed sheds, which planting must be established within six (6) months after completion of earthworks related to the development, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   • (b) The Grass Filtration Area is to be planted concurrent with the completion of the drainage/stormwater detention dam works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   • (c) All other landscape planting must be completed prior to the completion of the development or prior to the placement of the first batch of birds, whichever is the earlier.

All landscaped areas shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the use commences, an Environment Management Plan (the EMP) for the operation of the broiler farm must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The EMP must be prepared in accordance the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 and provide for annual reviews for the first five years, then in accordance with the requirements of the Broiler Code to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority the EMP (and subsequent revisions as provided for in accordance this permit) will be approved and endorsed and will then form part of this permit.
2. Reviews of the EMP must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed EMP. Any revision to the EMP must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the revised EMP will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
3. The use must at all times be undertaken in accordance with the most current version of the endorsed EMP.

1. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority, before the use commences the permit holder must ensure that the following road works are carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
   • (a) Provide 35mm consolidated depth of gravel overlay of minimum five (5) metres width plus half (0.5) metre wide shoulders along Windermere Road from the end of the sealed section referred to in Condition 8 through to the southern end of the broiler farm entrance.
   • (b) Clean and regrade the drainage swales on each side of Windermere Road from the Hamilton Highway to the broiler farm entrance.
2. The Windermere Road approach to the Hamilton Highway intersection shall be widened and sealed as necessary to the satisfaction of VicRoads to accommodate the turning path of B-double trucks.
3. Signage on Hamilton Highway to the west of Windermere Road shall be relocated to the satisfaction of VicRoads to improve sight lines.
4. Before the use commences, the permit holder must construct the proposed driveway access to the broiler farm in accordance with the TraffixGroup Design drawing number G15107 B - 01, contained in the statement of evidence of Mr Henry Turnbull dated 6 March 2013, all to a standard acceptable to the Responsible Authority, including an all-weather surface and drainage as required.
5. The driveway entrance on Windermere Road must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Before the use commences, a Traffic Management Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved by the Responsible Authority, the Traffic Management Plan shall be endorsed and then form part of this permit. The Traffic Management Plan must include, but not necessarily be limited to:
   • (a) Details of briefings to be given to all farm workers and contract drivers about the Traffic Management Plan and enforcement of its requirements, including a recording system of when such briefings and given and too whom.
   • (b) Detailing all permissions necessary and the recording of such permissions granted for the operation of B-doubles to and from the broiler farm.
   • (c) A requirement to limit the speed of all heavy vehicles, including all commercial vans, trucks, semi trailers and B-doubles to 20 km/h within the site and 40 km/h on Windermere Road.
   • (d) A requirement to avoid use of engine compression brakes and detail other driver behaviour to reduce noise levels to a minimum.
   • (e) A requirement for all delivery or pick vehicles loading or unloading on the site to move only in a forward direction or otherwise be fitted with low noise or inaudible reversing alarms.
   • (f) A requirement for all forklifts and other similar vehicles such as loaders etc used on the site to be fitted with and use inaudible reversing alarms.
   • (g) Delivery or pick up times in accord with the requirements of this permit.
7. The use must at all times be undertaken in accordance with the Traffic Management Plan.
8. No advertising sign shall be located on any part of the subject land unless it conforms with the provisions of the Golden Plains Planning Scheme.
9. Other than for the pickup and delivery of live birds, no deliveries to or removal from the subject land must take place after 8.00pm or before 7.00am on any day without the prior written approval of the Responsible Authority. This does not include emergency deliveries associated with the immediate wellbeing of the birds.
10. The loading and unloading of vehicles and the delivery of goods to and from the subject land must be carried out entirely within the subject land at all times.

1. The use authorised by this permit must be operated as a dry litter poultry operation only and the provision for the collection and disposal of solid wastes and for the collection, treatment and disposal of any liquid wastes to arise from the development and use hereby permitted must comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
2. All used litter must be removed from the subject land at the end of each batch to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Wet or spilt litter collected from the sheds shall be stored in weatherproof bins prior to removal off site.
4. The removal of spent bird litter from the sheds by use of machinery must occur between the hours of 7.00am & 8.00pm only and no removal may be undertaken on Sundays and Public Holidays including Christmas Day and Good Friday.
5. Dead birds shall not be composted on the site.
6. Dead birds must not be incinerated or buried on the site unless in an emergency and only with the express written permission of the Responsible Authority.
7. Dead birds must be collected at least daily and promptly chilled or frozen and subsequently removed from the subject land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. The poultry sheds and all feed stores must be vermin and bird proof to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The manner of discharge of all water from the subject land must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into drains or watercourses.
3. All stormwater from areas not associated with the broiler farm area shall be diverted away from the broiler farm area and discharged to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Before the development commences, engineering plans and details for the design of the stormwater detention and diversion systems shall be prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The stormwater detention and diversion system must be designed to collect, treat and store all runoff from the broiler shed, sealed, traffic areas and associated buildings for the critical 1:10 ARI event. Discharge from the stormwater detention system must not exceed the flow from the critical one- in-ten-year storm event on an equivalent area of open pasture basis. The stormwater detention dam design must provide for a clay lined or equivalent non-permeable base and walls.

The engineering design of the stormwater detention and diversion system and associated plans shall be peer reviewed and a copy of the peer review report must be forwarded to the Responsible Authority when submitting the engineering plans and design details for approval.

1. A suitably qualified and experienced contractor must construct the stormwater detention dam in accordance with Southern Rural Water's guidelines for dam construction and the approved detailed design and engineering plans (in the event of a conflict, the approved detailed design and engineering plans shall take precedence).
2. The stormwater detention and diversion system, including all channels and the detention dam must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. Construction and post-construction activities associated with the development of the subject land must be carried out in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA Publication 275).

1. If the Responsible Authority determines that the amenity of nearby residents is adversely affected by the emission of an unreasonable level of odour from the subject land, the permit holder must take such action as is required to prevent those emissions to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This may include but not be limited to adjusting stocking density in the sheds, removing litter immediately, or any other actions reasonably required to rectify the emission of offensive odour.
2. The surface of the car parking, loading areas and access lanes must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent dust and untreated drainage run-off.
3. Security lighting or external floodlighting (if required) shall be baffled to ensure that light is not emitted above the horizontal and must be installed in such a manner that it does not create amenity problems outside the subject land.
4. The broiler farm must be designed and operated to ensure that noise emissions from the premises meets the requirements of the EPA Guideline Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria (NIRV).
5. Within 3 months of commencement of operation of the broiler farm the permit holder shall undertake noise testing by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant at the nearest boundary of 70 Windermere Road to the broiler sheds, to verify compliance with evening and night-time noise limits. A copy of the noise testing report shall be forwarded to the Responsible Authority and the permit holder shall initiate any recommendations of the consultant to address any non-compliance with the relevant standards to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. All vehicles used in the delivery, pick-up and transportation of live birds must be fitted with high performance sound-reducing mufflers to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the permit holder must use its best endeavours to ensure that such activities do not cause any unreasonable noise impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.
7. The standby generator shall be selected on the basis of noise emissions in order to achieve noise levels of less than 35dB(A) at the closest receiver.
8. The permit holder must use its best endeavours to avoid sanitizing sheds with odorous chemicals that give rise to offensive odours being detectible off site. Airborne sprays or chemical odours must not be transmitted beyond the subject land to the detriment of any person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9. All walls of the poultry sheds and other buildings hereby permitted which will be visible from beyond the site must be coloured or painted in non-reflective muted tones to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10. All goods and materials must be stored out of view or so as not to be unsightly when viewed from nearby roads to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11. The development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected, through the:
    • (a) transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the subject land
    • (b) appearance of any building, works or materials
    • (c) emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot,
    • (d) ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil
    • (e) presence of vermin

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   • (a) The development and use are not started within two years of the date of this permit.
   • (a) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

[1] We have considered all submissions presented by the parties although we do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[2] Although not parties to P3468/2012 Mr Guinaine was an original party to P3007/2012 and Mrs Allworthy was joined as a party pursuant to section 60 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. Leave was granted to these two parties to make submissions in P3468/2012 but they were not joined as parties to this proceeding for reasons given in the course of the hearing.

[3] 2009, Department of Primary Industries.

[4] Email dated 22 February 2013 circulated to parties in P3007/2012 and filed with the Tribunal by New Zalia Pty Ltd.

[5] The remainder of the CMA's concerns related to ensuring compliance with the Code and an acknowledgement that the broiler farm is not anticipated to be impacted by high flood levels from the Barwon River.

[10] Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and clause 10 of the scheme.

[11] This includes a standard about biosecurity which is not relevant to the matters under contention.

[12] As set out under Section 7, page 24 of the Code of Practice.

[13] We here refer to measures set out under Element 1 for the location of sheds, but do not recite other measures about litter and compost stockpiles which are to be excluded from on-site operations under this proposal.

[14] At page 18, Section 5 of the Code.

[15] Pages 32 to 35 of his Statement of Evidence dated March 2013.

[16] The location was identified to the Tribunal during the site inspection and during the course of the hearing on various site plans.

[17] Barac v Strathbogie SC [2011] VCAT 1146 at [79]

[19] See Thirteenth Beach Coast Watch Inc v The Environment Protection Authority & Anor [2009] VSC 53 at [13].

[20] As per the schedule to Clause 35.07 and requirements of Clause 35.07-1.

[22] Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation of Road at Windermere Road, Murgheboluc. 27 February 2013 report number 1341 - A. Land Assessment Consultants.

[23] 1 The Tribunal notes that a 6 m wide internal access road for the broiler farm is proposed, presumably to enable passing of large vehicles. Mr Turnbull advised that the design of the internal road was undertaken by others and he was unable to comment on the reasons for the 6 m width.

[25] Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise. EPA of NSW. 1999