J & S Learmouth, I Esmore, G Heath, H Mutimer & K Warren, J Jordan, P Jordan, E Pierson, R Cooper, B Jurcan, J James, F White, R Cooper, D Hill & G Miles, Central Highlands Tourist Railway, K Remy, A Balharrie, A Loveband.

211 Wheelers Hill Road, Musk and 1 Barhams Road, Musk

6 June, 2011, 7 September, 2011 and 7 November, 2011

Big Wet Natural Springs Pty Ltd & Anor v Hepburn SC [2011] VCAT 2293

1. The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
2. In permit application 10479, a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 211 Wheelers Hill Road and 1 Barhams Road, Musk in accordance with the endorsed plan and on the conditions set out in Appendix A. This permit allows for the use and development of a Utility Installation (water distribution).

I Esmore, G Heath, K Warren, H Mutimer, J Jordan, E Pierson, R Cooper and K Remy all appeared on their own behalf.

W McClenaghan appeared on behalf of the Central Highlands Tourist Railway.

Utility installation (distribution of water extracted from bores)

Application under Section 79 Planning and Environment Act 1987

Clause 42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay Schedules 1 and 2 (ESO1 & ESO2)

Clause 44.06 Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO or WMO)[1]

Clause 35.07-1 Use of the land for a utility installation

Clause 35.07-4 Buildings and works associated with a use in Section 2 of Clause 35.07-1

Clause 42.01-2 Buildings and works associated with a site cut exceeding 300m2 in area and greater than 1 metre in depth (ESO1) and for a utility installation (ESO2)

The site comprises two lots; 211 Wheelers Hill Road (Big Wet Natural Spring Water Pty Ltd), which has an irregular shape with an area of approximately 24.7 ha and 1 Barhams Road (Musk Springs Pty Ltd), which abuts 211 Wheelers Hill Road to the east and has an area of approximately 20 ha. Both sites are located within a rural context, about 7 kilometres to the south of Daylesford and are generally cleared of vegetation apart from plantations around the existing water tanks and used for grazing and hay cutting. The surrounding rural areas are used for grazing of cattle, cropping, orchards and viticulture while the area of Barhams Road, Cantillions Road and Dolphins Road are generally developed with dwellings on smaller lots.

Learmonth Springs Pty Ltd v Yarra Ranges SC [2002] VCAT 1043 ('the Learmonth case')

1. This is an application by Big Wet Natural Spring Water Pty Ltd and Musk Springs Pty Ltd to review the failure by Hepburn Shire Council ('the Council') to grant a permit within the prescribed time for the use and development of the land at Musk for a utility installation to distribute groundwater extracted from two bores and stored in tanks on the land.
2. The use and development has been in operation since 2007 until the applicants were advised by Council that a planning permit was required. Hence, the matter before us relates to a permit application that seeks retrospective approval. The development that has occurred includes:
   • Two groundwater bores used for water extraction comprising:
     • A groundwater bore (ref. 104167) with a diesel pump located on 211 Wheelers Hill Road (Lot 2 PS545486), which has a licence under the Water Act 1989 to extract a maximum of 40 megalitres per annum with a daily limit of 0.3 megalitres. Under the licence, groundwater extracted is allowed to be used for industrial or commercial, as well as for domestic and stock purposes.
     • A groundwater bore (ref. 104230) with a diesel pump located on 1 Barhams Road (Lot 1 PS173852), which has a licence under the Water Act 1989 to extract a maximum of 40 megalitres per annum with a daily limit of 0.1 megalitres. Under the licence extracted groundwater is permitted to be used for industrial or commercial, as well as for domestic and stock purposes.
   • Water is extracted from both groundwater bores by diesel pumps[2] and conveyed by underground pipes to the following storage tanks located near the entrance to the land at 211 Wheelers Hill Road:
     • 5 x 97,000 litre storage tanks (total storage capacity of 485,000 litres).
     • 2 x sheds with water filtration equipment.
     • 3 x 30,000 litre filtered water holding tanks (90,000 litres capacity).
     • A looped gravel driveway accessing standpipes and an internal road for access to the other infrastructure.
     • Recent immature native vegetation plantation around the water tank infrastructure and in the island of the loop driveway.
3. The use of the land has involved 24 hour, seven days a week operations in response to customer demand. However, the applicant has advised that the following operation is now being sought:
   • A maximum of 70 megalitres per annum of groundwater extracted[3] and distributed off-site to spring water bottling plants in Melbourne.
   • A maximum of 16 loads (pick-ups) or 32 truck movements per day[4].
   • A maximum of 60 loads (pick-ups) or 120 truck movements per week.
   • A maximum of 200 loads (pick-ups) or 400 truck movements per month.
   • No pick-ups on Sundays.
   • Pick-ups only between 7.00am and 10.00pm Monday to Saturday.
4. The planning application was received by the Council in April 2010 and it was publicly advertised and 18 objections were received. A report was presented to Council in September whereby Council resolved to defer determination until further comments had been obtained from the North Central CMA. Since that deferral, this application for review was lodged.
5. The application was considered at a Council meeting in December 2010, and it was determined the application would have been refused because:
   • The use is contrary to the purpose of the Farming Zone.
   • The amenity of the locality is substantially compromised by truck movements, noise, visual impact, light overspill and dust.
   • The surrounding road network is unsuitable to accommodate the traffic generated by the use.
   • Truck movements represent an unacceptable risk to the safety of road users.
   • The proposed use is contrary to Clause 22.04 of the planning scheme relating to rural amenity.
   • While the extraction of water is subject to licensing under the Water Act, the proposal fails to prevent the unsustainable use of agricultural land which results in the loss of the quantity and quality of natural resources and limits the realisation of its full productive potential, by directly denying the water to the immediate property (and indirectly to adjacent properties) in the form of irrigation water, dramatically reducing its agricultural production and potential.
6. A hearing before a differently constituted Tribunal commenced on 14 February, 2011. The Tribunal ordered that the applicant give notice of an intention to amend the application (to include the land at 1 Barhams Road, Musk) and to give further notice of the application on the basis of the inclusion of the additional bore on 1 Barhams Road.
7. Following the completion of the amendment and notice processes, the hearing commenced on 23 May, 2011.
8. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal issued a number of Orders relating to matters arising out of the hearing.
9. Having heard all of the submissions, evidence, viewed the written and pictorial information from the parties and undertaken an inspection of the land and surrounding area, we consider that the key issues to be determined are:
   • Groundwater extraction and distribution and appropriateness in the Farming Zone
   • Impacts on the amenity of the area
   • Road safety and upgrades
10. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted or not, and if so, what conditions should be applied. We have considered the above issues with regard to the policies and provisions of the Hepburn Planning Scheme and we have decided that a permit should be granted for the utility installation subject to conditions set out in Appendix A. Our reasons follow.

Groundwater extraction and distribution and appropriateness in the Farming Zone

1. Council and the objectors to the application argued that the use and development of the land at Musk for extraction and distribution of groundwater away from the area (transported by truck to water bottling facilities elsewhere) will contribute to an adverse impact upon the long term protection of the area's water resources and agricultural productivity. A concern was the long term impact on the quantity and quality of the groundwater resource due to the de-coupling of the local water cycle due to the off-site distribution of extracted groundwater away from the region.
2. With regards to groundwater extraction, Mr Mackenzie acknowledged the decision of the Tribunal in Learmonth Springs Pty Ltd v Yarra Ranges SC [2002] VCAT 1043 ('the Learmonth case') and did not dispute that the right to extract groundwater is regulated by the Water Act 1989 and not the planning scheme. However, he submitted that the water extraction and use off-site for bottling does little to advance the policy framework of the planning scheme for the sustainable and diversified use of high quality agricultural land and the concerns about the removal of water from the area and its impacts through the lost opportunity for that water to be used on the land for improved agricultural production.
3. The land is currently used for grazing and hay cutting. Both Council and the objectors claimed that this use was "low level" and ancillary to the primary economic use of the land for the bottled water industry.
4. In contrast, Mr Cicero submitted for the applicant that in accordance with the decision in the Learmonth case the impacts of the extraction of groundwater from the two bores are matters that are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. There are two streams of legislation that deal with groundwater extraction: the planning scheme which deals with the approval of the use and development of land for using the extracted groundwater; and the Water Act which addresses water and its extraction and use through a licensing system which administers both the construction of works (Section 67) and the taking and use of water (Section 51). In this case, the applicant already enjoys lawfully granted licences to take and use groundwater for industrial or commercial use as well as domestic and stock use.
5. We were taken to Section 40 of the Water Act which outlined the matters to be considered in granting any licence. Some of the relevant matters included issue such as existing and projected water availability and quality, the permissible consumptive volumes, the need to protect the environment, the purposes for which the water is to be used and the needs of other potential applicants. In other words, many of the issues that were of concern to the Council and objectors are matters covered under the Water Act and which we are entitled to infer, have already been considered by the relevant water authority[5] when the current licences were granted.
6. We are in agreement with the position put forward in the Learmonth case and consider that the potential impacts from the extraction and use of groundwater on water supply and de-coupling of the water cycle are outside of our jurisdiction. Issues surrounding the extraction and use of groundwater are separately addressed under the Water Act. The planning approval for the use is based on the premise that the water is to be distributed for use off-site, whereas if the groundwater as extracted were to be used on-site to support farming, such a permit would not be required. Hence the key consideration for this matter is whether the use of the land for distributing the water off-site creates an unacceptable outcome in terms of harming the land, restricting the ongoing use of the land for farming, resulting in the pollution of waterways and the groundwater resource or harming the use and enjoyment of surrounding land.
7. In terms of the relationship between the use and development and the Farming Zone, we note the policy under Clause 22.04 - Rural Land which seeks to ensure that proposals show the ongoing use of the land for productive agricultural activity is not diminished and that the development is directly related to an agricultural enterprise. In this regard the extent of development is minimal and accordingly we find that the level of impact is small. The development required to operate the use comprises two bores and diesel pumps, underground pipework, water storage tanks, standpipes and vehicle access roads/driveway. The area of land used for the utility installation is small and considered to be approximately 1 hectare out of an approximate total of 27 hectares. Mr Cicero submitted that these types of activities (water extraction and off-site distribution) are commonly found in rural areas and not within industrial or other urban locations. We agree and find that it is a use and development that is not unlike other forms of natural resource type activities in that they occur where the resource is found. Accordingly, we do not consider that the nature of the proposal we are considering here results in the loss or potential loss of either the subject lands or the surrounding land from being able to continue to be used for agricultural uses.
8. In regards to the relationship between the non-agricultural use of the land and the purposes of the Farming Zone and the policy framework for agricultural land, Mr Cicero submitted that the use and development will not permanently remove land from agricultural production and will not impact on the ability of surrounding land to continue to be used for agricultural activity. He argued that the income from the sales of water would assist with recovering operational and maintenance costs and support continued sustainable farming use and consequently be consistent with the policy outcomes sought under the planning scheme for agricultural and rural land use.
9. The issue of extracted groundwater being lost to the region is one that has already been dealt with by Goulburn-Murray Water in considering the licence applications and determining to grant and condition the licences that the applicant holds. We consider that the use and development will have no impact on the surface of the land and consequently will not conflict with the purposes of the Farming Zone and the policy framework for agricultural land use.

1. Impacts on the amenity of the area relate to noise associated with truck movements and diesel pumps operating 24 hours a day, while other impacts relate to visual impacts, light overspill and dust.
2. The issue of amenity is highlighted under Clause 22.04 - Rural Land under Rural Amenity which has the objective:

To ensure that rural amenity is not adversely affected by use or development in the rural areas.

1. We heard evidence from Mr Rogers on noise which concluded that if operating restrictions proposed by the applicant are put in place for truck pick-ups, noise emissions from the site will comply with the EPA's Draft Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria Guidelines and the N-3 Interim Guidelines for Control of Industrial Noise from Industry in Country Victoria. He also stated that while there are no noise requirements for trucks travelling along Wheelers Hill Road, he considered that the noise emissions generated from a B Double Tanker would be no louder than existing traffic.
2. With regards to diesel pumps operating at the location of each bore, Mr Rogers advised that the recent installation of sound barriers had the effect of reducing noise towards dwellings located to the east. This was confirmed by Mr Heath.
3. With respect to visual impacts, we find ourselves in agreement with Mr Cicero who advised that the existing infrastructure on the site is low key and no different to the types of structures found on farming properties. Our views were confirmed from viewing photographs of the site and area and from our inspection of both the Wheelers Hill and Barhams Road properties and from the surrounding land including properties along Dolphins Road and Cantillions Road.
4. Light spill is not considered by us to be a significant issue given the proposal by the applicant to limit the hours of pick-ups and the consequential reduction in the length of time that lighting at night may be required. Likewise, we do not consider that dust will be a significant issue given that this occurs with regularity in rural settings. The sealed nature of Wheelers Hill Road and Quines Road means that for most of the time apart from perhaps when trucks are passing another vehicle, the generation of dust into the air will be minimal and infrequent. Accordingly, we do not consider dust an issue.
5. With regards to the above, therefore, we consider that the rural amenity of the area will not be adversely affected by the proposed utility installation.

1. A significant amount of time was spent in the hearing concerning road safety and maintenance. Council and objectors were concerned over road and rail safety given the number and size of trucks involved in carting water from the site and the condition of the road surface, formation and topography. Mr Mackenzie submitted that the local road network cannot safely or adequately accommodate the use of "pocket" B Double tankers.
2. We consider that the issue of road safety was aptly highlighted in the submissions of Ms Jordan and Mr McClenaghan on behalf of the Central Highlands Tourist Railway. Both expressed fear and concern over safely using the 1.85 kilometre section of Wheelers Hill and Quines Roads between the site entry and the Daylesford-Trentham Road with B Double trucks travelling to and from the land and that of the crossing over the tourist railway line that runs between Daylesford and Bullarto.
3. The issue of road safety was perhaps most highlighted by:
   • Manoeuvring at the intersection of Quines Road and the Daylesford-Trentham Road with respect to crossing lanes for vehicle turning and to which VicRoads have requested the upgrading of this intersection.
   • Crossing the Central Highland Tourist Railway line and the adequacy of sight distances and warning signage.
   • Passing along Wheelers Hill Road due to the insufficient pavement width and the need to use the unmade road shoulders for passing. Wheelers Hill Road has a constructed pavement width of approximately 4.0 - 4.5 metres within a 20 metre wide road reserve. Passing is particularly challenging along "The Cutting" (a section of the road which traverses a narrow cutting) located on Wheelers Hill Road approximately 1.6 kilometres from the Daylesford-Trentham Road and near the subject land.
   • Safe exiting from the standpipe area at 211 Wheelers Hill Road.
4. Council and the objectors submitted that all of the above hazards are further exacerbated by periods of fog creating poor visibility and the use of the road by drivers who may be unfamiliar with conditions attracted to visiting the Lost Children's Monument located between the site entrance and Barhams Road.
5. With respect to rail safety at the existing crossing on Wheelers Hill Road, we a invited a response from VicTrack and VicRoads with respect to any impacts on the rail crossing from the proposal. No comments were received from VicTrack. VicRoads advised that it had previously provided comments on the application to the Council and had raised no objections. VicRoads did not wish to provide any further comments. However, we do note the comments from Mr Turnbull and Mr Cicero in relation to traffic warning signage and line marking and consider it appropriate to recommend that improved signage and line marking should be undertaken to improve the safety of the rail crossing.
6. The applicant called expert evidence from Mr Turnbull and Mr Altmann in relation to road safety and condition. Mr Turnbull stated that Wheelers Hill Road is a local rural access road which has a daily volume of less than 150 vehicles requiring only a single lane road. He considers that having an additional 32 truck movements per day as a maximum limit will not cause traffic issues. His view on this was reinforced by his understanding that trucks adopted a 50km/h speed limit whilst travelling on local roads, the unlikelihood of trucks passing one another during the day and the somewhat seasonal nature of the water bottling industry in that peak demand occurs in summer with quieter periods of activity expected over the winter months.
7. Council disagreed with Mr Turnbull's evidence that trucks may not pass each other particularly given the applicant's intention to limit the hours for truck deliveries. Mr Mackenzie submitted that permitting a use that will generate additional truck traffic onto this local road network warrants a road design standard that allows a truck and car to safely pass on a constructed road/road shoulder. With respect to road upgrades, Council argued that the permit applicant should pay for the works that are reasonably required to upgrade the infrastructure to meet the new or additional demands arising from the proposed use and development. Mr Mackenzie argued that the applicant should contribute to road upgrades because the proposal introduces a higher level of heavy vehicle usage creating changed traffic conditions and an increased impact on road infrastructure. He submitted that the proposal contributes towards impacts on road safety, function and quality requiring a contribution towards offsetting such impacts. Accordingly, he presented to us the following requirements that Council considers is warranted for road upgrades based on the context on existing road conditions with the additional traffic generated by the proposal:
   • 6.4 metre seal (2 lanes) from Daylesford-Trentham Road to the rail crossing (approximately 150 metres);
   • 4 metre seal with 1.5 metre constructed gravel shoulders from the rail crossing to the cutting (approximately 1.6 kilometres);
   • 6.4 metre seal (2 lanes) through the cutting and crest; and
   • 6.4 metre seal (2 lanes) at the site entrance, with the crossovers sealed to accommodate the swept path through the entry and exit turns. (Council does not require a formal slip land plus 2 through lanes).
8. In contrast, Mr Turnbull submitted:

It is my opinion that an appropriate arrangement for the pavement of Wheelers Hill Road is a width of 4.5 metres sealed to 4.0 metres with a further 0.5 metre shoulder on each side, i.e. a total of 5.5 metres.

1. Having considered the arguments put to us by the various parties, we accept that the proposal will generate additional truck traffic, being "pocket" or "mini" B Double water tankers. However, we do not consider that this additional truck traffic will lead to a loss in the level of road safety that is significant enough for us to determine that a permit should not be granted. The very nature of the single lane road pavement of Wheelers Hill Road and Quines Road provides for a natural level of safety through its inhibition of the desire to speed. Roads of this nature inevitably draw out a sense of caution by all drivers. Visitors to the area will no doubt drive slowly if they are unfamiliar with the surroundings and wish to partake of the scenery. The local road network is used by other agricultural activities which do include the use of trucks and other larger sized vehicles and whom we believe would also take account of driving conditions. It is physically possible to pass other vehicles including trucks along Wheelers Hill Road including at the cutting, albeit with care. We believe such a physical constraint contributes towards reasonable road safety because it slows the speed of traffic.
2. We do not consider that the extent of road widening suggested by Council has been justified by the Council. We do, however believe that some road upgrading is required. This was not in dispute. The applicant conceded that road works are required and acknowledged that a contribution toward those works is warranted. The issue is to what extent upgrading and contributions should be made by the applicant in this case.
3. In arriving at our conclusions on this issue we have been assisted by the expert evidence of Mr Turnbull and Mr Altmann. That expert evidence was not disputed by contrary expert evidence.
4. The evidence of Mr Altmann took us to the issue of what burden, if any, the applicant should bear as a result of the traffic generated from his site, on the standard of pavement construction depth. He submitted that contributions towards upgrades are required but that any contribution should be based upon a load levy in case the use ceases due to the water extraction licence not being renewed or for other business related reasons. He submitted that the applicant contribute:
   • A payment to Council of $1.50 per load or the payment towards the construction cost attributable to an additional 45mm of pavement. This would include reconstruction including pavement and shoulder widening and strengthening of various sections of both Wheelers Hill Road and Quines Road where necessary for maintenance;
   • To meeting the cost of asphalt surfacing at the Daylesford-Trentham Road intersection; and
   • To meeting the cost of asphalt surfacing from 30 metres north of the entry to 211 Wheelers Hill Road to the southern egress point. The latter works should include pavement reconstruction to ensure the asphalt surfacing has adequate support.
5. The evidence before us in this case is that road works are necessary in order to accommodate the nature, volume and frequency of additional truck movements on the road network, associated with the use of the land for a utility installation as proposed. Mr Turnbull and Mr Altmann identified the works which are necessary.
6. The applicant submits they ought to be required to make only a contribution toward those works. We consider that the applicant is or has introduced a use which generates additional truck traffic comprising both higher loads and movements that are beyond that which is generated by activity in the local area. Accordingly, we consider that is is appropriate to require the applicant to carry out the works identified by the evidence as being necessary to accommodate the proposed use. We note that those works do not extend to full construction of existing roads, but rather an upgrading of those roads. In that context we have concluded that the applicant should be required to bear the costs of that upgrading.

1. It follows from the above reasons that it is our conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit issued.
2. In deciding the conditions to be included on the permit we have had regard to the "without prejudice" conditions provided to the Tribunal by the responsible authority and the submissions and evidence of the parties in addition to the matters which arise from our reasons.
3. With respect to operating limits we consider that it is only necessary to limit the hours of truck delivery operations to those proposed by Mr Cicero. We do not consider it is now necessary to limit the operation of diesel pumps given the nature of their housing and noise barrier control. We also feel that by reducing the hours of deliveries the need for 24 hour pumping may also reduce, particularly given the seasonal variation in demand for water over the course of a year.

The use and development of a Utility Installation (water distribution) in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1. Within two (2) months of the date of this permit, the applicant/owner must submit amended plans to the Responsible Authority for endorsement. The plans submitted must be drawn to scale and three copies must be provided and once endorsed will form part of the planning permit. The plans submitted must show:
   1. Floor plans and elevations of all pumping sheds and water tanks, including setbacks from boundaries.

1. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Within 3 months of the issue of this permit, unless written consent to an extension is provided by the Responsible Authority, the applicant shall prepare and submit professionally prepared plans by a suitably qualified engineer for the design and construction of roadworks and vehicle crossovers to the Responsible Authority for approval. Construction shall not commence until the plans have been approved by the Responsible Authority. All road construction and/or widening shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. The plans shall show the following works:

1. The Daylesford-Trentham Road and Quines Road/Wheelers Hill Road intersection pavement repaired and strengthened to meet AustRoads design requirements and surfaced in accordance with the requirements of VicRoads (see Condition 21); 2. Upgrading of Quines Road and Wheelers Hill Road from the Daylesford-Trentham Road to the entrance to the subject land based on a width of 4.5 metres sealed to 4.0 metres with a further 0.5 metre shoulder on each side, i.e. a total of 5.5 metres. The design for pavement width and shoulder widening and strengthening shall allow for heavy traffic on shoulders, and based on the type and number of trucks originating from the utility installation (water distribution);

1. Wheelers Hill Road widened and strengthened from at the entrance to and including the egress from the development and for a distance of 30 metres north of the entry to meet AustRoads design requirements and shall be surfaced with a minimum 20mm asphalt surface.
2. All roadworks shall be designed and constructed at the applicant/owner's cost and in accordance with the approved plans referred to in Condition 3, and such work shall be undertaken within 6 months of the approval of all plans, or within some other time frame agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority. The cost of road works shall be borne by the applicant/owner.
3. The access and egress from Wheelers Hill Road to the development must be designed and constructed with an asphalt surface from Wheelers Hill Road to the property line. The design and construction must prevent loose material from within the property being washed or tracked onto Wheelers Hill Road. The access and egress must be signed to indicate the entrance and exit.
4. All roads and drains shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the following documents:

1. Australian Rainfall and Runoff Vol 1, A Guide to Flood Estimation, The Institution of Engineers Australia; 2. Pavement Design; A Guide to the Structural Design of Road Pavements, Austroads 1992;

1. Pavement Design; A Guide to the Design of New Pavements for Light Traffic;

1. Austroads APRG Report No 21 (Supplement to Austroads Pavement Design); 2. VicRoads Road Design Guidelines; Part 2 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry; Part 3 Cross Section Elements; Part 7 Drainage, VicRoads Design; 3. EPA Publication No 480; Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites; and 4. EPA Publication No 275; Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control.
2. The Supervising Consulting Engineer shall provide a supervision report to Council verifying that the road and drains have been constructed in compliance with the Consulting Engineers Design including details of inspections at hold points, tests carried out and test results. The works must pass tests and onsite inspections by the Responsible Authority.
3. After all necessary engineering works pertaining to the development have been completed, the site shall be resurveyed and a set of the "As Constructed" work drawings submitted to Council for Council's records.
4. All works required must be completed within six months of the issue of the permit unless written consent to an extension is provided by the Responsible Authority.

1. Within 60 days of the date of this permit, the applicant/owner shall arrange with VicRoads and/or Council, as appropriate and at its cost for any additional signage and line marking to be put in place at the railway crossing and appropriate warning signage on the approaches to the cutting located on Wheelers Hill Road 1.6 kilometres from the Daylesford-Trentham Road to improve vehicle safety to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Vehicles associated with the utility installation (water distribution) must only use Wheelers Hill Road - Quines Road to access the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the hours of operation (deliveries) shall not exceed Monday to Saturday 7.00am to 10.00pm. No deliveries are permitted on Sunday.

1. The maximum volume of water that may be carted from the site is 70 megalitres without further consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Vehicles used for water cartage must not have a capacity greater than 38,000 litres and not more than the following load limits without the further consent of the Responsible Authority:
   1. 60 tanker loads per week.
   2. 200 tanker loads per month.
2. The operator must keep and maintain compliance records showing the weekly and monthly tanker loads and provide a copy to the Responsible Authority upon request.

1. Noise emitted from the site must comply with and be in accordance with the Environment Protection Authority's Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria - N3/89 - dated April 1989 or any successor.

1. External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The use approved under this permit must not adversely affect the amenity of the locality by reason of the processes carried on, the transportation of materials, goods or commodities to or from the subject land; the appearance of any buildings, works or materials; the emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, the presence of vermin, or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Any clearing or construction activity associated with water supply infrastructure must be carried out in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control, (Environment Protection Authority, 1991), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. No polluted and/or sediment laden run-off must be discharged directly or indirectly into nearby water courses.

1. The Daylesford-Trentham Road and Wheelers Hill Road intersection must have a minimum of a 20 mm asphalt overlay, 20 metres either side of the centre of the Wheelers Hill Road on the Daylesford-Trentham Road, and including the bell mouth back to the property line of Wheelers Hill Road and:

1. The contractor must be VicRoads prequalified at R1 level. 2. The contractor must not commence any works in, on, under or over the Daylesford-Trentham Road reserve without having first applied for and received written consent from VicRoads for those works in accordance with Section 63 of the Road Management Act 2004.

1. The works must be to the satisfaction of VicRoads.

[1] Under Amendment VC83 gazetted on 18 November 2011, the Bushfire Management Overlay was introduced. No permit is required to construct a building or carry out works associated with a utility installation.

[2] The bore and diesel pump located on 1 Barhams Road (Musk Springs land) is enclosed within a building of approximately 2 metres in width and 3 metres in length, with a height of 2 metres.

[3] The 70 megalitres capacity is based on the combined extraction capacity of the two (2) groundwater bores.

[4] Pick-ups refer to single truck movements involving the use of mini (pocket) B-Double tankers with a load capacity of 38,000 litres.

[5] In this matter, the relevant water authority is Goulburn-Murray Rural Water.