1. Council submitted that these documents are sought because they 'are important to accurately identify' the permissions and approvals that were granted with respect to the land that is now Green Gully Reserve. Council submitted that despite an 'exhaustive search' of its records it has been unable to locate complete copies of all previous permissions and approvals that apply to the subject land.
2. Further, council submitted that these documents are relevant to the issues in this proceeding because the landfill previously operating on the subject land was operated in compliance with, and under the cover of earlier permissions, and 'as otherwise allowed' by the EPA or State Government of Victoria. This state of affairs, council submitted, goes to its contention that there is 'shared responsibility' between levels of government regarding the management of any harm arising from the previous use of the subject land.
3. Council also submitted that the documents may assist any expert witnesses engaged by the parties to review the past activities that have occurred on the subject land, and may provide details about the configuration and timing of the landfill that may have some bearing on the origin and generation of leachate.
4. The EPA submitted that the documents sought by council are not relevant because the notice and its requirements are a response to current conditions in Taylors Creek and future actions that are required to address these conditions.
5. We agree that the documents being sought by council may assist expert witnesses in their preparation to give evidence in this proceeding and are likely to assist the Tribunal at the final hearing to understand the factual history of the previous use(s) of the subject land that may contribute to the current conditions of Taylors Creek relied upon by the EPA to issue the notice under review. The documents are therefore or relevance or potential relevance to the matters in this proceeding.
6. Accordingly, the EPA is required to provide the documents sought by Council in accordance with the orders made.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, all supporting exhibits given at the hearing and other filed materials have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] Exhibit HB-3, Affidavit of Hector Burton dated 9 February 2023.

[7] [2000] VCAT 214.

[8] Brimbank CC v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VCAT 1429; Wyndham City Council v Environment Protection Authority [2022] VCAT (Unreported, 13 April 2022); Health Purchasing Victoria v Environment Protection Authority [2022] VCAT (Unreported, 27 October 2022_); Monsbent Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority_ [2022] VCAT 1487; SBI Landfill Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2022] VCAT 1215; Van Hessen Australia Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2023] VCAT 70; Hazelwood Power v Department of Primary Industries [2011] VCAT 719 at [12] - [15]; Aavelaid v Dental Practice Board of Victoria [2002] VCAT 1376; Ali v Taxi Services Commission (Review and Regulation) [2014] VCAT 1437 at [17]; Shvetsova v Medical Board of Australia (Review and Regulation) (Stay) [2018] VCAT 867 at [19]; Duncan v Nurses Board of Victoria [2006] VCAT 4 at [9].

[9] See s.35 of EP Act for the definition of 'contaminated land'.

[10] See affidavit of Mathew Barker (dated 9 February 2023.) at pdf page 398 of the bundle of exhibits.

[12] See paragraph 30 of the EPA's written submissions.