Broadwater Action Group Inc v Richmond Valley Council & Anor [2003] NSWLEC 290 | Case summary

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2003-11-18|Before: Lloyd J

Introduction 1 New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-operative Limited operates a sugar mill at Broadwater on the Richmond River, in northern New South Wales. The mill was established as long ago as 1884. The village of Broadwater grew around it, mainly to accommodate workers at the mill and on the cane farms in the area. Nowadays the village is less dependent on the mill, whose workers come from further afield. 2 The mill produces cane waste, known as bagasse, which is used to fuel a boiler to generate steam and electricity for use in the plant. On 17 December 2002 Richmond Valley Council granted development consent for a cogeneration facility at the mill, by which biomass material comprising mainly bagasse and cane trash will be combusted in a new boiler to produce steam which will propel a new 30 MW turbine electricity generator. This will be a continuation and extension of the existing steam and power generation activities at the mill, but unlike the present generator it will operate 24 hours a day 365 days a year. During the crushing season the steam generated will be directed to the existing generator at the mill, with excess steam to power a new generator to export electricity to the grid. During the non-crushing season the new generator will direct power to the grid. The proposal includes a stockpile of bagasse on a grazing property known as "Pondarosa" and an overhead conveyer about 1.3 kilometres long between the stockpile and the mill. The proposal will involve a capital investment of about $50 million. 3 Broadwater Action Group Inc now appeals against the grant of development consent, as permitted by s 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ("the EP&A Act"). In separate proceedings (No. 10026 of 2003) Lismore City Council appeals against the failure of Richmond Valley Council to impose conditions upon the consent relating to the upgrading of roads within its area on the opposite side of the river. 4 On 11 September 2003 I determined two questions raised by Broadwater Action Group separately from the other issues, as permitted by Pt 31 r 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 1979 which applies in this Court (see Pt 6 r 1, Land and Environment Court Rules 1996). I held that the development application did not have to be accompanied by a species impact statement and I further held that issue 7 - the fauna and flora impact - was so marginal and insignificant that the development application should not be refused on that ground (Broadwater Action Group Inc v Richmond Valley Council & Anor [2003] NSWLEC 202). 5 During the hearing of the remaining issues the Court took a view of the mill, the site of the bagasse stockpile and the surrounding area in the presence of representatives of the parties. The Court received in evidence a bundle of written statements from local residents and heard evidence in Ballina from a selection of those residents. 6 I have no doubt that the concerns expressed by the residents are genuinely held. They relate mainly to complaints they have about the present and past operation of the mill. Their main concern is that the operation of the mill, which has given rise to the present complaints, will continue and become more extensive and occur for longer periods if the development proceeds. However, for the reasons which follow I have concluded that the proposal will be acceptable if it is subject to conditions which will be imposed so as to limit the impact of the development, not only in relation to the new co-generation plant, but also the existing mill, thereby alleviating the cause of many of the present complaints. Air Quality 7 The applicant claims that there has been inadequate assessment of the effect of the proposal on air quality. Evidence adduced by the applicant consists of Dr N Bofinger's contribution to the joint expert report. Dr G Miller, an expert witness for the second respondent, also contributed to the joint report which he later supplemented with a report in reply. 8 Dr Bofinger's contention is that no assessment of the potential impacts of the proposal upon regional air quality has been undertaken. He states in the joint report that "emissions associated with the proposed development will add to the current level of air pollutants in the region". In particular, he claims that the air quality monitoring program is insufficient to permit the determination of background air quality values, rendering it impossible to ascertain the overall impact of the proposed development on future air quality. The selected monitoring sites, Dr Bofinger claims, are affected by local influences and are not true regional sites. Lastly, he asserts that the Ausplume model adopted by the proponent does not adequately gauge dispersion levels in low wind speed periods or when it is employed close to the stack, particularly during summer. 9 In reply to Dr Bofinger's concerns, Dr Miller states that the air quality assessment for the proposal was conservative, assuming a background PM10 particle concentration level of 30 ug/m3, which, in all likelihood, is higher than the actual readings at Broadwater. To provide some perspective for this analysis, Dr Miller notes that the average annual concentration of PM10 in the Sydney airshed, obviously a relatively congested air space, is at or below this value. 10 Dr Miller claims that Dr Bofinger misunderstands the purpose of the designated monitoring sites, which was to determine approximate background readings for insertion into the model. The sites were not chosen for long term monitoring because the proposed facility is not yet constructed, rendering any results from such a model meaningless. In response to concerns about the Ausplume model, Dr Miller concedes the model is unable to register wind speeds of less than 0.5 m/s. He concludes, however, that this defect is inconsequential in the present circumstances because such low wind speeds would occur most infrequently in the area. 11 Moreover, since the proposed development is integrated development, the Environment Protection Authority ("the EPA") has submitted General Terms of Approval in relation to air quality monitoring requirements. Such requirements include PM10 monitoring for particulate emissions. Despite its alleged inadequacies, this is the current standard measure for control effectiveness and related health effects. Such terms have been incorporated into the conditions of consent, and, very importantly, Dr Miller believes that the proposal is capable of complying with their requirements. 12 Contrary to the applicant's assertions, the fact that the current mill operation may presently be in breach of licence conditions is not relevant to the present question of whether or not development consent for the co-generation proposal should be granted (Kouflidis v City of Salisbury (1982) 49 LGRA 17 at 19). In order to operate the proposed development, having been granted development consent, the applicant must apply to the EPA to obtain either a separate licence for the co-generation plant or a variation of the existing licence for the mill operation which reflects the EPA's requirements for the functioning of the proposed plant (Grace Bros v Willoughby Municipal Council (1980) 44 LGRA 400 at 418). It is only in relation to this further licence application that the proponent's past conduct will become relevant (ss 45(f) and 83, Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997). 13 Lastly, despite his concerns, Dr Bofinger concedes later in the joint expert report "that the change from burnt cane to green cane harvesting [a result of the proposal] would lead to a net reduction in the regional particulate burden". He further acknowledges that licence conditions and future air quality monitoring will be undertaken to safeguard residents' health. 14 It seems, therefore, that the impact of the development on regional air quality is likely to have positive overall benefits notwithstanding that the projected emissions from the proposed plant are only estimations. Moreover, the abovementioned mandatory monitoring will control actual emissions once the co-generation plant is operational. Air Quality and Bagassosis 15 Dr M Dawson provided expert evidence for the proponent in relation to the potential for bagassosis spores to be transmitted as a result of the proposal and the potential health effects of human contact with such spores. The applicant adduced no expert evidence in relation to this issue. 16 Mrs A Clarke and Mr R McAllister, residents of Broadwater and objectors to the development proposal, are sceptical about the lack of potential impact of their exposure to bagasse. Their concerns were heightened by an assertion that the sale of bagasse by the mill was "banned" due to health reservations. Dr Dawson, however, confirms that the reason for the withdrawal of bagasse from the market was due to a shortage of fuel for co-generation purposes, rather than any perceived health risk. 17 Further, in response to residents' claims of deaths attributed to bagassosis, Dr Dawson states that bagassosis can only be conclusively identified by post mortem. Claims attributing deaths to bagassosis cannot be proven in the absence of such evidence, evidence which is lacking in these proceedings. Moreover, Dr Dawson states that there has never been a death from bagassosis recorded in Australia. Nor has any case of the disease been confirmed in Australia. In support of this statement, Dr Dawson, in his statement of evidence, refers to research undertaken by the Australian sugar industry and unions. Such analysis concluded that it is very unlikely that the work practices employed in Australian sugar mills would create the conditions in which bagassosis could pose a threat. 18 Dr Dawson also draws upon the opinion of Dr J Lacey, an expert on Extrinsic Allergic Alveolitis, of which bagassosis is a form, who indicated that many years of continuous exposure to airborne spore levels of at least one million per cubic metre would be required for people with pre- existing respiratory problems to possibly develop Extrinsic Allergic Alveolitis. The requisite exposure level for the general healthy population would be greater than one hundred million spores per cubic metre. Such levels, Dr Lacey found, are only possible in confined and enclosed spaces. 19 It is clear that the open stockpile at "Ponderosa" will not create the requisite confined space. The mill's present bagasse stockpile has also been tested and found to be unlikely to contain any spores due to the humidity levels of the bagasse. 20 Further, in light of Dr Lacey's findings, Dr Dawson examined the extensive monitoring of Australia's sugar mills. Such analysis shows that airborne levels measured in and around the bagasse loading and unloading operations, within 10 metres of the source of the spores, were only in the tens of millions per cubic metre range. At 100 metres downwind of the source, the airborne level had dropped below one million per cubic metre. 21 Given these conclusions and in the absence of any authoritative evidence to the contrary from the applicant, it must be concluded that the conditions in all likelihood will not exist to enable bagassosis to pose a threat to the residents of Broadwater. It follows, then, that consent to the proposal ought not be withheld on this ground. Ground Water 22 The evidence of the applicant's expert, Mr J Ross, is contained in the joint expert report on ground water. Mr Ross agrees for the most part with Dr F Carosone, the expert witness for the second respondent. Mr Ross only makes some additional requests in relation to the management plan. 23 Dr Carosone, as set out in his contribution to the joint expert report and his report in reply, believes that the proposed conditions of consent and General Terms of Approval presently incorporate Mr Ross' requirements, save that for the provision of shallow and deep monitoring bores. So as to accommodate this stipulation, Dr Carosone states that an amended Groundwater Management Plan will be prepared. The proponent has proposed a draft condition to this effect which will meet Mr Ross' concerns. 24 Given this general agreement and the concessions made by the second respondent, the Court is confident that the impact of the proposed co-generation plant upon ground water is insufficient to warrant a refusal of development consent. Traffic 25 The applicant's concerns about traffic are prompted by the assumption that there will be an increase of 157,500 truck movements during a 25 week crush period in 2004, increasing to 175,000 truck movements by 2010. This is estimated to be 900 extra truck movements per day. Such an upsurge, it is claimed, will take place in the village centre, creating intolerable environmental and health impacts on the residents and the amenity of the village of Broadwater. The facts, however, show that these assumptions are erroneous and demonstrate a misunderstanding of the impact. 26 It is also claimed by the applicant that an increase in the number of heavy vehicles using local access roads (and an increase in their capacity) will heighten the risk of accidents involving pedestrians on the Pacific Highway at Broadwater. This is further exacerbated by trucks using the Broadwater Bridge, across which there is no pedestrian walkway. 27 Lastly, the applicant claims that inadequate consideration has been given to the entrance and exit to the site, which is located on the Pacific Highway within 50 metres of businesses and residences. 28 However, contrary to the residents' impressions, the assessment of the proposal's impact on traffic in the EIS shows that in 2004 the proposal will create an increase of 168 truck movements per day in the crush season, and only an increase of 12 truck movements per day in the non-crush time. In 2010, the proposal is estimated to increase traffic by 199 truck movements per day during the crush season and 12 in the non-crush period. This is demonstrated by the graphs of "Highway Mill Traffic Crush Season" and "Highway Mill Traffic Annual Average" in the EIS. 29 Further, these traffic figures do not account for the reduction in truck movements to and from "Ponderosa" due to the construction of the proposed conveyor. This will especially benefit the residents living along Rifle Range Rd and near the route connecting the co-generation plant and "Ponderosa". The conveyor belt will also increase pedestrian safety along that portion of the Pacific Highway presently used by such trucks, as will the relocation of the entrance to the mill to a position further away from the village. Lastly, the proponent will be upgrading the Pacific Highway, not only for the purpose of the proposed co-generation plant, but also for the existing mill. 30 It follows, then, that consent for the proposal would be refused on the ground of its potential impact upon elements associated with traffic.

Noise 31 The applicant claims that there will be an increase in noise emissions from the site attributable to the construction and operation of the proposed development. In particular, with respect to the operation of the proposal, the residents nominate increased traffic noise and sound from the perpetually operating conveyor belt. The residents also claim that no assessment of the noise created from the sugar mill's present process of steam venting has been carried out, despite their numerous complaints to the EPA. In their oral evidence, several of the objectors, Mr A C Gleeson, for example, complained of sleepless nights due to present mill activities. 32 In relation to the construction of the proposal, the residents assert that noise and vibration from the driving of an as yet unspecified number of piles to a depth of 20 metres will be "distressing" and probably will result in damage to property. They state that previous experience of this process had such results. 33 Overall, the residents fear that the noise impact of the proposal will be intolerable, creating a major health risk to all residents, especially children. 34 For the most part, the residents' evidence reveals discomfort with the present noise emissions from the sugar mill. However, as demonstrated by the noise assessment in the EIS, much of these categories of noise, as a result of the proposal, will either remain no greater than their existing levels, or if anything, be reduced. 35 The residents, in objecting to the proposal, appear to have taken no account of mitigation measures proposed for the mill which will be undertaken by the proponent. In particular, during the view of the mill and surrounding area, the Court was shown a noise containment wall adjacent to the existing boiler. It is proposed that this wall will be enlarged so as to more adequately contain noise emissions. Further, the eastern end of the mill is to be enclosed; and the current practice of steam venting will cease. Finally, as previously noted, the entry to the mill will also be moved further away from the building in the village, lessening the noise impact of traffic going to and from the mill. 36 Despite Mr Gleeson's concerns, the expert evidence provided in the EIS is that noise levels at all receptors will be reduced by the proposed mitigation measures, leaving the residents better protected from mill noise than they are presently. To aid in achieving this situation, consent condition L6 provides for noise limits, to be enforced by the EPA, and the imposition of mandatory noise compliance assessments during crush and non-crush periods, reports of which are to be submitted to the EPA for monitoring. 37 As to the noise potentially generated by construction of the proposal, the impact will be temporary and monitored as per consent condition L6.9. Such condition requires the submission to the EPA, prior to the commencement of construction, of a "Construction Noise Management Protocol", and that construction work be confined (subject to draft condition L6.10) to the hours of 7.30 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday, and 7.30 am to 1.00 pm on Saturday, unless authorised by the EPA. In the absence of any expert evidence adduced by the applicant demonstrating that such consent condition is inadequate, it must be accepted by the Court that it is indeed sufficient to ensure that property damage and distress to residents, on account of construction noise, is controlled to acceptable levels. 38 Again, therefore, consent for the proposal cannot be refused upon this ground. Fire Hazard 39 The applicant claims that there has been no proper assessment of the risk of fire as a result of the storage of bagasse. Previous incidents of fire at the Broadwater bagasse stockpile have caused, the applicant claims, air and water pollution, and a similar fire in Queensland caused a fish kill there. There are also concerns from residents that bagasse may ignite whilst being transported via the conveyor belt between the stockpile and the co-generation plant. 40 Residents' concerns associated with such events include the possibility of residents inhaling fumes and smoke in the incidence of a major fire. There is no contingency plan for evacuation in the case of a threat to property and lives, and the potential threat to the nearby Broadwater National Park is a major concern. During the Court view these fears were articulated by a representative of the local fire service. Such a fire is a likely occurrence, according to the representative, due to the flammable nature of the rubber tyres used to maintain the positioning of the stockpile covering. 41 This information, however, cannot be accepted as evidence to be considered by the Court in these proceedings. It was not given under oath or affirmation. It was not recorded. The maker of the statement was not available for cross- examination by the first and second respondents. 42 Moreover, the residents that did give oral evidence in the proceedings did not raise these concerns. Even Mr M Anstee, a member of the rural fire service, did not convey to the Court any real concern in relation to the proposal's potential fire risk, Mr Anstee limiting his evidence to the present situation at the mill. Further, once the proposal is operational, the enlarged bagasse stockpile at "Ponderosa" will be completely covered, and, so as to ensure that the proposal complies with Planning NSW Requirements, a "Fire Safety Study" will be undertaken for the proposal pursuant to consent condition No. 53(a). 43 In relation to the risk of air and water pollution from fires, the presently regular open field cane and other bush fires produce a lot of smoke and ash which impacts upon the residents of Broadwater and the surrounding environment. The proposal will virtually eliminate the cane fuelled fires, the plant instead burning the cane and cane trash in a contained and controlled manner. This will improve the general air quality immeasurably, reducing the risk of bush fires and markedly reducing the level of water pollution attributable to the burning of sugar cane in the fields. Aquatic Impacts 44 The applicant asserts that the Receiving Water Quality Impact Assessment ("the RWQIA") is inadequate to address the potential impacts of water discharge from the proposed development upon the Richmond River. In particular, the applicant claims that the RWQIA does not assess the impact of the volume of water to be discharged from the proposal upon river hydraulics and erosion. The applicant further claims that the assessment of the impact of heavy metals in the proposal's discharge water upon general water quality and aquatic ecosystems is inadequate. The applicant alleges that caustic cleaning fluid has been discharged by the mill into nearby waterways, such action constituting a breach of its pollution licence; and, that there has been no assessment of the combined effects of the various chemicals to be used by the proposed plant. Finally, the applicant claims that there has been no ecotoxicological assessment on fish species and molluscs in the Richmond River. 45 In relation to the mill's supposed breach of its pollution licence, however, as previously explained, even if the applicant, in making such claims, adduced credible evidence in support of its allegations, it is irrelevant to the present inquiry (Kouflidis & Ors v City of Salisbury). As to the balance of the applicant's assertions, none of the residents' submissions reveal any concern about aquatic impact in any more detail than is claimed in the applicant's statement of issues. Nor was any expert evidence adduced by the applicant on this point. Therefore, in the absence of any such expert evidence, I adopt the assessment detailed in the EIS; that is, that the impacts assessed are acceptable and not such that would lead to a refusal of consent. Social and economic impacts 46 The applicant claims that marked changes to the Broadwater village associated with the construction and operation of the proposal will lead to an intolerable negative impact on the visual, social and economic amenity of the village and regional locality. In particular, the applicant notes the visual impact of the conveyor belt and the removal of Cooks Hill, the constant operation of the mill, and its negative impact on local property prices, business and employment. I note, however, that the proposed development does not involve the removal of Cooks Hill or any part of Cooks Hill. 47 Again, in relation to this issue, the applicant omitted to adduce any expert evidence in support of its claims. The evidence given by the resident objectors was also inadequate support of the applicant's cause. Mr McAlister, whose residence is the closest to the mill and who also runs an antique shop in Broadwater village, complains of being subject to, among other things, a large amount of dust and noise produced by the cane trucks as they enter and exit the mill. These problems, however, as previously noted, will be alleviated by the relocation of the entrance to the mill. 48 The only resident who asserted any ascertainable economic harm, apart from an assertion of diminution of real estate prices, was Mr P W Tassius. He gave evidence as to his difficulty in attempting to sell his restaurant business located in the village. It seems he is doing so because he is dissatisfied with the noise, odour and dust produced by the present processes at the mill, notwithstanding that the restaurant was previously operated in a similar fashion by another person, presumably during the crush season, and presumably profitably. 49 As previously stated, the present operations at the mill, as a result of the proposal, will be improved in several respects. For example, the entrance used by trucks which is at present opposite Mr Tassius' restaurant, will be relocated well away from the restaurant. Mr Tassius' concerns for the most part will thus be alleviated by this and by other controls which will be put in place. 50 Moreover, it seems that Mr Tassius plans to sell the business as a going concern. The business is presumably currently economically viable as a restaurant despite the present situation at the mill. It follows, then, that the restaurant business would not suffer as a result of the proposal, given that the proponent will lessen the current impacts of the mill felt by that business. 51 It is clear that the proposal will have some visual impact on the Broadwater village. However, the mill presently dominates the village, a community which was originally formed because of and was dependent upon the mill operations. This visual impact will not greatly change with the approval of the proposed development. Development consent for the co- generation plant should not be withheld on this ground. Conclusions 52 The applicant has failed to succeed on a single ground raised in its statement of issues. Accordingly, such consent is upheld, but will be subject to the conditions annexed to this judgment which are designed to ameliorate the impact of both the proposed co-generation facility and the existing mill. The conditions include payment of a monetary contribution for the upgrading of Broadwater Road, within the area of Lismore City Council, as explained in the associated appeal of Lismore City Council v Richmond Valley Council & Anor [2003] NSWLEC 295. 53 Several of the resident objectors claim that their complaints to the EPA in relation to the present mill operations continually go unanswered. The EPA is the government authority charged with regulating and monitoring the environmental status of operations such as the Broadwater sugar mill and the co-generation plant. It is the EPA which deals with complaints of breaches of conditions applying to a licensed operation and prosecutes the operator of such regulated entities for breaches of pollution licences. 54 However, an alternative to lodging a complaint with the EPA is for a member of the public to themself institute proceedings against the operator of the mill or the co-generation plant. There are two bases upon which such actions may be brought. The first is pursuant to s 219(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. That provision allows for a person to bring an action in the Land and Environment Court for an offence against that Act or the regulations, if the Court grants the person leave to do so. Section 219(2) sets out the criteria that must be met in order for such leave to be granted. 55 The second basis upon which an individual may institute proceedings against an operator of an entity such as the sugar mill or the co-generation plant is pursuant to s 123 of the EP&A Act. Under that provision, any person may bring an action in the Land and Environment Court for an order to remedy or restrain a breach of the EP&A Act, whether or not any right of that person has been or may be infringed by, or as a consequence of, that breach. Notwithstanding that the EP&A Act does not govern pollution licences, the development consent granted by the Court is subject to conditions, including the same conditions to be imposed as conditions of a pollution licence to be issued by the EPA. Accordingly, in the event of a possible breach of a development consent condition, by virtue of s 123, any person may bring an action under ss 76A and 124 of the EP&A Act, which deal with development carried out otherwise than in accordance with a development consent. Orders 56 The formal orders of the Court are as follows:

The appeal is dismissed.
Development application No. 2002.0292 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of an electricity co-generation plant and bagasse storage facility in conjunction with the existing Broadwater sugar mill at No. 117 Pacific Highway, Broadwater in accordance with the Environmental Impact Statement dated 11 February 2002 Revision A prepared by Worley Safety & Risk Management Pty Limited and in accordance with Plan 900-000 dated 6 September 2001, Plans 900-009, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 020, 021 dated 22 January 2002 to 26 January 2002, Plan 900-024 dated 1 May 2002 and Plans 900-026 and 900-027 dated 20 May 2002 is determined by the grant of development consent subject to conditions as set out in annexure "A".
The exhibits, except for Exhibits 1, 3, 8 and 10 may be returned.

I hereby certify that the preceding 56 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr Justice Lloyd.

Lot 1 DP 1040778; Lots 124, 204 and 435 DP 755624 117 Pacific Highway, Broadwater

Consent is granted for the proposed development for: designated / Integrated development being demolition of certain structures the erection of structures and the use of land for the purposes of using Biomass material for the generation of electricity in conjunction with the existing Broadwater Sugar Mill. Exhaust stack; transfer conveyors / walkways; cane receival / cleaning / separating plant ; weighbridge / vehicle manoeuvring areas / roadworks; bulk fuel storage area and associated hardstand / site drainage/ fire fighting facilities; works within the river bank area for the receival / discharge of cooling waters ; construction of bores to access ground water; site landscaping and carparking; stormwater drainage.

1A. Development being in accordance with Plans 900-000 dated 6 September 2001, Plans 900-009, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 020, 021 dated 22 January 2002 to 26 January 2002, Plan 900-024 dated 1 May 2002 and Plans 900-026 and 900-027 dated 20 May 2002 as modified by any condition (including a requirement for compliance with a condition) of this consent.

1B. The proposed buildings are classified under the Building Code of Australia as classes 5; 7b & 8.

Compliance with any attached Prescribed Conditions that may be relevant to the proposed development.

Reason: To ensure compliance with Section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

A Construction Certificate must be obtained from Council or an accredited certifier at least two (2) days prior to any building or ancillary work commencing. Where the Construction Certificate is obtained from an accredited certifier the determination and all appropriate documents must be notified to Council within seven (7) days of the date of determination.

Notice of Commencement of work at least two (2) days prior to any building or ancillary work being carried out must be submitted to Council on the relevant form.

Reason: Required by Section 81A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Clause 136 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000.

Notification of appointment of the Principal Certifying Authority must be submitted to the Council two (2) days prior to the commencement of work.

Reason: Required by Section 81A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Clause 135 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000.

A hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and a public place. Details to be submitted prior to work commencing.

Appropriate signage must be provided on the work site and in a prominent position visible to the public:

a) stating that unauthorised access to the work site is not permitted; and

b) showing the name of the builder or person responsible for the site and a telephone number at which that person can be contacted outside working hours.

Burning of site refuse and materials is not permitted and all such materials shall be prevented from escaping onto adjoining land and shall be maintained in a tidy manner on site at all times.

Reason: To protect the environment and prevent a nuisance.

Plant equipment or materials of any kind shall not be placed or stored upon the public footpath or roadway, which is open for use by pedestrians.

Reason: So as not to cause a public hindrance or nuisance.

Removal and disposal of asbestos is to be in accordance with WorkCover Authority of NSW.

Erosion and sediment control measures must be put in place and be maintained to prevent soil erosion and the transportation of sediment from the site and eventually into natural or constructed drainage lines or watercourses. Control measures are to remain in place until the site has been adequately revegetated or landscaped to prevent soil erosion. Work may not proceed until the sedimentation controls are in place.

The location of the building on the site must be established by a Registered Surveyor and must comply with this approval.

Reason: To ensure the building is located on site in accordance with this consent.

All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

A detailed site landscaping plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and submitted with the required Construction Certificate.

The landscaping plan shall include location, number and species of all proposed planting and specific details of other landscaping features designed to minimise the visual impact of any of the proposed structures.

Reason: To assist in minimising any adverse visual impact.

Details and certification prepared by a Practising Structural Engineer must be submitted to the certifying authority for the following prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

a) site classification b) all footings and slabs c) all bracing and tie downs, including wind speed assessment d) structural steelwork

i) certify that the design complies with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia; and

ii) set out the basis on which it is given and the extent to which relevant codes of practice, specifications, rules or other publications have been relied upon.

Reason: To ensure that the key structural elements of the building or structure have been designed to suit the site conditions.

Details and certification prepared by a Professional Engineer and/or other appropriately qualified person must be submitted to the Certifying Authority for the following prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

i) certify that the design complies with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia; and

ii) set out the basis on which it is given and the extent to which relevant Codes of Practice, specifications, rules or other publications have been relied upon.

Reason: To ensure that the key structural elements of the building have been designed to suit the site conditions.

A site investigation and classification report in accordance with AS2870 from an approved Professional Engineer and/or other appropriately qualified person must be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

i) certify that the design complies with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia;

ii) set out the basis on which it is given and the extent to which relevant Code of Practice, specifications, rules or other publications have been relied upon.

Reason: To ensure an adequate site investigation is undertaken.

All loading/unloading to take place within the boundaries of the subject premises.

Reason: To ensure minimal adverse impact within the road reserve and adjoining premises.

All vehicles associated with the use to be parked on the site at all times.

Reason: To minimise any potential for adverse impact within the road reserve.

The use not to interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of the emission of noise, vibration, odour, fumes, vapour, smoke, dust, waste water or waste products.

Reason: To preserve the amenity of the neighbourhood.

No goods to be displayed within the road reserve or within the Building Line.

Reason: To ensure the use is contained on the subject site and visually acceptable.

All external lighting to be so located or shielded to ensure no offensive light spill onto adjoining premises or adverse impact on motorists.

Reason: To minimise any potential adverse impact from external lighting.

The proposal to comply with the requirements of the WorkCover Authority of NSW.

Reason: To ensure compliance with all Statutory requirements.

A Final Fire Safety Certificate must be completed and accompany the Occupation Certificate.

i) Must cause a copy of the Fire Safety Certificate (together with a copy of the current fire safety schedule) to be given to the Commissioner of NSW Fire Brigades; and

ii) Must cause a further copy of the certificate (together with a copy of the current fire safety schedule) to be prominently displayed in the building.

The owner of the building must cause Council to be given an annual fire safety statement in relation to each fire safety measure implemented in the building. The annual fire safety statements are to be given within 12 months after which the last fire safety certificate statement was given. The annual fire safety statements are to be in or to the effect of Form 15A as contained in the Regulation. A copy of each statement is to be given to the Commissioner of New South Wales Fire Brigades and a further copy is to be prominently displayed in the building.

A Certificate from a practising structural engineer is to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate demonstrating that the materials used are flood compatible and that the building can withstand flood flow and buoyancy forces.

Reason: To ensure the key structural elements of the building will withstand the potential loads that may be applied in the event of flooding.

The occupation or use of the building must not commence until an Occupation Certificate has been determined by approval. Where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority of the determination then all appropriate documents must be forwarded to Council within seven (7) days after the date of determination.

Reason: Required by Section 109M of the Act and Clause 151 of the Regulation.

If Council is to be engaged as the Certifying Authority, the following building works will be required to be certified during the construction process. Forty-eight (48) hours notice must be given to Council prior to the inspection of these works.

PLEASE NOTE: Council inspections are only available on Monday, Wednesday and Friday for areas south of the Bungawalbin Bridge.

a) Site set out, erosion control and other site related matters. b) The completed pier holes prior to concrete being placed. c) The foundation trenches with reinforcement in position prior to concrete being placed. d) The drainage lines have been laid beneath the building and externally by the licenced plumber prior to backfilling. The drainage lines shall be subjected to a water test. e) The reinforcement for the slab prior to concrete being placed. f) The completed building prior to commencement of the use.

Prior to occupation of the building, the following certification must be submitted to Council:

a) 'Works a Executed' diagram of external and internal drainage. A licenced plumber's certification that 'works as executed' complies with AS3500 must accompany the diagram.

c) A practising structural engineer certification that the structures are in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and that all structures are structurally adequate.

Reason: To monitor compliance with the relevant standards.

Where Council is not the Private Certifying Authority, all Compliance Certificates must be submitted to Council within seven (7) days.

Reason: To comply with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.

A Certificate from a practising structural Engineer shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority upon completion of the work certifying the adequacy of the structures.

i) Certify that the design complies with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia; and

ii) Set out basis on which it is given and the extent to which relevant Codes of Practice specifications, rules or other publications have been relied upon.

All plumbing and drainage work must be in accordance with the NSW Code of Practice "Plumbing and Drainage" and the work must be carried out by a licensed person.

Reason: Required by the Local Government (Water, Sewerage and Drainage) Regulation.

Details and certification prepared by a Professional Engineer must be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for all drainage from hardsurface areas, landscaped areas, roof areas and subsoil drainage systems. Such details must comply with AS3500.3 and must identify overland flow paths and must take into account waters drained from adjoining land.

i) certify that the design complies with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia; and

ii) set out the basis on which it is given and the extent to which relevant Codes of practice, specifications, rules or other publications have been relied upon.

Reason: To ensure that all surface and subsoil drainage is properly addressed in the overall design of the development.

All new hot water installations shall deliver hot water not exceeding 50 degrees Celsius in residential buildings at the outlet of all sanitary fixtures used primarily for personal hygiene purposes (ie. bathrooms and ensuites).

Reason: To comply with the relevant provisions of AS3500.

The design gust wind speed classification for the site is W41N. All building materials and construction, including tie downs and bracing systems, must meet requirements for this classification.

Reason: To provide information on the design gust wind speed classification assessed for the site.

All building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

The following minimum number of inspections of the building in the course of construction must be carried out to monitor compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and this consent.

i) Site set out, erosion controls and other site related matters. ii) The completed pier holes prior to concrete being placed. iii) The building and associated work is completed.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

Compliance with any of the attached Prescribed Conditions that may be relevant to the proposed development.

Reason: To ensure compliance with Clause 80A(11) of the Act.

Any damage caused to public infrastructure (roads, footpaths, water and sewer mains, power and telephone services etc) during construction of the development shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Director of Works. The repairs shall be carried out prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate or Occupation Certificate.

Reason: To protect the existing and future amenity of the locality.

Measures shall be put in place to control stormwater runoff. These control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of works and shall prevent soil erosion and transport of sediment from the development site into either:

adjoining land natural drainage courses constructed drainage systems, and waterways

In the event of an incident on the premises that has caused, is causing, or is likely to cause harm to the environment, the owner shall report the event to Council or the Environmental Protection Authority immediately it becomes known to the owner or the owners agent.

Reason: To ensure prompt action is taken to minimise any potential adverse impact on the environment.

Waste materials generated from the demolition/construction activities shall be conveyed to a licensed landfill facility or alternative materials recovery centre. Arrangements should be made with Council prior to removal of any materials to Council's Bora Ridge Landfill site.

Reason: To ensure the appropriate disposal of waste.

Erosion and sediment control measures shall be employed for the duration of the construction works to minimise silts and sediments from entering the Richmond River.

Reason: To minimise any adverse impact on the Richmond River.

Excavated material may contain potential Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) and therefore it should be tested and if necessary, treated.

If present, the appropriate management measures shall be employed to control any acid sulfate soil impacts as recommended in the ASSMAC Manual (1998).

Reason: To minimise any potential adverse environmental impact from acid sulfate soils.

The issuing of a 3A permit under the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act from the Department of Land and Water Conservation is required for any excavations associated with works for any proposed development located within 40 metres of the Richmond River. Excavation operations shall be conducted so as not to damage or cause erosion of the Richmond River bank.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the relevant legislation.

51 A Groundwater Management Plan must be prepared and approved by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning & Natural Resources (DIPNR) prior to any groundwater extraction. It would be expected that the scope of the plan could be revised after three (3) years of monitoring at the site. The Groundwater Management Plan will include the following matters: 1 An initial baseline monitoring report that will incorporate the following items: (a) A locality plan and summary table of groundwater users with groundwater works within 1 km of the borefield area-and 1 km of the bagasse stockpile area (to locate possible receptors and to later determine whether borefield drawdowns may impact users); and

(b) A locality plan of natural vegetation and any wetlands on the sand plain within 1 km of the borefield area and 1 km of the bagasse stockpile area (to locate sensitive ecosystems and to later determine whether borefield drawdowns may impact natural vegetation if it is groundwater dependent). 2 The quarterly testing regime will be in accordance with Condition 30 in Appendix 1 to this Consent (being the general terms of approval proposed by DIPNR).

3 Consideration of water levels and pumped volumes and provide greater detail on contingency measures if problems do arise. The following additional items shall be included as specific requirements: (a) The frequency of water level measurements in both monitoring and production bores once the borefield is operational (manual monthly or quarterly if dataloggers installed are recommended)

(b) A detailed schedule for the monitoring of operational production bores - water levels (pumping and non-pumping) and their respective pumped volumes (on a minimum monthly basis)

(c) An improved section on contingency measures is required that is essentially a comprehensive contingency plan that address all water level and water quality issues, likely risks and the practical response measures if an impact situation arises to either other beneficial users or Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GOEs). A Groundwater Management Report shall be produced on a yearly basis and both a hard copy and a digital copy forwarded to the DIPNR Hydrogeology section in Grafton for review.

Reason: To ensure that a suitable management plan is implemented to monitor groundwater.

All materials stored on the Industrially zoned area of the site which may produce leachate or have the potential to pollute shall be stored in a bunded area with 110% capacity of the storage volume and above an impermeable liner to prevent any contamination of the aquifer.

Reason: To ensure the site and groundwater is not contaminated.

At least one month prior to the commencement of construction of the proposed development (except for construction of those preliminary works that are outside the scope of the hazard studies), or within such further period as the Director-General may agree, the Applicant shall prepare and submit for the approval of the Director-General the studies set out under subsections (a) to (c) (the pre-construction studies). Construction, other than of preliminary works, shall not commence until approval has been given by the Director-General and, with respect to the fire safety study, approval has also been given by the Commissioner of the NSW Fire Brigades.

A fire safety study for the proposed development. This study shall cover all aspects detailed in the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning's Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 2 "Fire Safety Study Guidelines" and the New South Wales Government's "Best Practice Guidelines for Contaminated Water Retention and Treatment Systems". The study shall also be submitted for approval, to the NSW Fire Brigades.

A Hazard and Operability Study for the proposed development, chaired by an independent qualified person, approved by the Director-General prior to the commencement of the study. The study shall be carried out in accordance with the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning's Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 8 "HAZOP Guidelines".

A Construction Safety Study prepared in accordance with Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 7, "Construction Safety Study Guidelines". For projects in which the construction period exceeds six (6) months, the commissioning portion of the Construction Safety Study may be submitted two months prior to the commencement of commissioning.

Reason: To ensure compliance with Planning NSW requirements.

The applicant is to submit a report to Council prepared by a Professional Engineer addressing the issue of potential adverse impact on adjoining premises of ground vibration created during pile driving once construction commences. This report should include details of performance criteria required to be complied with and the means of monitoring that criteria. This report should be submitted to and approved by Council prior to release of any Construction Certificate involving pile driving of other works likely to cause ground vibration.

Reason: To ensure no structural damage occurs to adjoining premises during construction.

The Construction Certificate shall include design and construction details of the proposed enclosed conveyor. Such plans shall be prepared by a suitably qualified professional Engineer and shall comply with RTA requirements.

The applicant shall also submit operational details of the conveyor including details of the means of propulsion and any projected noise levels from mechanised equipment and the conveyor itself. This detail shall include operational plant and/or equipment at the departure and receival ends of the conveyor.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed conveyor does not adversely impact on the amenity of residents and complies with Statutory requirements.

Compliance with general terms of approval required by the Integrated Authorities as set out in attached appendices. Required approvals and/or licences must be obtained from DLWC and EPA.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of relevant Statutory Authorities.

If an alternative fuel source, being a fuel source other than bagasse, cane leaves or trash for example camphor laurel, is used then a Traffic and Road Management Plan for the transporting of the alternative fuel is to be submitted to and approved by the Local Road Authority for each Local Government Area through which trucks carrying the alternative fuel source will travel to the Mill ("the Management Plan"). The Management Plan shall detail the proposed annual tonnage, type and tare weight of trucks and routes of trucks. The Management Plan is to provide an assessment of the standard of roads in relation to the proposed traffic and any measures for improvement and/or maintenance of the roads. No transporting of alternative fuel shall commence until the required Management Plan is approved for each Local Government Area.

Reason: To ensure adequate local infrastructure for transporting material.

The operation of B-Double trucks is to be considered in the design of heavy vehicle turning areas on site. Details to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

The provision of parking restrictions on both sides of the Pacific Highway, adjacent to the northern mill access. The parking restrictions are to facilitate clear movement of Highway traffic around turning vehicles.

Median islands are to be constructed of raised concrete with lighting. The lighting is to be in accordance with the AUSTROADS Guide to Engineering Practice Part 12 Roadway lighting and AS1158. Detailed designs of medians and lighting are to be approved by the RTA prior to construction.

Reason: To ensure traffic control devices are designed to RTA standards.

The existing access to the mill opposite Cane Road is to be closed. Details are to be indicated on plans accompanying the Construction Certificate.

Reason: To control turning movements on and off the highway.

The central median island on the northern side of Cane Road is to be extended north to prevent right turns in and out of the northern mill entrance.

Reason: To control turning movements on and off the highway.

Staff parking areas are required on the eastern and western side of the Highway. The parking is to be designed to minimise pedestrian traffic across the Highway. Details of the design are to be submitted to the RTA with other detailed plans. Details should also be included and approved prior to the issue of any relevant any Construction Certificate.

Reason: To reduce pedestrian movements across the Highway.

No equipment, waste material, products or plant shall be transported across the Pacific Highway, other than by way of the conveyor or a registered vehicle under the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997. Reason: To manage the movements across the highway.

Roadworks on the Pacific Highway will require the consent of the Council and RTA concurrence under section 138of the Roads Act 1993.

For concurrence, the RTA will need to approve the following:

Detailed design plans, AUSTROADS standards are to be adopted Pavement design for roadworks Specification for construction Environment management plan Review of Environmental Factors Traffic Control Plan and Road occupancy licence.

Reason: To ensure works comply with the road act and RTA standards.

The minimum clearance for the overhead conveyor is to be 5.3 metres. Supports for the overhead conveyor are to be located a minimum offset of 4.0 metres from the edge line of the Highway.

The Cane Road access located on the eastern side of the Highway is to be constructed two (2) lanes wide with a central pedestrian refuge 2.0 metres wide to provide for the existing cycleway. The entrance to Cane Road is to be designed for heavy vehicle movements. A left turn lane off the highway is to be provided for entry as per AUSTROADS Figure 5.17, and for exit a 'Desirable Treatment' as per AUSTROADS Figure 5.16. The Cane Road access is to be a minimum of two (2) lanes wide, 6.0 metres, for a minimum of 25 metres from the pedestrian refuge.

Reason: To facilitate heavy vehicle movements on and off the site.

The entrance to the Mill site, western side of Highway, north of Cane Road used for ash truck movements, is to be widened and provided with a left turn lane off the highway for entry as per AUSTROADS Figure 5.17, and for left turn exit a 'Desirable Treatment' as per AUSTROADS Figure 5.16.

Reason: To facilitate heavy vehicle movements on and off the site.

Highway turning lanes are to be a minimum of 3.25 metres. Central median islands separating turning lanes are to be a minimum of 1.2 metres wide. Deflections to create turning lanes are to be designed to encourage smooth transition off the Highway through lanes in accordance with AUSTROADS and the RTA Road Design Guide.

Upgrading works to the Pacific Highway, including land dedication to road reserve, are to be completed prior to commencement of operation of the cogeneration plant.

Reason: To ensure works are done prior to operation.

The overhead conveyor is to be designed so that matter, including loose material, oil, grease or the like, does not drop on the road reserve.

The proponent will be required to repair the conveyor and clean up any discharge immediately an event occurs. A 24 hour contact for maintenance purposes is required to be maintained with the RTA and Council. These are to form part of an 'Emergency Response Procedure' ratified by the RTA and Council for incidents that may occur with or in the vicinity of the conveyor and the Pacific Highway.

Reason: To formalise emergency response procedures.

The overhead conveyor is not to be used for any advertising purpose of any kind.

The proponent will be required to indemnify the RTA and Council in the event of any claims arising from the overhead conveyor and associated structures and activities. Annual evidence of any insurance policies are required.

Reason: To protect Council and the RTA from possible claims.

The RTA and Council are to be given prior notice of regular maintenance carried out on the conveyor and associated structures and activities. Annual evidence of any insurance policies are required.

The Mill is to develop an 'Emergency Procedure for Flooding'. The procedure will need to establish 'triggers' or criteria for closing down of plant and securing the site against the hazards of flooding. It will need to consider access to the site as different access routes will be cut at different stages of flooding, possibly before inundation of the site. The procedure is to establish formal links with the local SES to ensure communication and understanding of the procedure between the organisations. Details are to be submitted prior to the issue of the the final Construction Certificate or Occupation Certificate and implemented prior to the operation of the cogeneration plant.

Reason: To ensure the safety of mill staff and the local environment.

Plant and machinery that is a hazardous when inundated, is to be built above or flood proofed to the 1 in 100 year flood level. Allowance is to be made so that material, plant and equipment on the site is able to be stored securely on the site and not be 'washed' off the site in the event of a 1 in 100 year flood. Procedures for storing material, plant and equipment are to be incorporated in the 'Emergency Procedure for Flooding'. Details are to be supplied prior to the issue of the relevant Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure the safety of the local environment in a flood event.

Hazardous material storage is to be designed and constructed to be flood proof to a 1 in 100 year flood + 500mm level. Procedures to check and ensure hazardous materials are safe during a flood event are to be incorporated into the 'Emergency Procedure for Flooding'.

Reason: To ensure the safety of the local environment in a flood event.

The approach road on the western side of Broadwater Bridge is to be upgraded so that the approach radius caters for 25 metre truck/trailer combinations with a minimum design speed of 40km/hr. Design and construction are to satisfy Northern Rivers Local Government AusSpec Guidelines. Works are to be completed within six (6) months of the acquisition by Lismore City Council of the encroachment onto the adjoining land as public road.

Reason: To ensure an adequate road network in accordance with the adopted standards.

The access marked as 'Cane Road' on the plans is to be the only access to the Highway for the eastern site.

Land will have to be dedicated as road reserve to facilitate Highway upgrading. Land dedication on the eastern side of the Highway is to encompass the cycleway plus a minimum 400mm clearance. Land dedication is to be approved by Council and the RTA and at no cost to Council or the RTA.

Reason: To provide appropriate road reserves for the road structure.

The proponent is to undertake street sweeping of the kerb and guttered section of the Highway and Broadwater Road, between the Highway and the bridge, three (3) times a week during the crush season. This is to be reviewed annually by Council's director of EDS in consultation with the EPA to determine its effectiveness.

Reason: To reduce the potential PM10 loading on the village.

The intersection of the proposed access road and Broadwater Road is to be constructed as a modified 'Type A' intersection with 3.0 metre wide sealed shoulders. Broadwater Road is to be AC overlaid from the bridge to the Highway. The intersection requires Council and RTA concurrence under the Roads Act, 1993.

For concurrence Council and the RTA will need to approve the following:

Detailed design plans, Austroad standards are to be adopted Pavement design for roadworks Specification for construction Environment management plan Review of Environmental Factors Traffic Control Plan and road occupancy license.

Works are to be completed and Broadwater Road from the bridge to the highway dedicated as public road to Council prior to commencement of operation of the cogeneration plant.

Reason: To ensure works comply with the Road Act and Council and RTA standards.

NSW Sugar Cooperative Limited or, upon any transfer of that company's interest in the development to another person, the person carrying out the development ("the contributor") shall pay to the Council an annual contribution ("$ Cont (mtce) per annum") each year for the duration of the development pursuant to and in accordance with the Council's Section 94 Plan for road maintenance contributions for rural heavy vehicle generating development ("the Section 94 Plan") as follows:

a. The initial payment to be made prior to the release of the Construction Certificate shall be the amount of $25,031 calculated by the Council on projections from the Environmental Impact Statement for the formula in the Section 94 Plan:

P = the annual haulage in tonnes of heavy vehicles being trucks transporting cane based materials from the harvest to the plant, trucks transporting alternative fuel sources under an approved Traffic Management Plan pursuant to condition 57 and other trucks transporting boiler fuel oil, ash and mud to and from the plant over the local unsealed; local sealed; and regional roads in the Council's area

D = the distance travelled by the trucks over the roads

$C = the unit cost based on the cost of maintenance specified by the Council for maintaining each of the above classes of roads

A = administration component of 5% of the contribution

b. The subsequent contributions shall be calculated in accordance with the formula for the development and paid annually with payments due on the 30 June each year.

c. Prior to full commissioning of the cogeneration plant the contribution will be calculated by reference to the actual annual haulage in tonnes for 'P' and the actual distance travelled over the roads for 'D' plus that amount for estimated increased truck movements for 'P' and 'D' from the Environmental Impact Statement for the relevant year.

d. Following full commissioning of the cogeneration plant the contribution will be calculated by reference to the actual annual haulage in tonnes for 'P' and the actual distance travelled over the roads for 'D'.

e. The monetary cost of maintenance for $C shall be indexed and adjusted annually in accordance with the consumer price index.

f. On or before the due date of payment in each and every year a calculation certified by the contributor shall be submitted to the Council showing the calculation and records for the contribution having regard to the actual amounts for 'P' and 'D' for the preceding year.

g. Upon written request by the Council to do so the contributor shall provide to the Council within 28 days an audited calculation of the contribution together with the records which shall be maintained by the contributor for the preceding year detailing the:

· the number, type, tare weight and haulage capacity of all trucks entering the mill, and · the routes travelled by the trucks.

h. In the event that the records and calculations provided for any year by the contributor do not in the reasonable opinion of the Council demonstrate the contribution said to be payable under this condition, the Council may elect in writing to have the contributor pay the contribution for the year specified below subject to the changes for consumer price index increases referred to in 'e' 2005 $25,779 2006 $26,527 2007 $27,275 2008 $28,023 2009 $28,771 2010 $29,519

The specific public amenity and public service is the maintenance of local and regional roads

The contributions plan is the Richmond Valley Council Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted 18 April 2000 as amended or as may be substituted for by a further contributions plan from time to time.

The Plan may be viewed at Council's offices. 84A. NSW Sugar Co-operative Limited, or, upon any transfer of that company's interest in the development to another person, the person carrying out the development shall pay to the Lismore City Council a monetary contribution for the purposes of upgrading of Broadwater Road in the sum of $524,150, as follows: (i) $52,415 upon the commissioning of the co-generation facility; (ii) thereafter nine (9) equal payments of $52,415 at twelve (12) monthly intervals on the anniversary of the commissioning of the co-generation facility. The monetary contributions shall be indexed and adjusted annually in accordance with the consumer price index.

85 Where any work or access is required on land not owned by the developer, written permission shall be obtained from the owner of the land as no such permission is implied in this development consent. Such approval shall be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. Reason: To ensure that the development as submitted can proceed.

Any damage caused to public infrastructure (roads, footpaths, water and sewer mains, power and telephone services etc) during construction of the development shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Director of Works. The repairs shall be carried out prior to the issue of Subdivision Certificate or Occupation Certificate. Council must be notified in writing, prior to commencement of works, of any existing damage to roads, stormwater drainage, kerb and gutter or footpaths. Absence of notification signifies that no damage exists, and the applicant is therefore liable for the cost of reinstatement of any damage found at the completion of the works. Reason: To protect the existing and future amenity of the locality and to formally record any pre-existing damage to existing assets.

Where any construction work is on a public road, park or drainage reserve the development shall provide and maintain all warning signs, lights, barriers and fences etc., in accordance with the Traffic Management Plan, Australian Standards and WorkCover guidelines. All contractors working on such areas are to have Public Liability Cover to a minimum value of $10,000,000. A certificate of currency is to be forwarded to Council prior to the commencement of works.

Reason: To ensure that work done on public land is indemnified and carried out in a safe manner. 88. All costs associated with satisfying Development Application conditions are at the expense of the developer. Reason: To ensure that the costs of development are borne by the developer. 89. A defects liability bond (in cash or Bank Guarantee) shall be lodged with the relevant road authority. The date of Practical Completion shall be the date upon which all engineering works are completed and the defects liability bond has been paid. The bond shall be based on 10% of the value of the works (that are or will be road authorities assets) and will be held by the road authority for a period of 12 months from the date of Practical Completion. The defects liability bond will be refunded at the satisfactory completion of the maintenance period (12 months).

Reason: To provide adequate funds for the rectification of non-compliances, or failure to carry out maintenance during the maintenance period.

A Civil Engineering assessment fee is to be paid to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for the assessment of plans and inspection of civil works (that are or will be Council's assets). Rates are as detailed in Council's Fees and Charges.

Reason: To ensure engineering works are designed and constructed to Council standards.

Broadwater Action Group Inc v Richmond Valley Council & Anor

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (424 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (3)

Cited By (1)