1. We find that the proposed use is appropriate for the review site in the context of the relevant planning provisions and physical contexts.
2. The review site is in the Industrial 2 Zone (IN2Z) and we have identified that the GREP is the largest industrial estate in the municipality. We were informed by the Council that it is one of only a few areas available in Victoria with large lot availability on land included in the IN2Z.
3. The purposes of the IN2Z are:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To provide for manufacturing industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated facilities in a manner which does not affect the safety and amenity of local communities.

To promote manufacturing industries and storage facilities that require a substantial threshold distance within the core of the zone.

To keep the core of the zone free of uses which are suitable for location elsewhere so as to be available for manufacturing industries and storage facilities that require a substantial threshold distance as the need for these arises.

1. In Ballis v Greater Geelong CC [2007] VCAT 1332, the Tribunal stated the following in a matter relating to land that is not within the GREP:

As a matter of general principle, Industrial 2 Zones are suited to the establishment of materials recycling facilities because inherently they are established to accommodate industries that may require buffering from sensitive land uses such as residential uses. ...

1. We agree with this statement and accept that the recycling industry provides strong community benefits in accordance with Government policy.
2. The specific purpose of the Design and Development Overlay apart from implementing State and local planning policy is 'to identify areas which are affected by specific requirements relating to the design and built form of new development'.
3. The design objectives in DDO18, which relates specifically to the GREP, are as follows:
   • To facilitate the development of the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct as a high amenity industrial area suited to the needs of advanced manufacturing and production support industries.
   • To provide a high level of amenity for workers on and visitors to the estate.
   • To ensure development provides an attractive frontage to the Geelong Ring Road.
   • To ensure development provides a high level of visual amenity when viewed from major transport routes and surrounding non-industrial land uses.
   • To promote best practice sustainable design including stormwater quality and reuse measures.
4. The DDO18 decision guidelines require that before deciding on an application the Responsible Authority must consider:
   • Whether the design and landscaping of the site contributes to the amenity of the Geelong Ring Road employment precinct.
   • The appearance of the site when viewed from adjacent major transport routes and surrounding non-industrial land uses.
   • The performance of the development against the Advertising Sign Guidelines, City of Greater Geelong 1997 and the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct Urban Design Guidelines, July 2010.
5. The Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct Urban Design Guidelines, July 2010 is a reference document at Clause 43.02. The document is discretionary rather than prescriptive under its following main sub-headings. Key elements broadly cover the following matters:
   • Access and circulation: Provision for pedestrians, cyclists, cars, and heavy vehicles.
   • Development envelope: Includes innovative building design with active frontages to main streets (with ancillary buildings to the rear), building design compatibility with adjacent existing buildings, and landscaping for summer shade, solar access and occupant amenity.
   • Water Sensitive Urban Design: Collection of on-site water and demand driven landscape irrigation, and off-site discharge to be cleaned and filtered.
   • Landscape design standards: Create strong relationships between public and private realms through use of qualified landscape architects, preference for water efficient native and indigenous species, creation of high amenity for staff, and emphasis on street frontages including Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Standards, appropriate lighting, visually transparent fencing (where appropriate), and well designed and integrated signage.
   • Site amenity: High presentation standards for all buildings, signage, car parks paths and paved areas, waste storage and disposal to be integrated within site design, with bulk storage sites to the rear of yards.
6. We note that when questioned by the Tribunal on where a prospective developer would be directed by the Council to find a site for a recycling facility of the type proposed here, the Council replied that it would be in the GREP. The Council added that it was not concerned about the principle of using land for a recycling facility, but is instead concerned about site-specific matters such as visual impact and the control of off-site amenity impacts.
7. The policy and strategic basis for Council's in-principle support is contained within various documents tendered to the Tribunal. These include the Council's promotional publication for the GREP[7] which states that the GREP is zoned via the Industrial 1 and Industrial 2 Zones 'to meet any industrial purpose'. The IN2Z is for heavier industry than the IN1Z and, as previously stated, the GREP is the largest industrial estate in the municipality.
8. We agree that the IN2Z is, in-principle, an appropriate location for a recycling facility. We also agree that it is the specific details of this particular proposal which are the key to whether it should be supported. The IN2Z includes decision guidelines that list site specific matters to take into account in deciding an application:
   • The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
   • Any natural or cultural values on or near the land.
   • Streetscape character.
   • Landscape treatment.
   • Interface with non-industrial areas.
   • The suitability of the proposed lots for the types of industries and warehouses shown in the table to Clause 52.10.
9. Aside from the broader State and Local planning policies and the 'in-principle' suitability of land in the IN2Z for such a facility, no natural or cultural values or impediments have been identified that would cause the application to be refused. In the next section we discuss streetscape and landscape issues.

DOES THE PROPOSAL SATISFY STREETSCAPE CHARACTER AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT OBJECTIVES?

1. We have some difficulty with the Council's vision for the appearance of the GREP. While it is admirable that local policy seeks a high quality industrial environment, it is also the case that the IN2Z and GREP documentation do not exclude the proposed use, subject to permit.
2. The engagement of landscape architect John Patrick to prepare the landscape plan for the site notionally satisfies the GREP design guidelines for the use of a landscape architect for that purpose. This is also supported by the engagement of Mr Schutt for the accompanying landscape analysis that contains useful 'before and after' photomontages.
3. The key elements of Mr Schutt's evidence are as follows:
   • The GREP is peri-urban, in transition between rural to industrial. Its flatness results in no elevated local public areas from where viewing into the review site can occur. This includes points along the Geelong Ring Road or other main roads and transport routes including railway lines.
   • The current operation does present poorly to Broderick Road and the surrounding area, largely due to the 15m high by 150m long by 80m wide incoming materials stockpile which he considers to be 'dominant and unattractive' within the local area.
   • Stockpiles on the site are currently in the order of 5m to 15m high, the latter of which exceeds the current permitted height of 9m. This compares with the height of existing buildings on the site of up to approximately 8m. As such, visibility of the site from the surrounding area substantially exceeds that which would occur if the stockpiles did not exceed 9m.
4. Mr Patrick identified that locally indigenous plant species[8] offer little scope to effectively screen the review site and that non-indigenous vegetation is needed to respond to the site's functional demands. His proposed landscape plan that is claimed to respond to the GREP urban design guidelines and to climatic characteristics, contains the following main features:
   • At the Broderick Road frontage, existing vegetation that already provides partial screening of the site will be supplemented using listed plant species including various She Oaks, Banksias, Acacias and Pittosporum as the primary canopy-level plants. These will be intended to grow to 8m to 10m high against the 9m height of the proposed building across the front of the site which would be setback approximately 35m from the front boundary. Most of the foliage on these taller trees will be between the 2m to 6m above ground level. Lower growing shrubs such as Salt Bush will provide lower-level and better screening for passing traffic. Screening will not be lost at any stage, while the intended effect is to soften the architectural presentation of the site rather than to achieve complete screening. Vehicular and maintenance access to the area will also be retained.
   • The same strategy would be used along the site boundaries where there is currently no vegetation. While an earthen bund at rear of the site contributes to screening, its effect will be enhanced by plantings using a modified selection species. The rear landscaping area would be about 30m wide across the full site width.
   • Ground preparation guidance and use of tube-stock planted at one plant per square metre, with removal of some plants in future as needed for thinning.
   • The common boundary of the review site with the railway easement along the southern boundary will be clearly delineated by a 3.5m high colourbond fence with landscape plants outside the site in the rail easement. The southern boundary of the railway easement itself will have a 2m garden bed inside a cyclone mesh fence. A modified planting list is provided for this area to include various tussock and other grasses as a supplement to proposed trees and shrubs.
   • A 2m wide planting strip is proposed at the northern boundary inside a 2m high cyclone wire mesh fence.
5. Mr Patrick has also suggested that the landscaping will, in time, form an effective windbreak by slowing wind speeds to modify dust within the local environment, and that overall it satisfies the expectations of Clause 21.07-2 Industry and the objectives of the GREP.
6. Mr Schutt stated that the landscape proposal, together with the proposed 9m high by 130m long building proposed across the front of the site will provide significant screening of the internal site operations and materials stockpiles, and does demonstrate 'high quality urban design and landscaping'. Within this, he considers the proposed 9m maximum height of materials stockpiles (40% lower than the height of the existing incoming materials stockpile) to be particularly important to avoid visual blight, as:
   • 9m is consistent with the height of local buildings, and lower than the height of the landscape vegetation proposed by Mr Patrick, and
   • It will not be seen from major transport routes and surrounding non-industrial uses, as sought by DDO18 for the GREP.
7. We accept Mr Schutt's overall landscape analysis supported by his photomontages, and that Mr Patrick's landscape plan (including the use of tube-stock plantings) will in time provide a satisfactory visual outcome against the industrial land zoning and the policy framework relating to the GREP. From a landscape perspective we accept 9m as an appropriate maximum height of materials stockpiles.
8. We consider that the focus of landscape planting needs to be on medium to long-term outcomes over short-term screening achievement. We acknowledge that use of tube-stock plantings as proposed by Mr Patrick can best achieve that outcome in a non-garden type landscape setting.

DOES THE APPLICATION CONTAIN SUFFICIENT INFORMATION ON WHICH TO BASE A DECISION?

1. The Council considers that the permit application does not contain sufficient information upon which a decision can be made, and that the information available to it in the application documentation and submissions has regularly changed. It states that while the current proposal does not stipulate the annual throughput of the facility, Mr McGurn's expert statement includes the expectation that 29,000 tonnes of material will enter the site annually while 25,000 tonnes will be removed. While the plans seek to store 90,000 tonnes of material at any one time, the above figures provide for an annual net increase of storage amount. Against this, we find that the conditional 9m maximum height of the materials stockpiles and constraints imposed by the limited size of the facility must regulate the relativity of the incoming and outgoing throughputs.
2. The stated operating hours are 7AM to 6PM on Monday to Friday and 7AM to 3PM on Saturdays through autumn and winter, with no operation on Sundays. The hours would be 6AM to 6PM on Monday to Friday and 7AM to 3PM on Saturdays through spring and summer, again with no Sunday operations. The Council was concerned that the hours do not identify if the summer hours relate to daylight saving time.
3. We are otherwise satisfied that with the imposition of relevant conditions relating to various plans to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority we have sufficient information upon which to base our decision.

ARE THERE OTHER REASONS TO REFUSE THE APPLICATION?

1. The CFA submitted that while the review site is not within a Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) and therefore not within an area of high bushfire risk, it has significant concerns with the current operations on the site. However it does not object to the proposed use and development, subject to stated conditions. It identified that potential fire risks for the site include piles of combustible materials, sparks from operating machinery, fire originating on the site and fire originating from outside the site. It also identified arson attack as a primary potential risk.
2. Most significantly, the CFA has sought to impose a maximum height of 4m on stockpiles, with maximum other dimensions of 25m length by 10m width. This primarily relates to access by 14 tonne fire appliances. The Applicant responded that this would reduce the materials on site to less than a critical mass required for business viability.
3. In discussion at the hearing, the CFA conceded that larger piles could be considered if internal access roading features are increased, such as through heavier road base and larger clearance dimensions to provide for 35 tonne fire appliances. The Applicant stated that this could be achieved through use of crushed concrete and/or brick material from the large stockpiles on the site. The Applicant also stated that if a fire occurred, the relevant stockpile(s) could be dispersed using large excavator equipment held on site.
4. We accept that the application of a 4m height limit for stockpiles would be limiting on the review site given its restricted area, and provision for the upgraded internal access roading to provide for the larger fire appliances and 9m high stockpiles has been included in the permit conditions.
5. We regard the matter of potential threat of arson seriously and we consider it necessary that suitable monitoring is installed to alert of any potential problem of this type relating both to intrusion and to early detection of fire activity.
6. We also acknowledge the CFA's notification that the GREP area has inherently low reticulated water pressure that cannot be depended upon in an emergency. The CFA considers that the mains supply needs to be supplemented at this site by a static on-site water storage of two 50,000 litre tanks.
7. We also acknowledge that a fire risk assessment is the start point for an appropriate site emergency management plan, upon which other needs may be recognised for attention.

1. The Council does not contest the application based on any stated concern relating to the proposed main building across the front of the site. It will be a large rectangular building of 130m long by 9m deep by about 9m high. We accept that the building as proposed would satisfy design objectives for the GREP and would screen materials stockpiles from Broderick Road in front of the site.

1. The Council's grounds of opposition do not identify signage, and the matter was not identified during the hearing as a contentious issue. The Applicant advised that prominent advertising signage is not important for this facility which is based on a contract client base, not public admission.
2. We acknowledge that a business of this type must have access, directional and safety notices.
3. We accept that an appropriate signage register can be finalised to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and we find that the application is appropriate on the basis of signage.

1. The council does not contest the application based on the provision of car parking.
2. It is expected that the facility will require a maximum 16 staff on site at any one time, although short-time increases may occur at shift change-over times. The provision of around 30 car parking spaces is satisfactory for this short term increase.
3. The proposed designated spaces are to be located at the northern end of the site frontage strip and will be largely screened from Broderick Road by landscape plantings. As additional parking spaces could be provided if needed, we are satisfied that the parking provision is satisfactory.

1. The Tribunal was not provided with any evidence of inter-industry conflict such as records of complaint, or air quality records relating, for example, to odour or dust discharge from the site. While neighbouring industries did not present in person to the Tribunal, photographs of dust generated off stockpiles were tendered to the Tribunal for a particular summer's day. We can accept on this basis that incidences of dust dispersion occurs.
2. However in the absence of substantiated evidence and given that the land is zoned for heavy industrial use in the IN2Z, and permit conditions can be applied that are intended to minimise off-site impacts, we would not refuse the application because of inter-industry conflict.

1. We have also previously identified that planning permit applications must be considered on their own merits. It is important however that in granting a permit, the attached conditions are relevant and practicable.
2. During the hearing the Council inferred that it is concerned that the applicant has sought to unnecessarily extend the permit application process, and that it does not have confidence that permit conditions will be complied with if a permit is approved.
3. We have sympathies with this position, based on the very large current exceedance of the height of the main materials stockpile (at 15m) over the currently permitted height of 9m. While it is clear that such exceedence also translates to very substantial relative differences on stockpile volumes between a 9m high pile and a 15m high pile, height is our main concern over volume. This is due to visual impacts and exposure above landscape screening to winds, and potential for off-site dust movement, both of which we regard seriously.
4. The current permit application is for 9m maximum stockpile heights. No explanation was provided to us as to why the main stockpile has not been contained within the currently permitted 9m maximum. Furthermore, we can identify no technical or economic reason why this should have been necessary. For example it was not put to us that a 9m stockpile height provides an inadequate critical supply mass to ensure a constant economic throughput of materials for a viable operation whether under the operation of one or two sorting lines.
5. We accept that the purpose of the facility serves a valuable community role, but only if conducted within reasonable parameters. The review site does have size limitations and prior to the current use on the land it is assumed that the building and demolition materials received would have gone to landfill.
6. We also note that the current Tribunal Order of 1 June 2015[9] froze the further intake of brick and concrete product after 1 June 2015. Given the gross excessive quantity of materials now on the site, and our expectation that under current operating conditions it may take in the order of 12 months to process the intake materials stockpile, we find that a permit should be conditional upon no further receipt of building and demolition materials on the site at least until the stockpiles are reduced to the permitted height as certified by a qualified surveyor, and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. At the completion of the hearing a without prejudice discussion occurred on the draft Conditions submitted by the Council in accordance with the Tribunal's requirements. Main discussion matters related to the following:
   • The applicant considered the imposition of various requirements by 14 days following the issue of a permit to be impractical and sought extension of the relevant requirements generally to 60 days. We have generally considered this to be both more practicable and reasonable.
   • The applicant stated that the proposed 4m maximum materials stockpile height proposed by the CFA to be inadequate to provide for a critical throughput mass. For reasons discussed in this decision we agree that 9m is practicable and reasonable. This has required flow-on adjustment to internal access roads strength and clearance provisions, to provide for trafficking of 35 tonne fire-fighting appliances on the site.
2. Following the hearing amended draft conditions were distributed to the parties for comment. Written comments have been received from Council, the CFA and the permit applicant.
3. We have subsequently considered all matters relating to the conditions and consider that in granting a permit the Conditions at Appendix A provide a fair and reasonable outcome and will result in acceptable management of use and development on the review site.

1. Clause 10.04 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme requires us to:

endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.

1. Recycling forms one of seven steps in the Victorian waste management hierarchy. We accept that recycling can be, by its very nature, a potentially messy and unattractive land use unless carefully managed. The Industrial 2 Zone is in-principle an ideal location for such a use given it is essentially designed for manufacturing industries and other activities that require substantial physical separation from more sensitive land uses.
2. We understand and appreciate Council's desire that the GREP be a high quality and attractive environment and that permit conditions should be imposed to ensure that the vision for the GREP is achieved. However, the Industrial 2 Zone is for the most 'troublesome' industries - those requiring substantial threshold distances so that the safety and amenity of local communities is not affected. By their very nature such industries operate in ways that may cause unacceptable impacts if located within or proximate to residential areas and other sensitive land uses.
3. Provided such industries operate within relevant regulatory requirements they should be supported to establish in locations such as the Industrial 2 Zone at Lara. We consider that on balance, there is a net community benefit in approving the recycling facility on the review site.

1. For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. A permit is issued subject to conditions.

Use and development of part of the land for Materials Recycling, Reduction in the Car Parking Requirement and Display of Business Identification and Direction Signage in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. Within 60 days from the date of the issue of the planning permit, three (3) copies of amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

1. Provision and details of 30 car parking spaces, including one (1) disabled car parking space, provided with an all-weather surface material and appropriately delineated. 2. Location and details of a clearly delineated and surfaced vehicle access road providing clear access to the staff car parking area.

1. Provision and details of the internal main truck movement access road with an all-weather surface and appropriately delineated.

1. Provision of concrete crash barriers to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority on the inner side of the internal main truck movement access road. 2. Proposed locations, setbacks of each stockpile and type of material on the land in accordance with the Stockpile Survey Plan and Reporting at Conditions 6 to 9. 3. Location, size and details of signage. 4. Details of CFA required access and egress roads in accordance with Condition 35. 5. Landscaping details as required by Condition 11.

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

1. Except with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority, the use may only operate during the following hours:
   • Monday to Friday 7:00am to 6:00pm (Eastern Standard Time) and 6:00am to 6:00pm (Eastern Daylight Saving Time).
   • Saturday 7:00am to 3:00pm (All Year).
   • The facility must not be open or operate on Sunday.

1. No stockpile is to exceed 9 metres in height above natural ground level.
2. No new material is to be added to any stockpile which would increase the height of the stockpile beyond 9 metres above natural ground level.

1. Within 30 days of the date of the issue of the planning permit, a stockpile plan is required. The plan must detail:

1. The types of materials on the land. 2. The footprint of the stockpiles of each type of material on and proposed to be located on the land.

1. All stockpiles of raw and treated material to be separated by at least 5 metres.

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Within 6 months of the date of issue of the planning permit a report prepared by a qualified surveyor to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority is to be submitted to the Responsible Authority, demonstrating that the maximum height of stockpiles on the site does not exceed 9 metres above natural ground level, and stating the contents category of each such stockpile.
2. Thereafter a report prepared by a qualified surveyor to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority is to be submitted every six months at a start date (being the first day of the selected start month) specified by the Responsible Authority, and thereafter on the first day of every subsequent six month period, until such time that the Responsible Authority directs in writing that such reporting may cease. The report is to identify the maximum height above ground level of all stockpiles.
3. In the event of the Responsible Authority determining in writing that the six-monthly stockpile reporting can cease, it may at any time in the future subject to written justification to the operator, direct that a one-off report be prepared by a qualified surveyor to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority on the maximum height of one or more stockpiles on the site. Alternatively, that six monthly reporting on the same matter, again by a qualified surveyor to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, be resumed as of a nominated date. Such reporting would be for a period specified by the Responsible Authority or until such time that the Responsible Authority directs in writing to the operator that the reporting can cease.

1. Within 60 days of the date of the issue of the planning permit, a Site and Materials Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will be endorsed and will form part of the permit. The use must at all times be conducted in accordance with the approved Site and Materials Management Plan. The plan must detail but not be limited to:

1. The footprint of all stockpiles. 2. Details of how the material will be recycled, and the processing/ treatment of specific materials that will occur prior to removal of the product from the land.

1. Full details of all dust suppression measures which meet current requirements of Victorian State Environment Protection Policy for Air Quality Management (SEPP-AQM), and all EPA Conditions in this permit.

1. All noise mitigation measures which meet recommended levels set out in Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria (NIRV; EPA Publication 1411, 2011).

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Within 60 of the date of the issue of the planning permit, three (3) copies of a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified or experienced person and substantially in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd dated February 2016, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.
2. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Within 60 days from the date of approval of the landscape plan, or as otherwise agreed by the Responsible Authority, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and no storm water, sullage, sewerage or polluted drainage may drain or discharge from the land to adjoining properties.
2. Within 60 days of the date of the issue of the planning permit, a Site Drainage and Stormwater Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must show:

1. How the site drainage system ensures that any potential contaminants including sediments, oil, grease, chemicals, leachate will not be discharged beyond the boundary of the premises, and collected and disposed of off-site by an EPA approved contractor or sent to sewer under a Trade Waste Agreement. 2. How the above are contained within the site, in accordance with EPA regulations and guidelines.

1. Confirmation that no storm water, sullage, sewerage or polluted drainage may drain or discharge from the land to adjoining properties.

1. Reference to any management protocols that will apply to the site with regard to stormwater on the site.
2. A secondary containment system must be provided for liquids which if spilt are likely to cause pollution or pose an environmental hazard, in accordance with the EPA Publication 347 Bunding Guidelines 1992 or as amended from time to time.

1. Within 60 days of the date of the issue of the planning permit, a Vehicle Access Plan, showing the proposed access and exit arrangements into Broderick Road, including details of the crossovers and any associated line marking treatments must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.
2. The applicant must ensure that vehicles leaving the site have clay and soil removed from their wheels before entering public roads.
3. All vehicles removing waste from the premises must have fully secured and contained loads so that no wastes are spilled.

1. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, within 60 days of the endorsement of plans, the developer must:

1. Construct the site stormwater system in accordance with the approved Site Drainage and Stormwater Plan. Any stormwater connections must be in accordance with City of Greater Geelong Standard Drawings. 2. Construct vehicular crossings as required in accordance with the Vehicle Access Plan and the requirements and standards of the City of Greater Geelong.

1. Remove any redundant vehicular crossings, reinstate kerb and channel and the footpath/nature strip area to match existing construction in the street.

1. Construct, drain and linemark all vehicle access areas, construct and drain all car parking and pedestrian areas in accordance with the endorsed plans. 2. Conform to all conditions and requirements set out in the endorsed plans.

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All buildings and works must commence within 6 months of the endorsement of plans and those buildings and works must be completed within 2 years of the endorsement of plans.

EPA Conditions (other than where covered in other conditions)

1. Prescribed industrial wastes as defined by the Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009, must not be accepted at the premises.

1. The operation of the site permitted under this permit must be managed so that no dust from materials recycling activities including from the materials stockpiles and trafficking pass the boundary of the premises.
2. Water spray systems must be installed and maintained at the stockpiles of material, the access roads, loading and unloading area and screening plant.
3. Access roads subject to regular traffic must be provided with appropriate surface treatment to minimise dust, and mud to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Noise emitted from the premises must not exceed the recommended levels as set out in Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria (NIRV; EPA Publication 1411 , 2011) or as amended from time to time.

1. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the CFA, within 60 days of the date of the issue of the planning permit, an independent risk assessment must be submitted to and approved by the CFA. The risk assessment must be developed looking at all fire risks for the subject land. The risk assessment must use the ISO 31000 framework and must look at all available mitigations. The risk assessment must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the CFA. When approved, the risk assessment will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. All approved mitigation measures must be implemented at all times, to the satisfaction of the CFA and the Responsible Authority.

1. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the CFA, within 60 days of the date of the issue of the planning permit, an Emergency Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the CFA. The plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the CFA. When approved, the Emergency Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. All activities on the land must be conducted in accordance with the approved Emergency Management Plan at all times, to the satisfaction of the CFA and the Responsible Authority.

1. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the CFA, within 60 days of the date of the issue of the planning permit, a Fire Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the CFA. The plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the CFA. When approved, the Fire Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. All activities on the land must be conducted in accordance with the approved Fire Management Plan at all times, the satisfaction of the CFA and the Responsible Authority.
2. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the CFA, within 60 days of the date of the issue of the planning permit, a fire hydrant system complying with AS2419.1-2005[10] must be installed throughout the premises to the satisfaction of the CFA. The hydrant system must incorporate a large static water supply of sufficient capacity to deal with any incident on the site, to the satisfaction of the CFA.
3. The operator must have machinery on site at all times in good working order so that fire within the stockpiles can be controlled if an incident is to occur. All machinery on the site will be diesel-driven to assist in minimising the ignition potential. All machinery is to be fitted with fire-fighting equipment, to the satisfaction of the CFA.
4. The site must be provided with a detection system designed to detect early onset of fire, to the satisfaction of the CFA.
5. The site must be provided with suitable security measures, including CCTV. Security fencing must be maintained so that the boundary of the site is secure at all times, to the satisfaction of the CFA.
6. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the CFA, within 60 days of the date of the issue of the planning permit, access and egress roads for CFA purposes must be installed throughout the site, to the satisfaction of the CFA. These access roads must be:

1. Clear vertically and horizontally to cater for 35 tonne fire-fighting appliances. 2. Of all-weather construction capable of accommodating the weight and turning movements of 35 tonne fire-fighting appliances.

1. Provided to allow practicable access to the water supply and all stockpiles at all times.

1. Runoff of all fire-fighting water must be managed on site with no run off escaping onto adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the CFA.

1. This permit as it relates to use will expire within 6 months of cessation of the permitted use.
2. This permit as it relates to development (buildings and works) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   1. The development is not started within six (6) months of the issued date of this permit.
   2. The development is not completed within two (2) years of the issued date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

1. Unless otherwise extended in writing by the Responsible Authority, this permit, as it relates to signage expires 15 years from the date of this permit, at which time the signage and all supporting structures must be removed and the site made good to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

[1] Section 4(2)(d) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 states a failure to make a decision is deemed to be a decision to refuse to make the decision.

[2] We have considered the submissions of all the parties that appeared, all the written evidence, all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed. We do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.

[4] Refer: Order 7 of Enforcement Order, P346/2015 Central Recyclers Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong City Council, relating to Permit Application Number 102/2013/C. 1 June 2015.

[5] p5 of applicants submission to the Tribunal

[6] The identified correspondences are held on the Tribunal's file on this matter.

[7] Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct Prospectus: Geelong's future employment precinct is here. City of Greater Geelong (Undated). www.GREP.com.au

[8] Locally indigenous plants would naturally be derived from ecological vegetation class EVC 132-63 (Low-rainfall Plains grassland) and EVC 132-61 (Heavier-soils Plains grassland)

[9] Tribunal matter P346/2015 regarding Permit Application Number 102/2013/C.

[10] AS 2419.1-2005 Fire hydrant installations - System design, installation and commissioning.