The proposal includes the removal of native vegetation and the introduction of perimeter landscape screening 5 metres wide along Chivers Road and parts of Glenrowan West Road and the Winton-Glenrowan Road. The Flora and Fauna Assessment[1] identifies the vegetation proposed to be removed as three areas of EVC 803 Plains Woodland with a total area of 0.265 hectares and 17 scattered trees.

The proposal also seeks planning approval for business signs to identify the solar installation site.

Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 - to review the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time.[2]

• A permit is required to use land for a renewable energy facility in the FZ.

• A permit is required for buildings and works associated with a Section 2 use (Renewable energy facility) in the FZ.
• A permit is required for a building within the following setbacks:
  • • 50 metres from a Road Zone Category 1.
  • • 20 metres from any other road.
  • • 100 metres from a waterway.

• A permit is required for a business identification sign in the FZ and such signage must not exceed three square metres.

• A permit is required to remove, destroy or lop vegetation, including dead native vegetation in the FZ.

Clauses 11 (Settlement), 11.01-1R (sustainable development of Hume regional centres and the Hume Regional Growth Plan), 12 (environmental and landscape values), 12.01-2S (native vegetation management), 14 (natural resource management), 14.01-1S (protection of agricultural land), 17.01-1R (diversified economy - Hume), 19 (infrastructure), 19.01-2S (renewable energy), 19.01-2R (renewable energy - Hume).

Clauses 21.03 (environmental and landscape values), 21.05 (natural resource management), 21.06 (built environment and heritage), 21.08 (economic development), 22.01 (rural landuse and agriculture), 22.03 (Glenrowan Township), 22.07 (Hume Freeway environs), 22.08 (advertising signs policy).

The site consists of nine contiguous titles described as Lot 1 TP 142462D, Lot 5 LP134007, Lot 6 LP 134007 and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on TP 329902L variously located adjacent to the Winton-Glenrowan Road, Glenrowan Road West and Chivers Road at Glenrowan.

The terrain of the site is undulating, rising gently from north to south. Three natural drainage lines converge near the centre of the site to form an intermittent tributary to the Eleven Mile Creek, 1.6 kilometres to the north-west. On the southern boundary is a rectangular area of approximately 2 hectares where a revegetation program is in place to restore habitat for the Regent Honey Eater. This area is excluded from the site.

Vegetation on the site is predominantly grazing pasture with 36 scattered trees and in the north-eastern part of the site, three windrows of native and non-native tree species.

There are no buildings on the site except for a single hay shed. Development adjacent to or directly opposite the site consists of:

• the land owner's dwelling on a separate title at 38 Glenrowan West Road to the east;

• a dwelling and outbuildings at 76 Glenrowan West Road to the east;

• three dwellings and outbuildings at 87, 131 and 215 Glenrowan West Road to the south; and

• a dwelling and outbuildings at 86 Chivers Road to the west.

The Hume Freeway is located on the north side of the Winton-Glenrowan Road for the full length of the northern boundary.

Glenrowan Township is approximately 2 kilometres to the north-east of the site and the Rural City of Wangaratta is approximately 15 kilometres in the same direction.

Chivers Road forms the western boundary of the site and is also the municipal boundary with the Benalla Rural City. To the east of this boundary, on the southern side of the Hume Freeway, Benalla Rural City has recently approved three adjacent solar installations extending approximately 7 kilometres west towards Winton.

The Tribunal conducted an unaccompanied inspection of the site and the surrounding area on 17 December 2018.

1. This application is brought pursuant to section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Act) by ESCO Pacific Pty Ltd, being the permit applicant (applicant) against the failure of the Wangaratta Rural City Council (Council) to grant a planning permit within time (failure).
2. In early February 2018, the Council received an application for planning permit for the use and development of nine parcels of land collectively referred to as 38 Glenrowan West Road, Glenrowan (site) for a renewable energy facility, signage and associated removal of native vegetation (proposal). The Council sought further information which was duly provided by the applicant. Further, the application was the subject of referral to external agencies including VicRoads, Country Fire Authority (CFA), AusNet, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), Goulburn Murray Water (GMW), Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and APA VTS Australia Operations Pty Ltd, all of whom are recommending referral authorities.
3. At a Council meeting on 21 August 2018 the Council resolved to refuse the application based on the following key issues:
   • the loss of agricultural land;
   • the extent of amenity impacts to the public realm and to neighbouring properties;
   • the extent of vegetation removal; and
   • the impact on the historic character of Glenrowan.
4. A number of objections were received by the Council in response to the notice of the proposal and further, the Tribunal has received a number of statements of grounds. In general, the issues raised by the respondents in addition to those raised by the Council can be summarised as: loss of amenity, loss of views and vistas, traffic management, glint and glare, noise, heritage, agricultural, environment, fire, dust and weed control.
5. The applicant submits that the proposal is appropriate having regard to the consistency of the proposal with the planning policy framework (PPF), the strong strategic support for such proposals, minimal detrimental impacts to the public and private realm and of overall net community benefit.
6. Having considered the submissions and evidence at the hearing and having conducted a thorough inspection of the site, neighbouring properties and the surrounding area including the Glenrowan Township, we conclude that the proposal is an acceptable planning outcome subject to modifications which are set out in our reasons below.

1. The applicant proposes to construct a 140MW solar power installation of 420,000 photovoltaic (PV) solar panels and ancillary infrastructure comprising a switchyard and control rooms, an operations, maintenance and warehouse/workshop facility, a car parking area and a future battery storage area. The ancillary infrastructure is to be located at the north-west corner of the site.
2. We were informed at the hearing that the proposed solar panel arrays will be hinged to the ground at 2 metres above ground and will have a maximum height of 4 metres. These arrays are designed to rotate on a north-south access following the sun from east to west on an arc with a maximum tilt of 60° below horizontal. We were further informed that the PV panels will be fixed to the ground without the need for any concrete foundation work.
3. The PV panels will be connected in a series to form strings of between 28 and 30 modules. A number of strings of solar panels (between 16 -24) will be connected in parallel using Direct Current (DC) combiner boxes which are then connected to an inverter in the Power Conversion Unit (PCU). The inverter converts direct current power to alternating current so that the electricity generated can be transmitted into the electricity network. A detailed description of the operations and components of the proposal is set out in the evidence of Mr Gerstch[4].
4. The site is proposed to be accessed from the north-west corner at Chivers Road. Eight car spaces are provided in this general area.
5. Further, seventeen native trees and three patches of native vegetation are proposed to be removed.
6. The proposal has the potential to generate 220,000MW/hours of electricity each year which the applicant submits is the amount of electricity capable of providing power to 51,000 homes and displacing 164,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

1. In addition to the detailed description of the site set out at pages 7-8 of this decision, we note as follows:
   • the site comprises nine parcels of land;
   • it has an overall area of approximately 245 hectares;
   • the frontage to Glenrowan West Road is approximately 1890 metres;
   • its frontage to Winton - Glenrowan Road and the Hume Freeway is approximately 2230 metres;
   • its frontage to Chivers Road is approximately 1570 metres;
   • the maximum site depth is approximately 1800 metres along the western boundary;
   • two parcels are encumbered by an electricity easement; and
   • the site is mostly cleared of vegetation and is currently used for beef cattle grazing and hay making.
2. Three planning approvals for renewable energy facilities have been granted by the Rural City of Benalla on land to the west of the site. The approved facilities are:
   • Lightsource BP - Mokoan Solar Farm;
   • Overland Sun Farming - Glenrowan West Solar Farm; and
   • FRV - Winton Solar Farm.

1. The site is within the Farming Zone (FZ) and not subject to any overlays. A planning permit is required for both use and development of the site under the FZ.
2. A number of clauses within the PPF are relevant to this application notably, clauses 11, 12, 14, 17 and 19. Wangaratta is identified at clause 11.1-1R as a regional city where the growth strategy is to promote growth. The Hume Regional Growth Plan (Growth Plan) identifies land designated as strategic agricultural land. Council and the applicant agree that the site is not within an area designated as strategic agricultural land pursuant to the Growth Plan. However, Council submits that the site is nonetheless important at the local level.
3. The objectives at clause 14.01-1S and 2S are:
   • To protect the state's agricultural base by preserving productive farmland.
   • To encourage sustainable agricultural land use.
4. Further, one of the strategies at clause 14.01-1R is to: Balance the potential off-site effects of a use or development proposal (such as degradation of soil or water quality and land salinisation) against the benefits of the proposal.
5. At a State level, clause 17 seeks to strengthen and diversify the economy and in respect of the Hume region it states:

Encourage appropriate and developing forms of industry, agriculture, tourism and alternative energy production.

1. Clause 19.01-2S deals specifically with renewable energy. Its objective is:

To promote the provision of renewable energy in a manner that ensures appropriate siting and design considerations are met.

1. Clause 19.01-2R deals with renewable energy within the Hume regional context and emphasises the creation of renewable energy hubs that support code location of industries to maximise resource use efficiency and minimise waste generation.
2. Clause 12 is given local recognition at clause 21.03 of the Wangaratta Planning Scheme (planning scheme). This clause considers biodiversity and significant environments and landscapes.
3. Further, the planning scheme seeks to protect highly visible and scenic landscapes. This objective is sought to be implemented by avoiding development on ridgelines, escarpments, hilltops and on other visually prominent land features.
4. Clause 21.05 recognises the importance of agriculture within the municipality not only to its economy but also to its social performance. Clause 21.05 relies upon a document entitled An Assessment of the Versatility of Agricultural Land in the Rural City of Wangaratta, April 2000 (Versatility Report). Notably, it states inter alia:

The agricultural sector is essential to the economic and social performance of the municipality in the region. It is an imperative that the productivity and versatility of agricultural land is maintained, particularly for higher agricultural versatility areas_._

1. Clause 21.06 is said to provide local content to support clause 15 of the PPF. Objective 2 at clause 21.06 is:

To facilitate positive visual impressions gained of the municipality to those visiting or transiting through the area.

1. Clause 21.06-2 addresses sustainable development including support local energy production such as solar power and wind turbines.
2. Clause 21.08 seeks to protect agricultural and rural land from inappropriate and incompatible industrial land uses. It was put to us that the proposal was an industrial land use, the Tribunal does not agree. Clause 73.03 of the planning scheme provides land use definitions. A renewable energy facility is defined as: land used to generate energy using resources that can be rapidly replaced by ongoing natural processes. Renewable energy resources include the sun, wind, the ocean.... The use of land for industry is separately defined as: land used for any of the following operations: any process of manufacture, dismantling or breaking up of any material, treating waste materials, winning gravel, clay, rock, sand, soil... Laundering, repair, servicing,..... On the basis of clause 73.03, it is clear to the Tribunal that the application before us is for a renewable energy facility and not for an industrial use.
3. Clause 21.08-3 also identifies the importance of tourism as a significant economic driver in the municipality. Notably, the Wangaratta CAA is recognised to be of tourist significance. The objectives and strategies in relation to tourism seek to strengthen and expand the range of tourism opportunities. The region is recognised for wineries and gourmet food experiences and as such the planning scheme seeks to promote a wide range of accommodation facilities to support and enhance the recognised tourist attractions. Further, there is support in the planning scheme to enhance touring route options such as the completion of the Milawa gourmet loop on the trail to the north-east of Wangaratta to link with the Murray River as well as extend the Murray to mountains trail from Wangaratta to Whitfield.
4. Clause 22.01 applies to all land within the FZ and again recognises the importance of the agricultural sector in the local economy in addition to the social resource it provides. However, when one properly reviews clause 22.01 its intention in our view, is to avoid dwellings and inappropriate subdivisions within the FZ in order to avoid impacts on very high and high agricultural versatility areas.
5. The importance of the Glenrowan Township is specifically recognised at clause 22.03. It only applies to applications for use and development of land within the precincts in the township. The site is not within such a precinct as it is located some 2 kilometres away. The Council submits that the proposal will have an impact on the township, its surrounding land and its reputation, as it will be seen as the gateway to Glenrowan.
6. Clause 22.07 applies to all land within 100 metres of the Hume Freeway Road Reserve. The Hume Freeway is recognised as a principal tourist and transport road linking capital cities and regional areas. One of its objectives is to:

Ensure that land use and development does not prejudice the levels of service, safety and visual amenity of the Hume Freeway.

1. In terms of visual amenity, it simply requires any building to be setback from the Hume Freeway in order to obtain a visual and acoustic buffer. Further, direct access to the Hume Freeway is prohibited by relevant legislation.
2. The Renewable Energy Facility provision (other than wind energy facility and geothermal energy extraction) is contained at clause 53.13. Its sole purpose is:

To facilitate the establishment and expansion of renewable energy facilities, in appropriate locations, with minimal impact on the amenity of the area.

1. Clause 53.13-2 provides a number of application requirements that are to be submitted as part of an application as appropriate. The decision guidelines for consideration, as appropriate are:

The effect of the proposal on the surrounding area in terms of noise, glint, light spill, vibration, smell and electromagnetic interference.

The impact of the proposal on significant views, including visual corridors and sightlines.

The impact of the proposal on the natural environment and natural systems.

Whether the proposal will require traffic management measures.

1. This decision has set out in some detail the substantial policy framework relevant to our decision making. Strategically the planning scheme seeks to protect and retain agricultural land, facilitate renewable energy facilities and protect import landscapes. It was put to us that these strategic outcomes are inherently inconsistent with one another in this application. We do not agree with this proposition. However, to the extent it was argued by the parties, the Tribunal must balance any conflicting policy in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.

1. In our view the key issues for consideration in this application are:
   • Is the proposal consistent with the purposes of the FZ and compatible with surrounding land uses?
   • Does the proposal cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?
   • Will the proposal cause an unacceptable impact on the heritage values of the Glenrowan Township?
   • Is the removal of vegetation and trees acceptable?
   • Are there any other matters that make the proposal unacceptable?

1. The planning considerations we must balance in determining this application are:
   • the purposes of the FZ to retain productive agricultural land and to ensure non-agricultural uses do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture; and
   • the encouragement of investment in renewable energy at clause 53.13 by establishing renewable energy facilities in appropriate locations, with minimal impact on the amenity of the area.

1. Generating sufficient power from solar power to make a meaningful contribution to the national electricity supply requires close access to the national electricity grid and sites of sufficient size to accommodate such proposals. It is clear from the location and size of existing and proposed solar installations that in Victoria, the planning policy strategy at clause 19.01-02S to: f_acilitate renewable energy development in appropriate locations_ is most likely to be realised in the FZ given the size of land holdings and other physical attributes.
2. Prominent in the submissions to the Tribunal from both Council and the respondents is the loss of agricultural land and the perceived impact of the proposal on surrounding agricultural pursuits.
3. The Tribunal's task, succinctly put in the planning policy for the protection of agricultural land at clause 14.01-1S, is to: balance the potential off-site effects of a use or development proposal.... against the benefits of the proposal.
4. Earlier we have set out the relevant sections of clause 21.05 and the Versatility Report. The findings of the report are necessarily broad scale, and we have some reservation that the report falls short in providing a definitive agricultural assessment of the site. As emphasised in the following statement from the report:

..the information is considered suitable for broad scale planning and policy decisions. Specific on-farm or on-site development will require more detailed assessment as enlargement of the map will not improve the precision of data, and is likely to be misleading to the user.

1. The most we can take from the Versatility Report is that the site has moderate to high versality and is suitable for grazing and the like. While this assessment is apparent 'on the ground', the generality of the versatility information does not provide us with sufficient detail to reach a definitive view about whether the quality of the agricultural land justifies conversion to a non-agricultural use. For this assessment, we are assisted by the evidence of Mr Rendell. This evidence is in the form of a detailed agricultural assessment of the site. He draws on a number of information sources, including the Versatility Report as well as a Land Capability Study in the Shire of Benalla, prepared by the Soil Conservation Authority in 1980 (Land Capability) and the Growth Plan. Both reports include the site.
2. Referring to the land versatility classifications in the Versatility Report, Mr Rendell notes:

..the majority of the site is classed as high versatility; being "generally suited to grazing, viticulture and opportunistic cropping". In practice, there is no water supply for viticulture, and thus the site is suited only to grazing and opportunistic cropping with moderate to high productivity.

1. Taking this assessment a step further, Mr Rendell refers to the more detailed Land Capability mapping, which places the north-western (lower) half of the site in Class 4 (Mokoan land system) and the higher ground to the east in Class 11 (Lurg land system).
2. Mr Rendell observes that Class 4 and Class 11 land system descriptions identify:

..that the site has the required physical characteristics to support the current agricultural practices. These characteristics include stable and well drained soils on gentle slopes. The land is substantially cleared of native vegetation and supports moderate agricultural capability.

1. Mr Rendell then refers us to the Growth Plan, which includes a map of strategic agricultural land that has national/state regional or sub-regional significance. The areas identified are the irrigated districts of the Goulburn Valley and alluvial areas associated with key rivers, which in the Wangaratta area is generally the agricultural land within the King and Ovens river valleys. The site is not within an area considered to be strategic agricultural land.
2. Finally, Mr Rendell provided the Tribunal with his opinion on inspection of the existing agricultural use of the site; mainly cattle grazing. The current farming activity of the land generates the equivalent of one-third of a full-time income based on a farm business with a single owner operator. Mr Rendell concludes:

In summary, the site inspection confirms the finding that the land has "moderate" agricultural capacity within a dryland setting.

1. With regard to the effect of the proposal on the agricultural activities on surrounding land, Mr Rendell notes similar agricultural activity on the surrounding properties consisting of sheep grazing, some quarrying activity, small scale farming and rural residential occupation. He concludes with the opinion:

Provided road access is not inhibited, the agricultural activities of the neighbouring properties should not be impacted by construction activity or operation of the proposed solar energy facility.

1. We find Mr Rendell's evidence accords with our on-site observation of the site and the surrounding area. We accept Mr Rendell's evidence that the site has moderate dryland farming capacity and this assessment assists our consideration of the proposal against clause 53.13.

1. The information requirements for establishing a renewable energy facility (other than a wind energy facility and geothermal energy extraction) are found at clause 53.13 of the planning scheme. These have been set out earlier in our decision.
2. The application requirements refer to a site and context analysis and a design response. Submissions from the permit applicant include information about the selected site, the relationship to the local electricity grid, site access and proximity to nearby dwellings.
3. To summarise, the site is predominantly cleared generally flat land, with vegetation removal confined to seventeen scattered native trees and three small patches of native vegetation.
4. Surrounding the site, the configuration of the solar arrays provides for perimeter setbacks that show larger setback areas directly opposite some of the dwellings. These are on the northern and western sides of Glenrowan West Road. The minimum setbacks of the solar arrays from the surrounding dwellings are listed in the table below.

Minimum separation between dwellings and the solar array

1. Generally, the solar arrays are proposed to be setback from the site's boundaries a minimum distance of 10 metres along the northern boundary abutting the Winton-Glenrowan Road; 15 metres along Chivers Road to the west; 10 metres along the Glenrowan West Road to the south; and 60 metres along the Glenrowan West Road to the east. A 3.5 metre wide internal access road and vegetation screening are proposed within these setback areas.
2. Having reviewed the relevant documents and undertaken a site inspection we consider that the proposed setbacks and landscaping treatment are acceptable for the surrounding dwellings (subject to some qualification that is discussed later).
3. The Hume Freeway is located 80 metres from the site boundary and within this space, the existing freeway landscaping visually separates the freeway from adjacent rural land and the Winton-Glenrowan Road, which runs parallel to the freeway for the full length of the site.
4. The freeway landscaping takes the form of sections of roadside vegetation; comprising scattered trees, sections of consolidated trees and shrubs and some cleared sections. When travelling on the freeway at 110 kph, the effect of this landscaping is to allow glimpsed views of the site and the surrounding land. Considering the setback from the freeway and the predominance of roadside vegetation, we consider the northern interface is the least sensitive interface and find the proposed setback of the solar arrays to be acceptable. Certainly, the solar arrays will be a visible presence, but not in our view, to a degree that would transform the wider landscape.
5. On that basis, we conclude that the site is an appropriate location and has been designed to ensure minimal impact to the amenity of the area and thus is consistent with the purpose of clause 53.13.

1. Given the view that we expressed earlier that the most likely area to realise renewable energy facilities in any meaningful way is farming land, its loss must follow.
2. In this case the farming land is:
   • of moderate agricultural quality;
   • provides a moderate income;
   • is not of State significance;
   • is large and relatively unencumbered;
   • generally cleared;
   • located on a service road with reasonable access to the road network;
   • located in close proximity to the electricity network;
   • has limited neighbouring dwellings; and
   • can be effectively screened (we will discuss this later).
3. The other issues that emerged were the ability for the land to be returned to agricultural production, fragmentation of farming land and the ability to use the land for grazing concurrently for a renewable energy facility.
4. We were advised that the infrastructure is located below the soil surface and can be readily removed without any substantial disturbance to the land. On the basis of the information before us, we are satisfied that the removal of the infrastructure could occur without permanent or substantial disturbance to the soil.
5. In terms of fragmentation of farming land, other than the proposed use not being an agricultural use, there is nothing inherent in the proposal that leads to a conclusion that the land will be fragmented. Often development such as subdivision, additional dwellings or rural lifestyle dwellings have greater potential to fragment farming land. Furthermore, it is Mr Glossop's evidence that the proposal is a low impact use in that once the proposal is constructed there is little activity by way of truck movements and the like that one ordinarily observes in farming areas. We concur with this evidence.
6. In relation to the ability to graze sheep concurrently with the proposed use we make no findings or conclusions as grazing is an as of right use in the FZ. Moreover, we do not consider it necessary to our decision to consider grazing as part of the proposal. We note that Mr Glossop did not assess the proposal's acceptability on the basis that sheep grazing could occur.
7. Having regard to the matters listed above, we consider the loss of farming land in this context to be acceptable.

1. Having regard to the above, we conclude that the proposal is not contrary to the purposes of the zone or policy and will not impact in any unreasonable way with surrounding land uses.

1. The issue of landscape protection is a key aspect of Council's refusal and it submits:

The north-east region is a popular tourist destination for its natural beauty and environmental values and nature based tourism. The cumulative visual impact of the potential for multiple solar farm installations in close proximity to each other on the southern gateway to the municipality, highly visible for 7.5 kilometres from a major freeway is not appropriate and will adversely impact the natural beauty of the area.

1. Council is concerned that the proposal will detract from the landscape quality of the municipality, particularly when viewed from key entry points such as the Hume Freeway. We understand this concern and in order to properly consider it we have reviewed landscape protection in the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) provisions of the planning scheme. There are three schedules to the SLO that identify significant landscapes. The schedules refer to the protection of the Warby Ranges (SLO1), protection of the long vistas obtained from the Glenrowan Gap (SLO2) and protection of the King Valley rural landscape (SLO3).
2. The fact that the site is not subject to the landscape protection measures in the three SLO schedules does not mean that landscape protection measures are not relevant. As Council points out the local policy for the built environment and heritage at clause 21.06 contains a number of relevant strategies.
3. The planning scheme applies the SLO controls to 'signature' vistas such as the long northern views of the Victorian Alps from Glenrowan Gap and the protection of views of the Warby Ranges to the west of Glenrowan and Wangaratta. These are commanding views of the wider landscape. The emphasis in SLO1 (Warby Ranges) is on protecting the visual attraction of the Range itself when viewed from surrounding areas.
4. SLO2 (Glenrowan Gap) and SLO3 (King Valley) contain a different emphasis by shifting development controls from the feature being viewed to places where views are obtained. Hence SLO2 and SLO3 are generally confined to an "immediate foreground" strip of land 200 metres wide on the eastern side of the Hume Freeway in the case of SLO2 and both sides of the Wangaratta-Whitfield Road south of Moyhu in the case of SLO3.
5. Although SLO1 is different from SLO2 and SLO3, they all have the purpose of protecting dominant landscape features or long views. The contention that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the gateway to the municipality ascribes a landscape value to the site similar to the landscapes protected by the SLO. That is simply not the case.
6. The effect of the proposal on the landscape can be considered in the context of:
   • visibility from the Hume Freeway and the surrounding landscape, and
   • from the more intimate perspective of visibility from individual properties that surround the solar facility site.

1. The applicant relied upon the evidence of Mr Burge in respect of visual amenity. Mr Burge undertook a thorough and complete assessment of the visual amenity impacts to the public and private realm. He considered that any landscape assessment should have regard to: visibility, distance, landscape quality and the number of viewers. The Tribunal agrees that those parameters are helpful in a landscape assessment.
2. With respect to the public realm whilst Mr Burge's visual assessment was helpful we were better informed by undertaking our own site inspection of the public realm. This is not a criticism of Mr Burge but rather that it is difficult to appreciate any visual impact using static images in this environment.
3. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Hume Freeway and potentially the Winton-Glenrowan Road are used by tourists to and from Glenrowan. However, in this location these routes are not protected in the planning scheme nor, do they in our view represent any particularly unique features that should be protected. Having undertaken a site inspection, we note that the views are fleeting, interrupted by vegetation in the roadside and on private land, and experienced when one is travelling at high speeds. The Tribunal concludes that the proposal will have little if any detrimental impact to the landscape.
4. When considering impacts to the landscape, we also consider it relevant to have regard to other renewable energy facilities that have been approved to the west of the site within the Rural City of Benalla. There will be opportunities for passing motorists to see the various renewable energy facilities once constructed. However, such views are not continuous and are not for the whole time a motorist is travelling in this area. Again, we conclude that the views are short lived, interrupted by vegetation in the roadside and on private land, and experienced when one is travelling at high speeds. Having regard to these matters, we conclude that the cumulative impact of a number of renewable energy facilities in this location on the overall landscape will be negligible.
5. Even if the Tribunal is incorrect and we should not have had regard to the cumulative impacts of approved renewable energy facilities in the surrounding area, it is immaterial to our decision as we have concluded that the proposal itself will have little if any detrimental impact with respect to the wider landscape.

1. Mr Burge's evidence was very helpful to the Tribunal when undertaking an assessment of the visual impact to the private realm. In undertaking our assessment of visual impact we endeavoured to locate the position where Mr Burge's images were taken, to gain an understanding of the accuracy of such images. The Tribunal is satisfied with the accuracy of the images produced by Mr Burge although we note that in reality the landscape and various elements within it appear to the eye further afield than they do in Mr Burge's images.

1. This property is afforded expansive views across the site. However, the existing dwelling is generally oriented to the north with what appeared to be a bedroom and living room window facing east.
2. Mr and Mrs Welsh are concerned with the extent of the solar panels that would be visible from their property and particularly the visibility of the ancillary infrastructure located in the north-western corner of the site.
3. They say that the extent of landscaping proposed in order to mitigate the visual impact of the proposal is insufficient as the site is not flat and will be visible from the majority of their property.
4. The distance from the Welsh dwelling to the site at its closest point is approximately 150 metres with the ancillary infrastructure being located some 750 metres from the dwelling. Mr Burge has concluded that once vegetation is established the visual impact will be low to negligible. We assume that during the establishment phase the visual impact will be greater than low to negligible.

1. The Hone dwelling is located approximately 65 metres from the boundary with the site. The living room and associated areas are directly oriented towards the site. There is existing vegetation between the dwelling and the site however, Mr Burge's assessment is that there will be a 'high' visual impact without the landscape mitigation.

1. Ms Bresanello's dwelling is located approximately 350 metres to the closest solar panels. There are views of the site from inside the living room of the dwelling. Further, there are substantial views across the site from the various outdoor areas on Ms Bresanello's property which are oriented towards the site. In particular, there are areas on her property where various equestrian activities are undertaken. There is some existing vegetation which assists to filter some views from this property to the site. Mr Burge assesses the visual impact as 'high' given that there are open views to the site and there is a lack of any intervening meaningful vegetation.

1. Mr and Mrs Cutler's property is approximately 350 metres from the nearest solar panel array. Their dwelling is provided with a direct outlook across the site from the existing verandah. The Tribunal noted that the landscaping on the Cutler property provided a filtered view of the site. However, as one approaches the western boundary of the Cutler property a more expansive view of the site is obtained as one loses the impact of any intervening vegetation.
2. On the basis of the extent of the existing vegetation Mr Burge assesses the visual impact as 'low' from the verandah and 'moderate' from other locations in the front setback.

1. Mr and Mrs Loader own 532 Old Hume Highway which is situated some 443 metres from the northern boundary of the site. Their dwelling is located a substantial distance from the site, across many traffic lanes. From our site inspection we noted that the topography is not such that there will be views from the Loader property to the site and as such the Tribunal finds that there will be no direct visual impact on the Loader property.

1. The Tribunal agrees that landscaping is required to provide sufficient mitigation for any visual impact of the proposal. The impact of existing vegetation assists in understanding how landscaping can mitigate visual impacts. Further we note that the fencing is proposed to be located on the site between the landscaping buffer and the solar panels. The location of fencing is important as a fence on the boundary which would be readily visible to passers-by or the nearby dwellings would be inappropriate in this farming context.
2. However, we do not agree with Mr Burge that the landscaping response should include the planting of seedlings or tube stock. There is a considerable lag time between the planting of seedlings and tube stock and their intended effect. This lag time is not acceptable to the Tribunal in circumstances where the visual impact analysis to some of the surrounding properties was on Mr Burge's own evidence assessed as 'high'.
3. Whilst the Tribunal understands that visual amenity in a farming zone is not a paramount consideration, we nonetheless share the concerns expressed by the respondents given the scale of the proposal before us.
4. On that basis the Tribunal concludes that whilst a five-metre landscape buffer is sufficient to mitigate the visual impacts of the proposal, the height of the plants employed in any landscaping regime needs to be carefully considered. The Tribunal will require conditions for the planting of semi-mature vegetation within sections of the proposed landscape buffer opposite the adjoining dwellings, coupled with seedlings and tube stock. Such semi-mature vegetation will need to be planted at a height of 2 metres or greater. We have left final details of species selection to the discretion of the appropriately qualified person with the approval of the Council.
5. The applicant proposes areas within the site that increase the setback of the solar arrays directly in front of the dwellings at 43, 76 and 215 Glenrowan West Road. We consider the setbacks (set out in the separation distance table earlier in our reasons) with respect to the locations of these dwellings in relation to the site, and when combined with landscaping, will achieve an acceptable degree of separation and visual screening from the renewable energy facility. We have not required any setbacks to the solar panels along the western boundary as the dwelling at 86 Chivers Road is primarily oriented to the north. We understand that this dwelling will have views of the proposal, but this dwelling is afforded views to the north and north-east that will be unencumbered by the proposal.

1. The residents were also concerned with glint and glare. Mr Gerstch's evidence to the Tribunal was that the proposal would not give rise to unreasonable impacts to any nearby dwellings nor to the public realm in terms of glint and glare for the following reasons:
   • The material used in the manufacture of the PV panels;
   • The use of the tracking system; and
   • The orientation of the arrays.
2. We accept Mr Gerstch's evidence that the design of the proposal and the manufacture of the PV panels can reduce glint and glare. We also acknowledge the findings of the Shepparton Advisory Committee on this issue. We also note that the permit conditions circulated by the applicant includes details of proposed materials to address any potential glint and glare effects. However, given the size and extent of this proposal, the topography of the site and the surrounding area, the Tribunal will require a report to be prepared addressing any potential glint and glare effects and any recommendations contained within that report to be depicted on plans for endorsement.

1. A prominent issue in submissions from the Council and some respondents is the proximity of the proposal to the township of Glenrowan, located approximately two kilometres to the north-east. Glenrowan is a popular tourist destination that has an association with events in the life of nineteenth century bushranger, Ned Kelly.
2. As a corollary to the contention that the proposal will change the perception of Glenrowan as a tourist attraction, submissions to the Tribunal advanced the view that the location of the proposal being adjacent to the Hume Freeway, will be perceived as the gateway to Glenrowan.
3. The basis of Council's opposition with respect to tourism, heritage and gateway location is to be found in clauses 15.03, 21.06 and 22.03. The Council says that it is not only the Glenrowan Township that is known for its connection with Ned Kelly but that the siting, surrounding country side and vistas are all part of that history. The Council submits that the location of the proposal will interrupt or interfere with the setting and context and will thus have an impact on the appreciation of the history/heritage and on tourism.
4. Further, the Council says that the proposal will be highly visible from the Hume Freeway and this will detract from the tourist and historical experience. Several respondents support the Council's case in this respect.
5. Submissions by respondents also included that they did not want the area known as an area for industrial use (solar farms) as that would detract from the heritage significance of the Glenrowan Township.
6. No heritage evidence was provided on this matter and further it is noted that the site:
   • is not in any heritage overlay;
   • is well removed from the Glenrowan Township; and
   • is not in a building or precinct with any heritage value.
7. While we understand that the proposal adds a new dimension to the established economic activities associated with Glenrowan, we are not convinced that the presence of the proposal will change the perception of Glenrowan, its history or the arrival experience of visitors to the town.
8. Immediately east of the site, the Hume Freeway enters the Glenrowan Gap through a low cutting that by-passes the Glenrowan Township. The only identification of the Glenrowan Township is a freeway sign indicating the town is approximately one-kilometre via the freeway off-ramp. There is no direct visual connection between the proposal and the town. It is only on entering the Winton-Glenrowan Road from the freeway exit and travelling a further 500 metres to enter Gladstone Street that the town and its historical association with Ned Kelly becomes obvious.
9. We do not consider that the approval and ultimate construction of renewable energy facilities in this area will in any way detract from the long, enduring and significant association with Ned Kelly. It is noted that the main tourist attractions with respect to Ned Kelly are contained within the boundaries of the town itself and do not extend to the site. For example, there is no suggestion that the site was somehow important in Ned Kelly's last stand either by any party in this matter or in the relevant planning policy.
10. Based on the clear separation between the site and Glenrowan Township, we find the proposition that the proposal will usurp the public perception of Glenrowan as a tourist attraction to be tenuous.

1. The Council and respondents raise concerns with the extent of vegetation removal. The Council submits that the removal of scattered paddock trees is to be avoided under clause 21.03. Further, it says that notwithstanding any offset that can be provided for the removal of the native vegetation will result in a loss of biodiversity by removing breeding habitat for the Regent Honeyeater. The Council also expresses concern that the Flora and Fauna Assessment[5] contained a number of caveats which may not present the entirety of the native vegetation loss.
2. The Fauna and Flora Assessment was finalised in February 2018, the caveats contained in this Assessment referred to by Council are those that are commonly contained in this type of report. We note that the potential for the presence of any threatened species was assessed by desktop studies, physical assessment of the site and consideration of historical land use and, the conclusion in the Assessment was that there was a low likelihood that the proposal would impact on any threatened fauna and flora species.
3. The Tribunal notes that the Council has not provided any evidence to verify its concern that the Flora and Fauna Assessment was somehow deficient. Further, DEWLP does not raise any concerns with the removal of the native vegetation and seeks the inclusion of conditions for the provision of offsets. Having reviewed Flora and Fauna Assessment, the Tribunal concludes that it has sufficient information to decide whether the extent of vegetation removal is acceptable.
4. The removal of native vegetation can be challenging for a decision maker. However, the removal of seventeen trees and three remnant patches will be relatively imperceptible from a landscape perspective given that, the site is essentially cleared farming land. The only areas of substantial and noticeable vegetation on the site are along the northern and southern boundaries which comprise both native and non-native species and the 2-hectare area to the south for the Regent Honeyeater project.
5. In terms of biodiversity, we note that clause 52.17 requires that there is no net loss. In this application no net loss is to be achieved by requiring an offset to compensate for the removal. The Tribunal concludes that the removal of 1.461 hectares of native vegetation in this location can be successfully offset as confirmed by the position of DEWLP and as such is an acceptable planning outcome.
6. The evidence gives some consideration to species selection for revegetation of the landscape buffers including the existing Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC) on the site. The approval of appropriate species for the landscape buffers is a matter to be dealt with by permit condition and ultimately to the satisfaction of the Council.
7. The Tribunal is aware that Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 3 (VPO3) applies to land to the west in the municipality of Benalla. VPO3 relates to the protection of the Regent Honeyeater and LURG Ironbark. No such protection is afforded to the site. As set out above, DEWLP has assessed the application and required offsets, it has not raised any issues with impacts to the Regent Honeyeater.
8. Having regard to the above, the Tribunal concludes that the extent of vegetation removal is acceptable.

1. Other matters which were raised throughout the course of the hearing include: impacts of traffic especially during construction, fire hazards, community contributions, decommissioning and rehabilitation, heat island effect, lake island effect, battery storage, noise and the need for the renewable energy facilities. These matters are dealt with below.

1. The only tangible traffic impacts are likely to occur during the construction of the renewable energy facility. All access is proposed from Chivers Road approximately 50 metres south of the intersection with Winton-Glenrowan Road. Having undertaken a site inspection we conclude that the proposed location of the permanent access for the proposal is appropriate and acceptable. We come to this conclusion on the basis that Chivers Road is not within a Road Zone and is unlikely to carry large volumes of traffic. We note that VicRoads does not raise any concern with the proposed location of access to the site and specifically requires a condition on any permit that no access to the site is to be provided from the Winton- Glenrowan Road.
2. VicRoads does require all vehicles larger than a service truck that are to be used for construction purposes to access the site via Winton-Glenrowan Road flyover at Hume Highway and a section of Winton-Glenrowan Road which is north-east of the proposed site which has been approved for use of vehicles operating under the higher mass limit scheme.
3. Both the proposed access from Chivers Road and access for vehicles during the construction phase are well removed from neighbouring properties and as such there is unlikely to be unreasonable traffic impacts for existing properties. There may be the occasional traffic delay or inconvenience for existing residents, but it will be temporary.

1. The site is not subject to a Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) however, it is within a designated bushfire prone area. Relevantly, the application was referred to the CFA who does not object to the grant of a planning permit subject to a number of detailed conditions.
2. The CFA conditions includes the requirement for an Emergency Management Plan (EMP) which must address the following matters: identification of hazards and risks, the identification of mitigation for the hazards and risks, monitoring of the sites' hazards and risks, and emergency evacuation plan which includes details of site personnel amongst other matters.
3. The Tribunal acknowledges the submissions of respondents in respect to fire hazard and having regard to clause 13.02-1S considers that the proposal subject to the conditions provided by the CFA appropriately assesses, monitors and addresses any bushfire risk.
4. Given that the site is not subject to a BMO and is presently used for farming, there is no current protection or strategy in place for the site with respect to fire. The proposal provides an opportunity for bushfire management strategies to be implemented thereby minimising the risk of bushfire.

1. The evidence of Mr Noronha provides some information regarding a community fund which is likely to involve annual payments to community groups to support local projects and programmes[6]. It was put to us that this community fund could be secured via a condition on a planning permit.
2. The applicant submits that such a condition should only be imposed in the event that the provision of a community fund is determinative of the application that is, it is considered by the Tribunal to be a necessary precondition to the grant of the planning permit.
3. The respondents urged the Tribunal to include a condition requiring a community fund to be established, to be required as a deed rather than a section 173 agreement and to set the annual contribution at greater than the $20,000 per annum discussed by Mr Noronha.
4. The Tribunal expressed concern in respect of the lawfulness of such a condition at the hearing and maintains its concern. Moreover, the Tribunal does not consider there is sufficient nexus between the community fund and the permissions being granted to support such a condition. To the Tribunal's knowledge there is nothing in the relevant sections of the planning scheme to warrant consideration of a community benefit fund. Many of the cases regarding community funds arise in the context of gaming matters. Conditions regarding community funds are often imposed on the gaming approval. Clause 53.13 does not require any assessment on the economic impacts of a proposal. At best, clause 19 only refers to economic impact as follows:

Consider the economic and environmental benefits to the broader community of renewable energy generation while also considering the need to minimise the effects of the proposal on the local community and environment.

1. However, in the Tribunal's view, the economic benefits to the broader community must be from the renewable energy generation and not from a monetary contribution at the discretion of the applicant.
2. It follows that the Tribunal does not consider the community fund to be a necessary pre-condition to the grant of the permit.
3. We further note that nothing prevents the applicant and the Council from entering into an agreement to provide a community benefits fund.

1. The evidence of Mr Noronha was that employment is likely to be sourced from local residents. The respondents contest this assertion. Clause 19 set out above is clear, economic benefits can flow to the broader community, whilst the effect of the proposal is to be considered to the local community. We are satisfied that employment will be generated by the proposal both during the construction and operational phases. It is not necessary for us to undertake a detailed analysis of the source of the employment, nor to require any condition securing local employment. We need only to be satisfied that employment will be generated by the proposal beyond that of the current agricultural pursuit and we are so satisfied.

1. The respondents were particularly concerned with responsibility for compliance with any condition on a planning permit requiring the rehabilitation of the site and decommissioning of the infrastructure. The respondents submit there is no information regarding whether the site can be returned to farming when the proposed use ceases and that if a rehabilitation/decommissioning condition is included it should require the imposition of a bond.
2. The Council and applicant agree to the wording of a condition for the provision of a decommissioning plan. The application requirements at clause 53.13 refer to a rehabilitation plan. In our view, a plan detailing rehabilitation and decommissioning of any renewable energy facility is contemplated by clause 53.13 and as such there is a nexus between the proposal and a condition requiring such a plan. Further, the inclusion of such a condition is consistent with the purposes of the FZ including to provide for the use of land for agriculture.
3. The Tribunal was advised that the Draft Guidelines for renewable solar facilities were released in October 2018 for public comment and the Council submits, that they have no statutory weight at the present time. The Draft Guidelines direct attention to the following matters: proximity to existing electricity networks, planning policy, zones and overlays, agricultural value of land, heritage and aboriginal cultural values, landscape values and visual amenity impacts, biodiversity and native vegetation, cumulative effect of solar energy facilities. Many of these matters are discussed in this decision.
4. The Draft Guidelines recognise that the decommissioning stage is an important step and should include the following:
   • Nomination of the party responsible for the decommissioning works;
   • The removal of all equipment and infrastructure;
   • Requirements for the restoration, revegetation and rehabilitation of the land to its pre-development condition including irrigation and soil profile; and
   • A timeline for the decommissioning works.
5. The proposed condition does not address all the matters set out in the Draft Guidelines. Even though we do not place any weight on the Draft Guidelines having regard to the nature of the submissions before us, we consider that a condition requiring a decommission and rehabilitation plan should nominate the party responsible for the rehabilitation and decommissioning of the land and, further, include reference to restoration as well as rehabilitation.
6. The respondents argued that a condition requiring a bond to secure rehabilitation should be included. However, we cannot see how we can lawfully impose a bond in these circumstances. We note that bonds are often imposed on permits for extractive industry but that such a requirement is set out in the relevant legislation. No such requirement is set out in the Act or the relevant planning scheme provisions.
7. The Tribunal considers that a rehabilitation and decommissioning plan with greater specificity is required but it will not include any requirement for a bond.

1. The Lake Island Effect is a theory that birds mistake PV panels for a body of water and land on the panels causing injury or death. The respondents submit that there are water birds that drift to and from the Winton Wetlands to use the dam systems in the surrounding area and could be injured or killed by the proposal.
2. The evidence of Mr Gerstch[7] in relation to glint and glare is helpful to the Tribunal on this issue. The PV panels are designed to absorb light and will utilise anti-glare technology to reduce reflectivity. Mr Gerstch's evidence is that the PV panels will be less reflective than water and standard glass. Further, the PV panels are mounted on a horizontal tracking system and are designed to have spaces between the arrays. This design assists in breaking up the appearance when viewed from above to distinguish the proposal from a body of water.
3. We were provided with articles from Mr Wind regarding the Lake Island Effect. We note that these articles are from studies conducted in the United States of America and further, there is no real detail provided in the articles in respect of the process employed to convert the solar energy. For example, the Tribunal is aware that some renewable energy facilities utilise technology that concentrates solar power using mirrors. That is not what is proposed in this application.
4. Having regard to the information before us, as to the design and materiality of the proposal the Tribunal concludes that impact on bird life from the Lake Island Effect is minimal.

1. The respondents also raised concern with the Heat Island Effect however, no party sought to call evidence on this matter. The Tribunal understands the Heat Island Effect to be a theory that air temperatures around the renewable energy facility will be higher than ambient air temperature. The submissions raised two principal concerns: changes to soil over time and increase in temperatures in the surrounding area. The Tribunal notes that the Heat Island Effect is commonly used to describe the difference between temperature conditions in urban areas compared to surrounding and more open rural areas. Relatively higher temperatures in urban areas is ascribed to the fact that in urban areas, buildings and hard surfaces absorb and store solar radiation to a greater degree than 'softer' surfaces such as vegetation and water bodies.
2. The Tribunal has not had the benefit of any evidence on these matters. Nonetheless, in relation to PV panels, these matters have been discussed at length in the Advisory Committee Report for the Greater Shepparton Solar Energy Facility[8] (Shepparton AC). The Shepparton AC heard detailed evidence in respect of air temperature and ultimately concluded:
   • While limited, there is sufficient scientific evidence to determine that no proposed solar energy facility will increase temperature beyond 30 metres of a solar array.
   • The precautionary principle therefore does not apply and Council's proposed generic 50-metre setback is not required to address temperature.
   • Any temperature increase within the solar array will be marginal, however, any solar array should be separated 30 metres from any neighbouring property boundary.
3. In respect of soil, the submissions put to the Tribunal related to the return of the site to agricultural use. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to make any conclusive finding on that particular issue. The information before the Tribunal indicates that the Heat Island Effect is localised to no more than 30 metres around the facility.
4. The Tribunal further notes that all the surrounding dwellings are located more than 30 metres from the proposed solar panels.
5. On the basis that available evidence indicates that any Heat Island Effect is localised to the area of the solar panels and a perimeter area of no more than 30 metres, we cannot conclude that the proposed renewable energy facility will impact farming practices on surrounding land.

1. The application plans nominate an area in the north-west corner of the site as Future Battery Storage Area (95m x 90m) Indicative location. However, the details regarding battery storage remain unclear and we note that it is a large area comprising some 8,550 square metres.
2. Given the lack of information regarding the battery storage area we cannot assess its impact, and, on that basis, we will require the deletion of this detail from the plans.

1. The applicant relied upon a noise impact assessment prepared by Mr Brown of Octave Acoustics Noise and Vibration. With the consensus of the parties at the hearing Mr Brown was not called to give his evidence. We note that Mr Hone was particularly critical of the modelling contained within Mr Brown's evidence.
2. Mr Brown's assessment was in some ways conservative as EPA Victoria Publication 1411 Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria (NIRV) allows for a consideration of different noise levels than the established criteria if an area is subject to high noise levels as might be the case with the site given its location to the Hume Freeway. However, Mr Brown elected to carry out a conservative assessment and not take into account any other noise source as a consequence of traffic on the Hume Freeway.
3. Mr Brown's modelling had regard to topography, wind, aerosol, ground absorption, reflections, noise barrier effects and source sound power. In summary, the results of the noise modelling was that all at all times noise impacts would comply with the NIRV criteria during the day and evening periods.
4. However, when noise from the battery storage was included within the noise modelling the results indicate the potential for future generation of noise during the night-time period. Mr Brown recommended that acoustic attenuation measures be adopted to ensure compliance with the NIRV criteria during the evening and night time periods. He also recommended that noise measurements of traffic along the Hume Freeway be conducted in order to understand whether in those conditions any noise generated from the battery storage facility would indeed comply with the relevant NIRV criteria.
5. In those circumstances, where compliance with the NIRV criteria during the evening and night time periods is a concern to the relevant expert it lends support for our decision that the battery storage facility should be deleted.
6. Otherwise, the Tribunal is satisfied with Mr Brown's report in respect of the modelling undertaken in relation to the remainder of the elements of the proposal. On that basis, the Tribunal is satisfied that the relevant noise criteria can be met with the deletion of the battery storage facility.

1. A number of respondents raised concern with weed and dust control. We note that a detailed condition has been included in draft conditions that sets out in some considerable detail management of dust, erosion, weeds, runoff and the like. In the Tribunal's opinion, the inclusion of a condition requiring a plan to be approved that deals with these matters is an appropriate and acceptable outcome.

Need for additional renewable solar facilities

1. Given the recent approvals or renewable energy facilities, the respondents submit that there is no need for any additional facilities. We disagree with this proposition. The State Government has clearly committed to achieving renewable targets including 50% renewable electricity by 2030. It is also evident that the planning scheme now provides strong strategic support through the PPF and MSS for renewable energy facilities. Lastly, the Tribunal adopts the long-standing principle that the lack of need, will rarely if ever be a valid basis to refuse a permit.

1. We have considered a number of aspects of the proposal, both positive and negative and conclude that that proposal will provide a net community benefit.
2. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Although our order does not include the 'Notes' suggested by the Council, such advisory information may be included in the permit that the Council is directed to issue.

Lot 5 LP134007, Lot 6 LP 134007 Vol 8323 Fol. 455, Lot 1 TP 142462 Winton-Glenrowan Road, Glenrowan and Glenrowan Road West, Glenrowan (together known as 38 Glenrowan West Road, Glenrowan).

• The use and development of a renewable energy facility (solar farm) including ancillary facilities.
• Removal of native vegetation.
• Installation of business identification signage.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the Application, but modified to show:
   • (a) Location and layout of all panels including type;
   • (b) Deletion of the area shown as 'Future Battery Storage Area';
   • (c) Setbacks from waterways, roads and boundaries;
   • (d) Access and egress routes;
   • (e) Perimeter roads;
   • (f) Location of signage and details of each sign including size and type;
   • (g) Site services plan;
   • (h) Indicative details of the substation and proposals to access the substation including conductor path plan;
   • (i) Location and identification of each item of native vegetation to be removed and also that to be retained;
   • (j) Proposed materials for the solar panels to address any potential glint and glare effects, which must include:
     1. anti-reflective coating (AR);
     2. low-iron/high transmission (LFe/HT) PV glass or equivalent; and
     3. anodised PV frames or equivalent.
   • (k) Compliance with conditions 38-54.
   • (l) A notation that the tracking structure will be a maximum height of 4 metres;
   • (m) Any changes required by condition 24, Traffic Impact Assessment; and
   • (n) Any changes required by conditions 13 and 14, Glint and Glare Report.
2. Prior to the use commencing, all buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the use commencing, the existing transmission line in the south western corner of the site must be relocated outside the approved solar array to the satisfaction of AusNet or other relevant service provider.

1. Any metal cladding proposed to be used in the construction of any building approved by this permit, must be:
   • (a) galvanized or natural colour bonded metal cladding; and/or
   • (b) treated metal cladding painted in muted tones, provided such painting is completed prior to the occupation of the building approved by this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. External cladding of any building must be maintained and kept in good condition at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Maintenance of all buildings, surrounds, storage and parking areas within the site must be carried out in such a manner to render the site in a neat, tidy and clean condition at all times so as to not adversely affect the amenity of the locality to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Any external lighting installed on the site must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All such lighting must be fitted with suitable shields and baffles so that direct light is emitted only within the boundaries of the site.
2. Following commencement of the use, the display and storage of goods or materials on the site must be out of view from any road reserve or public place to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of works, a detailed landscape plan for the site must be submitted to, be approved by, and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the landscaping shown on ESCO Pacific Pty Ltd Site Layout Plan GLW_LAY_003_01I Site Layout Revision 01I dated 13/11/2018 drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must:
   • (a) Provide a survey plan including botanical names of all trees and vegetation to be retained and removed.
   • (b) Include a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which will include the location, number and size at maturity of all plants, the names of such plants and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface materials as specified; and
   • (c) Demonstrate that the species selected, spacing of plantings and the maturity of plantings are appropriate to provide visual screening, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   • (d) The landscaping buffer to be a minimum of 5 metres in width:
   • (e) Show a 50% proportion of established trees to 2 metres in height at planting in the landscape buffer for a length of 100 metres in front of the dwellings 43, 76 and 215 Glenrowan West Road to achieve immediate visual screening of the renewable energy facility when viewed from each dwelling;
   • (f) Include details of:
     1. soil preparation techniques;
     2. landscape maintenance period of five years;
     3. watering schedule;
     4. irrigation infrastructure.
2. Any dead, diseased or damaged plants must be replaced in accordance with the endorsed landscape plan.
3. The endorsed landscape plan must not be altered or modified without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
4. Prior to the installation of the solar panels, landscaping works shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be completed and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the endorsement of plans, a report addressing any impacts of glint and glare associated with the solar facility is to be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant. This report is to be submitted to, approved by and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved the Glint and Glare Report will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
2. Any changes proposed to buildings and works in this Glint and Glare Report must be included in the plans submitted for endorsement.

1. Before commencement of the use, an Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) for the management and operation of the use must be submitted to, approved by and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the OEMP will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The use must at all times be conducted in accordance with the endorsed OEMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The OEMP must include but not be limited to:
   • (a) overall environmental objectives for the operation of the use and techniques for their achievement;
   • (b) procedures to ensure that no significant adverse environmental impacts occur as a result of the use;
   • (c) proposed monitoring systems;
   • (d) identification of possible risks of operational failure and response measures to be implemented;
   • (e) day to day management requirements for the use;
   • (f) procedures to manage airborne dust, silt and debris onsite; and
   • (g) a Pest, Animal and Plant Management Plan (PAPMP) which must include:
     1. ongoing actions and measures to be undertaken to control pest animals and plants; and
     2. a process to inform surrounding property owners of any works that present a risk to their homes or animals.
2. The OEMP must be reviewed every three years by the facility operator and any consequential amendments to the OEMP must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.

1. Before works commence, a native vegetation temporary protection fence must be erected around all native vegetation (including remnant patches) and the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of scattered trees to be retained. Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, within the native vegetation protection fenced area, the following is prohibited:
   • (a) vehicular or pedestrian access;
   • (b) trenching or soil excavation;
   • (c) storage or dumping of any soils, materials, equipment, vehicles, machinery or waste products;
   • (d) entry and exit pits for underground services; and
   • (e) any other actions or activities that may result in adverse impacts to retained native vegetation.

The temporary protection fence must be constructed of star pickets and flagging or similar to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The temporary protection fence must remain in place until all works and development are completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The following requirements must be met when the solar energy facility permanently ceases operation:
   • (a) Not less than 12 months prior to the solar energy facility use ending, a Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Management Plan (DMP) prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the DMP will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The DMP must include but is not limited to:
     1. Identification of persons and/or bodies responsible for the implementation of the DMP;
     2. Identification of structures to be removed, including but not limited to all solar panels, substation, buildings (if they are not useful for ongoing use) and electrical infrastructure;
     3. How they will be removed, including addressing the construction management measures as outlined in condition 19, as relevant;
     4. Details of how the land will be rehabilitated and restored to allow it to be used for agricultural purposes (or proposed alternative use); and
     5. Identification of materials to be recycled.
   • (b) Within 12 months of the endorsement of the DMP, the decommissioning must be completed in accordance with the DMP to satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the use commences, a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) in accordance with Council's Infrastructure Design Manual must be submitted to, be approved by and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the CEMP will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The CEMP must be in place until the completion of the construction phase. The construction must at all times be conducted in accordance with the endorsed CEMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The CEMP must include but not be limited to:
   • (a) overall construction objectives for the construction and techniques for their achievement;
   • (b) proposed monitoring systems;
   • (c) construction times;
   • (d) procedures to manage airborne dust, silt and debris onsite;
   • (e) processes for removal of hazardous material;
   • (f) management of on-site building waste equipment, machinery and/or earth storage/stockpiling during construction;
   • (g) management of building waste on public and private land (streets, footpaths, laneways and reserves);
   • (h) details of tradesperson vehicle parking;
   • (i) tree protection zones, including the location and details of a sign to be erected at the entrance(s) of the site advising contractors that they are entering a 'sensitive site' with prescribed tree protection zones and fences;
   • (j) how issues such as mud on roads, erosion and sediment control will be managed on site during the construction phase;
   • (k) details of a contact person/site manager must be provided so that this person can be easily contacted should any issues arise;
   • (l) the location of trenching works, boring, and pits associated with the provision of services; and
   • (m) the location of any temporary buildings or yards.

Any changes to construction arrangements must be submitted in writing to the Responsible Authority for consideration and must not be implemented unless approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.

1. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) must be prepared for the construction of the use and must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority. The TMP must include but not be limited to the following:
   • (a) measures required for the protection of private, Council and VicRoads assets (streets, footpaths, laneways and reserves);
   • (b) heavy vehicle movements where access to the site for construction vehicle traffic will occur; and
   • (c) details of any road or lane closures and crane operations.
2. Deliveries to and from the site for all commercial vehicles, including waste collection, must only take place between 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday,
3. No deliveries to or from the site, including waste collection, must take place on weekends or public holidays.
4. Access to and from the site for all commercial vehicles, including waste collection, must only be from Chivers Road. All roads/storage areas/external stockpiles/vacant or grazed areas must be maintained to avoid dust and grit nuisance to any nearby properties to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Any damage to Council assets (i.e. roads, table drains etc.) must be repaired at the cost of the owner/occupier to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The TMP must include photos/videos and other supporting evidence of the state of the network at the time of lodgement of the plan.
6. Before the use begins, the applicant or owner must construct any traffic management works identified in Engineering Report sub-section Traffic Impact Assessment Report dated 7 February 2018 prepared by Jacobs for Esco Pacific Pty Ltd to the satisfaction of Council. The cost of such works shall be fully met by the owner. Any changes proposed to works in this report must be referred to the Responsible Authority for approval prior to substitution.
7. Prior to construction commencing, vehicle crossings as shown on the endorsed plan must be constructed and sealed to the standards of Council's Infrastructure Design Manual, and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The final location of the crossings are to be generally in accordance with the endorsed plans and approved by the Responsible Authority via a "Consent to Work within the Road Reserve", prior to the undertaking of works.
8. Access and egress from the property must only be from the Chivers Road, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority. Vehicle access and egress from the property must take place in a forward direction at all times.
9. All loading and unloading of vehicles must at all times be undertaken within the curtilage of the site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.
10. Prior to the commencement of the use, vehicle access ways and manoeuvring areas created by the proposed development and as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be constructed, to an all-weather standard to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11. Following commencement of the use only allocated parking spaces may be used to park vehicles. No vehicle on the site is permitted to park outside of an allocated parking space on the site.
12. Any security gate, barrier or similar device controlling vehicle access to the premises must be located a minimum of six metres inside the property to allow vehicles to steer clear of pavements and footpaths.
13. All vehicular entrances to the site from the road must be constructed at a location and of a size and standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority. The vehicle crossing(s) must be constructed at the owner's expense to provide ingress and egress to the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14. Before the use commences and/or any building is occupied all internal access roads must be constructed, formed and drained to avoid erosion and to minimise disturbance to natural topography of the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15. No excavated or construction materials may be placed or stored outside the site area or on the adjoining road reserves, unless agreed otherwise by the Responsible Authority.

1. Before any construction commences, a properly prepared Drainage Discharge Plan (DDP) must be submitted to, be approved by and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the DDP will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The DDP must be drawn to scale with dimensions and a minimum of three copies must be provided. The information submitted must address the matters listed in the Council's Infrastructure Design Manual and must include:
   • (a) details of how the works on the land are to be drained or retarded;
   • (b) computations including total energy line and hydraulic grade line for the existing and proposed drainage as directed by Responsible Authority;
   • (c) details of any underground pipe drains or channels conveying stormwater to the legal point of discharge for each allotment;
   • (d) measures to enhance stormwater discharge quality from the site and protect downstream waterways including the expected discharge quality emanating from the development and design calculation summaries of the treatment elements;
   • (e) a maximum discharge rate from the site;
   • (f) maintenance schedules for treatment elements; and
   • (g) measures to control erosions and sediment and sediment laden water runoff, including the design details of structures.

Before the use commences all works constructed or carried out must be in accordance with the DDP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. No contaminants will be permitted to enter the storm-water drainage system.
2. There must not be any discharge of concentrated drainage into the adjoining road drains or culverts without the written approval of the Responsible Authority.
3. The approved works must not cut off natural drainage from adjacent properties.
4. All wastewater must be disposed of and be contained within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must not be discharged directly or indirectly to an adjoining property, road or any water course or drain. Sufficient land must be set aside and kept available for the purposes of effluent disposal. Any new on-site wastewater system must be designed in accordance with Environment Protection Authority EPA Code of Practice - Onsite Wastewater Management 891.4 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The plans to be endorsed under Condition 1 must provide for all the requirements of the CFA conditions at 40 - 56 of this permit including:

(a) a 6m separation between solar panel banks/rows should be provided along the internal roads.

(b) a fuel reduced buffer zone between solar panel banks to limit fire spread.

1. A perimeter access track of no less than 4 metres width must be constructed within the fuel- reduced area of ten (10) metre perimeter fire break. Use of public roads as part of the perimeter access can be discussed with the CFA.
2. Where constructed within the site, perimeter access tracks are to be of all weather construction and capable of accommodating a vehicle of 15 tonnes for the trafficable road width.
3. Constructed internal roads (not perimeter roads) should be a minimum of 3.5 metres in trafficable width with a four (4) metre vertical clearance for the width of the formed road surface.
4. The average grade of internal roads should be no more than 1 in 7 (14.4% or 8.1°) with a maximum of no more than 1 in 5 (20% or 11.3°) for no more than 50 metres.
5. Dips in any internal road should have no more than a 1 in 8 (12.5% or 7.1°) entry and exit angle.
6. Internal road curves must have a minimum inner radius of 10 metres.
7. Passing bays must be incorporated every 1km which must be at least 20m long and have a minimum trafficable width of 6m, or other solutions such as turning circles with a radius of at least 10m at the end of internal access roads. The use of turning circles is subject to the satisfaction of the CFA.
8. Internal road networks must enable responding emergency services to access all areas of the facility.

1. Static water storage tank installations are to comply with AS 2419.1 and the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority following consultation with the CFA (as appropriate):
   • (a) The static water storage tank(s) shall be of not less than 45,000 litres effective capacity. The static water storage tank(s) must be an above ground water tank constructed of concrete or steel. The location and number of tanks should be determined as part of the site's risk management process and in consultation with a CFA Delegated Officer.
   • (b) The static storage tanks shall be capable of being completely refilled automatically or manually within 24 hours.
   • (c) The hard-suction point shall be provided, with a 150mm full bore isolation valve, equipped with a Storz connection, sized to comply with the required suction hydraulic performance. Adapters that may be required to match the connection are, 125mm, 100mm, 90mm, 75mm, 65mm Storz tree adapters with a matching blank end cap to be provided.
   • (d) The hard-suction point shall be positioned within 4m to a hardstand area and provide a clear and safe access for fire personnel.
   • (e) An all-weather road access and hardstand shall be provided to the hard-suction point. The hardstand shall be maintained to a minimum of 15 tonne GVM and 6m wide or to the satisfaction of the CFA.
   • (f) The road access and hardstand shall be kept clear at all times.
   • (g) The hard-suction point shall be protected from mechanical damage (i.e. Bollards) where necessary.
   • (h) Where the access road has one entrance, a 10m radius-turning circle shall be provided at the tank.
   • (i) An external water level indicator is to be provided to the tank and be visible from the hardstand area.
   • (j) Signage shall be fixed to each tank indicating the effective capacity (in litres) of the tank and be labelled "Fire Fighting Water".
   • (k) Signage shall be provided at the front entrance to the site, indicating the direction to the static water tank and being to the satisfaction of the CFA.

1. The use and development must comply with the requirements of the relevant Australian Standards, e.g. (DR) AS 5139: Electrical installations - Safety of battery systems for use with power conversion equipment; AS 3780: The storage and handling of corrosive substances; and AS 1940: The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that:.
   • (a) Signage and labelling must be compliant with the Dangerous Goods (Storage and Handling) Regulations 2012, and the relevant Australian Standards;
   • (b) All dangerous goods stored on-site must have a current Safety Data Sheet (SDS). Safety Data Sheets are to be contained within the site's Emergency Information Book, in the Emergency Information Container. (Refer section 12 for more information);
   • (c) Adequate ventilation of the battery storage area/room must be provided as per draft Australian standard 5139 and most SDS's for battery storage; and
   • (d) Appropriate material (absorbent, neutralisers, equipment and PPE) must be provided for the cleanup of spills available on-site.

1. During construction, site occupiers must, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
   • (a) Ensure that appropriate permits have been issued for work during Fire Danger Period and Total Fire Bans if required;
   • (b) Adhere to restrictions on Total Fire Ban or high fire danger days (refer to www.cfa.vic.gov.au);
   • (c) Carry fire extinguishers or firefighting equipment in vehicles;
   • (d) Carry emergency communications equipment;
   • (e) Vehicles are to keep to tracks whenever possible; and
   • (f) Restrict smoking to prescribed areas;

1. Maintenance and repair activities that involve flame cutting, grinding, welding or soldering (hot works) are to be performed under a 'Hot Work Permit' system or equivalent hazard or risk management process to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The solar farm operator must provide temperature specifications for safe operating conditions and the safety issues related to electricity generation if solar panels are involved in fire. This information must be provided within the content of the Emergency Information Booklet (EIB) at the main entrance of the facility.

1. The solar farm operator is to undertake the following fuel management measures during the Fire Danger Period to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
   • (a) Grass is to be maintained at below approximately 100mm in height during the declared Fire Danger Period;
   • (b) A fuel-reduced area of ten (10) metres width is to be maintained around the perimeter of the facilities, electricity compounds and substation-type facilities. This fuel reduced area must commence from the boundary of the facility or from the vegetation screening inside the property boundary;
   • (c) Adhere to restrictions and guidance during the Fire Danger Period, high fire danger days and Total Fire Ban days (refer to www.cfa.vic.gov.au);
   • (d) All plant and heavy equipment is to carry at least a 9 litre water stored-pressure fire extinguisher with a minimum rating of 3A, or fire-fighting equipment as a minimum when on-site during the fire danger period;
   • (e) A fire break of at least 10m wide shall be constructed and maintained around the perimeter of the site; and
   • (f) There is to be no long grass or deep leaf litter in areas where plant and heavy equipment will be working.

1. A health and safety risk management plan that meets occupational health and safety requirements for eliminating or reducing risk so far as is reasonably practicable must be prepared, submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit. The plan must include the following:
   • (a) Identification of hazards/risks (credible, critical issues)
     1. On-site hazards/risks (e.g., electrical faults, operational faults, chemical releases, practices/processes);
     2. Off-site hazards/risks (e.g., bushfire, grassfire, storm, lightning, flood);
     3. Any other operational, financial or strategic risks to the organisation or operation;
     4. Identification of controls (precautionary options); and
     5. The identification of controls and treatments for identified risks, based on the hierarchy of controls.
   • (b) Risk analysis (risk-effort balance evaluation)
     1. Evaluating controls and treatments, based on an assessment of practicality of implementing the controls.
   • (c) Risk treatment (action)
     1. Implementing the practical controls for each identified hazard/risk.
   • (d) Risk review
     1. Monitoring of site hazards/risks, systems and processes to ensure that emerging risks are identified; existing risks are effectively controlled; and controls are appropriate and effective.

1. An emergency and fire management plan consistent with the requirements of AS 3745: Planning for emergencies in facilities, must be prepared, submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority in consultation with the CFA as appropriate. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit. The emergency and fire management plan is to include:
   • (a) Emergency prevention, preparedness and mitigation activities;
   • (b) Activities for preparing for, and prevention of emergencies (e.g., training and maintenance);
   • (c) Control and coordination arrangements for emergency response (e.g., evacuation procedures, emergency Assembly Areas and procedures for response to hazards);
   • (d) The agreed roles and responsibilities of on-site personnel (e.g., equipment isolation, fire brigade liaison, evacuation management). To facilitate fire brigade response, CFA's expectation is that the emergency management plan includes:
     1. Facility description, including infrastructure details, activities and operating hours;
     2. A site plan containing infrastructure (solar panels, inverters, generators, diesel storage, buildings), site entrances, exits and internal roads; fire services (water tanks, fire hydrants, fire hose reels); and neighbouring properties;
     3. Contact details of site personnel, and any relevant off-site personnel that could provide technical support during an emergency;
     4. A manifest of dangerous goods (if required under the Dangerous Goods (Storage and Handling) Regulations 2012);
     5. Emergency procedures for credible hazards and risks, including fire;
     6. Procedures for notifying the emergency services; and
     7. Procedures for evacuating personnel.
   • (e) Fire mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the risk of fire, specifically:
     1. Risk management measures specific to fire; and
     2. A fuel (vegetation) reduction and maintenance plan/procedure.

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Conditions

1. Before works commence, the permit holder must advise all persons undertaking the vegetation removal and works of all relevant permit conditions and associated statutory requirements or approvals.
2. Only native vegetation identified in the Jacobs "Glenrowan Solar Farm, Planning Permit Application Report, Final" dated 27 April 2018, is to be removed as part of this permit.
3. No roadside clearing is permitted as part of this permit.
4. To offset the removal of 1.461 hectares of native vegetation (0.266 Ha remnant patches and 17 scattered trees), the permit holder must secure a native vegetation offset, in accordance with the Permitted clearing of native vegetation Biodiversity assessment guidelines and the Native vegetation gain scoring manual (DEPI 2013) as specified below:
   • (a) A general offset of 0.052 general biodiversity units with the following attributes:
     1. Must be located within the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority boundary or Wangaratta Rural City Council district; and
     2. Must have a strategic biodiversity score of at least 0.095.
5. Before any permitted works commence on site, evidence that the required offset has been secured must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Offset evidence can be:
   • (a) A security agreement, to the required standard, for the offset site or sites, including a 10 year offset management plan and/or
   • (b) A credit register extract from the Native Vegetation Credit Register.
6. In the event that a security agreement is entered into, the owner must provide the annual offset site condition report to the Responsible Authority by the anniversary date of the execution of the offset security agreement, for a period of 10 consecutive years. After the tenth year, the owner must provide a report at the reasonable request of a statutory authority.
   • (a) This condition does not apply to offsets on the native vegetation credit register as these include monitoring requirements.

1. No internally illuminated, flashing or animated signs shall be displayed on the site.
2. If signs and facilities are externally illuminated, the light source shall be suitably baffled to ensure that no direct light emanates beyond the curtilage of the land.
3. No access to the site is permitted from Winton-Glenrowan Road.
4. During the construction stage, all vehicles Class 3 and higher (larger than 'service' truck) must access the subject site via the Winton-Glenrowan Rd flyover at Hume Freeway and a section of Winton-Glenrowan Rd (north-east of the proposed development site) approved for the use of vehicles operating under the Higher Mass Limit scheme.

1. All construction and ongoing activities must be in accordance with sediment control principles outlined in 'Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control' (EPA, 1991).
2. No buildings and solar panels (including works associated with solar panels) are to be constructed within 30 metres of any waterways, or dams on waterways.
3. If applicable, all wastewater from the office must be treated and disposed of using an EPA approved system, installed, operated and maintained in compliance with the EPA Code of Practice - Onsite Wastewater Management, Publication 891.4, and to the satisfaction of Council's Environmental Health Department.
4. If applicable, the wastewater disposal area must be located in accordance with Table 5 of the EPA Code of Practice - Onsite Wastewater Management, Publication 891.4, July 2016, from any waterways (including Goulburn Murray Water open channels), drainage lines, dams or bores.

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.
2. A secondary containment system must be provided for any liquids stored on site 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.
3. Construction and post-construction activities must be in accordance with EPA Publication 275 Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control 1991 or as amended.

1. This permit will expire if any of the following circumstances apply:
   • (a) the development is not started within three years of the date of this permit;
   • (b) the development is not completed within six years of the date of this permit;
   • (c) the use is not started within two years after completion of the development; and
   • (d) the use is discontinued for a period of two years.
2. The Responsible Authority may extend the commencement date if a request is made in writing by the owner or the occupier of the land to which the permit applies before the permit expires or within 6 months afterwards.
3. The Responsible Authority may extend the time within which the development is to be completed if the development has commenced and a request in writing is made by the owner or the occupier of the land to which it applies within 12 months after the permit expires.

[1] Timms M. - Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Limited. Glenrowan Solar Farm - Esco Pacific Pty Ltd - Flora and Fauna Assessment. 7 February 2018.

[2] 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.

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

[6] Noronha J - Expert Witness Statement, November 2018, page 15.

[8] Advisory Committee Report for the Greater Shepparton Solar Energy Facility Applications 2017-162, 2017-274, 2017-301 and 2017-344, dated 23 July 2018, pages 32-45.