Freshwater Crayfish Co Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2003] VCAT 1096 (25 August 2003)

[2003] VCAT 1096

A permit is granted and directed to be issued for land at 30 Elms Road, Bangholme. The permit will allow the use and development of the site for the purpose of aquaculture. The Tribunal directs that the permit must contain the following conditions:

1. Prior to the commencement of the use or development, three (3) copies of the following must be submitted to the Responsible Authority, for approval:

1.1 A plan showing the location and connection to an appropriate reticulated water supply capable of servicing the site, including the provision of fire services to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1.2 A plan showing the location and connection to an appropriate reticulated sewer system, connected to an appropriate sewage authority service, including all measures proposed for the collection and treatment of waste water from the site.

1.3 A drainage plan showing the collection of all drainage works from the site to an approved reticulated drainage outlet and/or recycling facility.

1.4 A site layout plan, generally in accordance with the plan submitted with the application, amended to show the following:

1.4.1 Existing and proposed contours of the land, noting that (except for floor levels raised for drainage purposes) no more than 300mm of fill above the existing natural surface of the land shall be provided.

1.4.2 Road access and associated provisions (in a schematic layout) including any works proposed to Elms Road.

1.4.3 A revised detailed landscape plan/concept plan of the site, using predominantly indigenous species common in the locality, including provision of mature trees to provide screening to the proposed building generally in accord with the Mathew McFall plan tabled at the hearing but modified to show intensive landscaping for 5m from all boundaries and informal planting within the site.

1.4.4 Proposed finished colours and materials for the buildings.

1.4.5 The proposed holding tanks to be below ground.

1.4.6 Proposed car parking layout, with dimensions consistent with the provisions of the Planning Scheme, with the minimum provision of 10 car parking.

1.4.8 A cross-section of the proposed dams, noting that the dam walls are to be no higher than 1m above the natural surface level.

1.4.9 Perimeter fencing to only consist of black plastic coated cyclone fencing.

1.4.10 Any external equipment to be fully enclosed.

1.4.11 The loading bay located at the eastern end of the building.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

An endorsed copy of the approved plan(s) shall form part of this permit.

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

3. Prior to the commencement of the use three copies of an Operational Management Plan (OMP) shall be submitted for the approval of the Responsible Authority. The OMP shall be generally in accordance with the Site Operations Concept Plan dated Revision 4 - 25 June 2003. The OMP shall detail the management of the site and operation and address the following matters to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

* Water supply (including arrangements for connection to mains water)

* Effluent disposal for Stage 2 (including evidence of any trade waste agreement)

* Re-use of waste water for irrigation within the site boundaries

* Off-site warning device in the event of system breakdown

* Netting or covers over the external dams not exceeding 1.5m above natural ground level.

4. Once the use and development has started, it must be continued and completed all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The use shall be conducted in accord with the Occupational Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. The buildings must not be occupied until all buildings and works for that stage have been completed in accordance with this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Loading and unloading of goods must only be carried out on the land.

7. Floor levels as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered or modified without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

8. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use or development on the land, through the:

7.1 Transportation of materials, goods or commodities to or from the site.

7.2 Appearance of any buildings, works or materials.

7.3 Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, steam, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil.

9. Before the use of the land starts, areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

9.1 Constructed in accordance with the endorsed plan(s).

9.2 Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.

9.5 Line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes.

Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times and not used for any other purpose.

10. The operator under this permit, must make all reasonable attempts to ensure that no vehicle(s) under the operator's control, or the operator's staff, are parked in the streets or land nearby.

11. The car parking provided on the land must always be available for use by persons employed on or visiting the site and no measures may be taken to restrict access to the car park by such persons.

12. Where required, a bulk waste collection bin or an approved alternative may be provided, but shall be contained in a suitably screened and accessible area, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. The site must be kept in a neat and tidy condition at all times, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. No goods or equipment shall be stored or left exposed outside the buildings so as to be seen from any public road.

15. All external light of the site, including car parking areas and buildings, must be located, directed and shielded and of such limited intensity that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person beyond the site.

16. Bins or other receptacles for any form of rubbish or refuse must not be placed or allowed to remain in the view of the public, and smell must not be emitted from any such receptacle.

17. Landscape works for each stage as shown on the endorsed plan, must be completed prior to the commencement of the use of that stage permitted, and thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. 18.1 No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or water courses.

18.2 The dam perimeter walls are to be a minimum of 300mm above the natural surface level.

19. The use must be connected to a reticulated sewerage system to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority with the exception that Stage One may be operated without connection to a reticulated sewerage system if alternative effluent disposal measures are approved in the Operational Management Plan.

20. Drainage of the site must be carried out and completed, in accordance with the approved drainage plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

21. Access to the site must be completed, including all ancillary works, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, prior to the occupation of the building.

22.1 Ensure no contaminated stormwater or waste water shall be discharged to surface waters including surface and stormwater drains, from the site, including the tanks and bunded area.

22.2 Comply with and operate in accordance with the Environment Protection Authority Publication "Bunding Guidelines".

22.3 Ensure any waste water applied to land is done so as to preclude any runoff to surface waters or drains. To achieve this, a land capability assessment must be conducted and the resulting land area required for waste water irrigation protected from development.

22.4 Ensure any waste water used for irrigation, must be of an appropriate quality and be conducted in accordance with EPA Publication 168 "Guidelines for Waste Irrigation" and EPA Publication 464 "Guidelines for Wastewater Reuse".

22.5 Ensure that all wastes and wastewater are adequately retained and treated within the boundaries of the premises.

22.6 Any discharge of waste water to land does not have any adverse impacts on ground water.

22.7 No odours offensive to the senses of human beings discharge beyond the boundaries of the site.

22.8 Ensure that actions are taken to prevent the discharge of dust and sediment during the construction period and the post construction period from the site and construction and post construction activities are conducted in accordance with EPA Publication 275 "Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control".

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

23. Noise emitted from the premises must not exceed the permissible noise levels determined in accordance with the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1. No construction is to take place prior to 7 a.m. and after 9 p.m. on any day.

24.1 Stage 1 of the development does not start within two (2) years of the date of this permit, or

24.2 Stage 2 of the development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this permit, or

24.3 The use does not start within two (2) years of the completion of the development, or

24.4 The use is discontinued for a period of two (2) years.

Before the permit expires or within three (3) months afterwards the owner or occupier of the land may in writing request the Responsible Authority to extend the expiry date.

Mr Chris Townshend of Counsel appeared on behalf of the permit applicant and called expert evidence from

* Mr John Mosig, Aquaculture Services Australia Co Ltd; and

* Mr Phillip Borelli, Consultant Town Planner of SJB Planning.

* Mrs B. Hood appeared on behalf of Mr Edward J. Sherlock, Mr Bill Giourmetakis and Mr Bruno and Mrs Maria Carrozza.

* Mr Allan Hood appeared on his own and his family's behalf and

* Mr Barry Ross appeared on behalf of Defenders of the South East Green Wedge Incorporated.

1. This was an application under Section 79* of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review a failure on the part of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit in Application No. PLN02/0535 for the development and use of land at 30 Elms Road, Bangholme for the purposes of aquaculture specifically the raising of freshwater crayfish.

2. The subject site is located on the western side of Elms Road, Bangholme, some 370m south of Harwood Road. The land is irregularly shaped with a frontage to Elms Road of 92.94m and a depth of 139.4m, giving an overall site area of 2.18ha. The site is relatively flat and currently vacant.

3. Elms Road and Harwood Roads are both of gravel construction. Elms Road is effectively a dead-end road accessing a number of 2ha lots. Harwood Road and provides a link with the Frankston- Dandenong Road to the east and Worsley Road to the west. Worsley Road is located on the alignment of the proposed Scoresby Freeway.

4. In the small pocket of land, south of Harwood Road and east of Worsley Road containing the site there are some 17 small lots. The land to the west of the small lot subdivision on the opposite side of Worsley Road comprises the Melbourne Water Eastern Treatment Plant and land to the south of the subdivision the Bunurong Memorial Park Crematoria. Land to the north and east is used for farming purposes.

5. The adjoining property to the west is of similar area to the subject land and addresses Worsley Road. This property contains a recently constructed dwelling belonging to Mr & Mrs Hood. The Hoods run emus on this property as well as a number of sheep whose main purpose is to keep the grass short. Properties to the north and south of the subject site are vacant. There are two other dwellings in Elms Road on the lots opposite the subject site. A number of other properties in the immediate area contain farm sheds and cattle yards.

6. The proposal is to establish an aquaculture use on the land in two stages with stage one comprising the erection of a 600 sq m building containing four 14 x 4m yabby tanks and a 50 sq m administrative office. Stage two involves the remainder of the development which includes an extension of the building to house a further 48 yabby tanks and associated equipment and the construction of three dams and two, 50,000 litre holding tanks to the west of the building. The building as proposed has a wall height of some 6.5m with an overall height of 7.76m to the ridge. The shed will occupy 30.7% of the site area and is intended to be constructed from a mid-grey coloured non-reflective colorbond. The building as proposed is to be located 45m from the front of the site, 25.3m and 20m from the north and south boundaries respectively and 45m from the rear boundary. The proposal includes a 4m wide landscaping strip along all boundaries of the site. Access is off Elms Road by way of a 5m wide driveway which circles the proposed building and provides access to eight car parking spaces located to the north of the driveway near the frontage of the site. Loading and unloading is proposed from the rear door of the proposed shed.

7. There had been some changes in the details of the proposal since it first was presented to the Responsible Authority including obtaining reticulated water from South-East Water and discharging waste that cannot be disposed of on-site to the Eastern Treatment Plant in accordance with a Trade Waste Discharge Agreement. The Tribunal was informed that the operation of the farm would involve three tonne vans delivering food and supplies and removing live adult animals. The estimate was that up to two vans a week would service the operation. It was put to the Tribunal that the proposed operation would employ up to 10 persons although only two would be on the property at any one time. It was submitted that the operation would not be audible beyond the site boundaries the only noise source being small circulation pumps in each tank and a heat exchange pump.

8. The subject site and the surrounding properties are contained with in the Rural Zone under the provisions of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. There is in addition an Environmental Significance Overlay ESO3 which covers the land. Land to the west adjoining Worsley Road lies within a Road Acquisition Zone. This zoning covers the portion of the front of the properties that lie to the rear of the subject site. The purposes of the Rural Zone are:

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

* ´To provide for the sustainable use of land for extensive animal husbandry (including dairying and grazing) and crop raising (including horticulture and timber production);

- Protection and creation of an effective rural infrastructure and land resource

- Protection and enhancement of the bio-diversity of the area

- Value-adding to agricultural products at the source

- Promotion of economic development compatible with rural activities

- Development of new sustainable rural enterprises; and

* To ensure that subdivision promotes effective land management practices and infrastructure provision."

9. Aquaculture is included within the definition of agriculture which is a Section 2 use in the Rural Zone requiring a permit. A permit is also required under the provisions of the zone for construction and works.

10. The State Planning Policy Framework deals with agriculture at Clause 17.05. The objective of the clause is to ensure that the State's agricultural base is protected from the unplanned loss of high quality productive agricultural land due to permanent changes of land use and to enable protection of productive farmland which is of high quality and strategic significance in the local or regional context.

11. The Environmental Significance Overlay ESO3 the Eastern Treatment Plant Buffer Area is contained under Schedule 3 to the zone. The objective to be achieved under the overlay is:

"To ensure that the use and development of land around the Eastern Treatment Plant is compatible with the Plant's operation

To regulate the establishment and siting of over-sensitive uses so that the impact of any odour from the Eastern Treatment Plant is minimised.

To exclude uses that require the presence of a large number of people over an extended period of time."

12. The Responsible Authority also argued that Clause 52.10 was of relevance to the subject site. That clause contains a schedule of uses together with threshold distances from land in a number of zones. Seafood processor is contained within the table to the clause. The Tribunal finds the clause is not relevant to the proposed development because there is no intention of processing the yabbies on site, the animals being taken to the market live.

13. Car parking provisions were also raised. The Tribunal finds that although parking requirements for the use are not specified in the Planning Scheme there appears to be more than adequate car parking on site and there is plenty of room to provide further parking should this prove necessary.

14. The Local Planning Policy Framework at Clause 21.04-4 contains policy provisions for the municipality's green wedge which the subject site lies within. The clause expresses council's commitment to "recognising the role and function of the South-East Non-urban Area ... and providing an area of green space between urban growth corridors". Council's Green Space Vision includes:

* Rural enterprises that complement their surroundings and satisfy buffer requirements from sensitive uses.

* Protection and environmental enhancement of existing rural uses and urban related uses (generally non-residential) in areas defined as appropriate, and which should be of a high design standard, low visual impact and contribute environmental outcomes that enhance the wider area."

"* To ensuring that spacial forms protect and reinforce the existing rural landscaped typology

* To ensure the design, appearance and construction of all developments respond positively to the existing rural landscape and typology and

* To require that development and ongoing management of land employs best practice sustainable management techniques."

16. The Responsible Authority also has a Local Planning Policy, the Green Wedge Local Planning Policy at Clause 22.02 that seeks to further the green space vision for Greater Dandenong's Green Wedge Area, as defined in the MSS. The subject site is contained within the Buffers Precinct under the provisions of the clause. The primary function of the Buffers Precinct is to protect the operations of the Industrial 2 Zone and the Eastern Treatment Plant. The subject site lies within the Eastern Treatment Plant Buffer by "restricting uses that would compromise these activities".

17. The specific policies for the "Buffers Precinct" are:

"* Require management plans, in cases where permits are needed (including dwellings), demonstrating how achievement of the `green vision' concept will be assisted by the proposed development.

* Encourage re-introduction of indigenous vegetation and improved landscape qualities.

* Promote forms of agriculture that are suited to the urban fringe, and those that can reuse waste water."

18. The newly gazetted Clause 57 Core Planning Provisions for Metropolitan Green Wedge Land contains a number of uses that are prohibited in the zone. The Responsible Authority argued that the proposed development was more akin to industry and therefore prohibited. The Tribunal does not accept this as a reasonable argument. Agriculture is defined to include among other things land used to propagate, cultivate, rear or harvest living resources of a sea or inland water. In the Tribunal's view aquaculture of the type proposed clearly lies within that definition.

19. It was also put to the Tribunal that the proposal was not supported by Melbourne 2030. The proposed Green Wedge Provisions contained in 2030 have warehouse as a prohibited use. It was put to the Tribunal that the proposed building had the appearance of a warehouse and was referred to as such on the plans. The Tribunal again finds this argument cannot be sustained. Warehouse is defined in the Planning Scheme as land used to store or display goods, it may include the distribution and the wholesale selling of goods. In the Tribunal's view warehouse is a land use and not a building form or style and therefore does not apply to the use proposed here.

20. The application was received by the Responsible Authority on the 30th of April 2002. The application was referred externally to Melbourne Water. Melbourne Water is a statutory referral authority. Melbourne Water had no objection to the proposal on condition that no polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or water courses. Melbourne Water also requested that the dam perimeter walls be no less than 300mm above natural surface level. The Responsible Authority also referred the matter externally to the Environment Protection Authority. The Responsible Authority was initially under the impression that a works approval may have been necessary. This is not the case. The EPA however responded stating they had no objection to the proposal and suggesting conditions in relation to preventing pollution and amenity impacts, including no discharge of polluted waters in compliance with EPA Bunding Guidelines, Waste Water Irrigation Provisions and Amenity and conditions directed at protecting the air environment, the emission of noise, the discharge of dust and of sediment from the site.

21. Internal referrals were also made to Drainage Engineering, Environmental Planning and Traffic Departments of Council. The Drainage Department was of the view that the land had poor surface gradient and suggested additional information be provided which could be covered in a permit condition.

22. The Environmental Planing Office raised a number of concerns with respect to the use of bore water, stormwater management, noise etc but made no objection to the development. The applicant no longer intends to use bore water for the operation.

23. The Responsible Authority's Traffic Engineer noted that Elms Street was not under the care and maintenance of the Greater Dandenong Council, and that although they had no traffic engineering concerns with respect to the proposal, consideration should be given on the part of the applicant to upgrading the road.

24. Advertising was also taken by way of a notice on site and mail delivery to adjoining and surrounding owners and occupiers. As a consequence of the advertising seven objections were received. The objections were summarised in the Responsible Authority's submission as follows:

"1. Proposed large building would conflict with Council's `Green Space' vision, be out of character with the existing built area and would have a significant impact on the environmental values in the area.

2. Proposal conflicts with the proposed `Rural Conservation Zone' and the `Green Wedge Zone' which would prohibit extensive animal husbandry and warehouse.

3. The proposed dams for holding effluent would become offensive to the neighbourhood residents.

4. Concern in relation to statements in the application about the use of bore water then water from the Eastern Treatment Plant.

5. Concern in regard to flooding, environment pollution, drainage, bore water and noise matters.

6. Loss of vies from existing premises and proposal would be a loss of visual amenity.

7. Concern regarding proposed operations and experience.

8. First intrusion of a warehouse will lead to others.

25. The Responsible Authority held a consultative meeting on the 25th of October 2002 however no resolution was reached at that time. In the interim the applicant lodged a failure appeal at VCAT. The Responsible Authority subsequently resolved that if it were open to them they would refuse the application on the following grounds:

"1. The proposed use and development is considered to be contrary to the purpose of the Rural Zone, as provided for in the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme;

2. The proposed use is considered to be incompatible with the existing uses in the locality;

3. The proposal has the potential to create adverse amenity affects within the locality;

4. The proposal is not consistent with the Vision or Objectives for the locality, as outlined in the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme; and,

5. The proposal is contrary to the concepts and directions provided for under the Melbourne 2030 Strategy (October 2002), a seriously entertained planning policy."

26. The Tribunal's view after hearing the submissions and evidence before it and visiting the appeal site is that the central issues in this appeal are; the consistency of the proposed development with planning policy; and the potential for adverse amenity impacts.

27. The objectors had particular concerns with respect to the viability of the project and the potential for wastewater from the premises to be transported onto adjoining land, particularly water containing high levels of Nitrate. Mr and Mrs Brown had some knowledge of fish growing and broadly speaking were of the view that the figures did not add up particularly if the applicant was required to make use of town water and to dispose excess waste to sewer.

28. It was Mr Mosig's evidence that the project had every chance of success despite the fact that the growing of yabbies under cover in tanks was a new enterprise on the Australian scene. It was his evidence that the staging of the development would provide sufficient opportunity for the applicant to determine the viability of the proposal.

29. The Tribunal finds Mr Mosig to be a reliable witness and on his evidence finds the proposal to be a reasonable one with the potential for success. The Tribunal accepts the argument that Stage Two will only be developed if the economics are right. The Tribunal therefore does not find it appropriate to refuse to grant a permit because the enterprise is a new approach to yabby farming that might fail.

30. The Tribunal is also of the view that the concerns with respect to Nitrate, provided appropriate conditions are placed on the permit, are unfounded. Nitrogen as Nitrate is a common compound in the environment necessary for plant growth and a component of most fertilisers. The Tribunal is of the view that provided the Nitrate laden water is applied to the land in a controlled manner, consistent with the capacity of the land and the uptake of the landscaping then no risk will ensue. The Tribunal is of the view in this regard that periodic soil testing should be carried out to ensure there is no Nitrate build-up. The Tribunal notes that the need for the operation to dispose of waste material to sewer resolves any waste disposal issues while allowing for good environmental practice by irrigating the landscaping with wastewater from the operation.

31. Mr Hood also raised the lack of the appropriate certification to enable the proposed development to supply either the export or the domestic market. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Mosig that there is no impediment to obtaining the appropriate certifications.

32. As has already been discussed the Tribunal finds that the proposed use is aquaculture and comes under the umbrella of agriculture. In particular the Tribunal finds that the use is not warehouse, nor is the use industry. It was argued by Mr Kean that the definition of agriculture with respect to aquaculture is land used to "propagate, cultivate, rear or harvest living resources of the sea or inland water". It was his contention that the meaning of the words was to allow the use of sea or inland waters for the purpose of aquaculture. The Tribunal does not agree. In the Tribunal's view the phrase clearly relates to the use of land to propagate, cultivate, rear or harvest and in no way requires that this be done in the sea or in an inland waterway but simply that the life forms so dealt with originated from the sea or freshwater.

33. The Tribunal finds that the proposal is encouraged by the provisions of the zone in that it adds value to agricultural products at source, promotes economic development compatible with rural activities and contributes to a new sustainable rural enterprise. The Tribunal does not accept the argument of the Responsible Authority that this proposal represents a loss of land with a potential for agricultural production. The overall area of the site is just over 2ha and in the Tribunal's view can only support an economic enterprise that is innovative and produces a high value product. The fact that that product is produced in a shed does not make the activity on-site incompatible with the purposes of the zone.

34. It was also put to the Tribunal that the proposed development was intensive animal husbandry akin to broiler farms and cattle feed lots. The Tribunal finds a clear distinction can be made with respect to the tonnage of product produced, the volume of waste and the quantitative difference in the potential amenity impacts by way of odour, noise and traffic.

35. The Tribunal heard considerable argument at the hearing with respect to the compatibility of the proposal with its Green Wedge location and the Responsible Authority's policy with respect to Green Wedges. It was put to the Tribunal that the proposed building was a large industrial or warehouse style building which was incompatible with the objectives for the Green Wedge Area and is contained in Clause 57 and Clause 22.02 of the Dandenong Planning Scheme.

36. The Tribunal accepts that the building is large. There are however a number of large buildings within the area in relatively close proximity to the site. Further, large sheds are a feature of rural landscapes. The Tribunal does not find the building as proposed out of character or inappropriate in the zone. The Tribunal notes that one of the provisions of the Green Wedge Local Planning Policy is to establish and protect the operations of the Eastern Treatment Plant. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development will not compromise the operation of the plant and is consistent with the role of the buffer precinct.

37. The landscape containing the site is flat and relatively treeless. The area contains a scattered number of houses with developed gardens and also a number of generally rundown properties. The Tribunal finds that the development, with the landscaping proposed, will fit within this landscape and will not be inconsistent with the Green Wedge Policy.

38. It was put to the Tribunal that the applicant should not be required to carry out the full landscape plan prior to the construction of Stage Two. The Tribunal does not agree. In the Tribunal's view establishing the landscaping at the initial stages of the project will ensure that if Stage Two goes ahead, maximum screening is obtained.. The Tribunal does not consider such a requirement to be an impost on the applicant given the value that the landscaping will add to the property and the contribution it will make to the rural landscape and the Responsible Authority's Green Space Vision. The Tribunal found the landscaping strip proposed, would provide greater benefit if increased in width to 5m and that it would be appropriate to add some informal planting within the site.

39. There are a number of potential amenity issues associated with the proposed development, these include the visual impact of the proposal, particularly to the adjoining residential property to the rear of the site together with noise, odour and traffic. The Tribunal finds that on the evidence before it there will be no loss of amenity by way of odour and noise from the operation of the plant.

40. The applicant was of the view that the visual impact of the proposed development on the property to the rear was ameliorated by an earth bund on this property. The Tribunal was informed by the Hoods that the material in the earth bund was being stored until such time as it could be spread over their land.

41. The eastern end of the shed when the project is completed will be located some 45m from the common boundary with the Hoods' land whereas Stage One when completed will be more than 150m away. The plan shows a number of intervening dams and holding tanks and some concern was expressed that if the dams were to be used for breeding stock then they would need to be covered, providing an additional visual intrusion closer to the Hoods' property. It was Mr Mosig's evidence that such covers if the dams were to be used for that purpose would be no more than waist height.

42. Four metres of landscaping is proposed for the intervening space between the dams and the boundary. The intention is to provide screening by the use of three species of varying heights, Hedge Wattle, Black Woods and Red River Gums around the whole of the site perimeter. The dwelling on the adjoining land is located some distance from the common boundary and has also been landscaped. The Tribunal is of the view that the separation distances with the proposed planting increased to 5m in width will serve to ensure that the visual impact on the adjoining property is an acceptable one, acknowledging that the earth bund along the boundary will not remain.

43. The Tribunal finds that there will also be no excessive visual impact on the dwellings located on the opposite side of Elms Road which again are well separated from the subject site and are themselves landscaped.

44. The Hoods had concerns with respect to drainage. The Tribunal was informed that it was intended to collect water from the roof of the building and to store it in holding tanks to be used in the process. The Tribunal finds that if this is the case the only additional runoff from the site will be associated with the gravel road. In the Tribunal's view the runoff from this would be relatively minimal given the size of the property and any event will need to be directed to an approved point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

45. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of Mr Mosig with respect to noise from the operation. The Tribunal however was concerned that the loading and unloading bay located towards the rear of the subject land could have a negative impact. In the Tribunal's view the potential for noise nuisance to the adjoining neighbour to the rear could be reduced by requiring unloading and loading to be carried out towards the road frontage, the separation from the frontage of the shed to the properties to the east being significantly greater than the separation to the rear given Elms Road intervenes.

46. The level of traffic associated with the proposed development was stated to involve some 10 to 20 vehicles per day of which only four to six would be vans or trucks. The Tribunal was later informed in the context of the hearing, that only vans would be used with the number being three a week. The Tribunal accepts that this is a low level of traffic even for a gravel road. It will however represent a significant increase on existing traffic movements. The Tribunal notes the road in question is a private road and that the applicant will be liable for a share in its upkeep.

47. The Tribunal finds overall that the proposed development is appropriate in the zone and not inconsistent with the Green Wedge Policies for the area. The Tribunal finds that the operation of the development subject to appropriate conditions including a management plan will ensure that there are no negative environmental impacts associated with the use.