1. This is an application under section 87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to amend planning permit 1364/2005/A (amended). This permit was issued on 19 April 2007 following a VCAT hearing[1] (the original hearing). The permit allows:

Buildings and works for garden supplies and a concrete batching plant, with permission for reduced car parking provision and waiver of requirement for bicycle parking in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. The amendment, which Geelong Community for Good Life Inc seeks, is a reversal of an amendment to the endorsed plans under the permit, which was made by the Tribunal as an outcome of a section 87A application by the permit holder, Flintstones Garden Supplies Centre Pty Ltd[2] (the section 87A application). The effect of the Tribunal's order in the section 87A application was to replace the endorsed plans under the permit dated 5 February 2008 with a new set of plans, which were endorsed on 4 June 2008. The amended plans changed the following aspects of the site layout[3]:
   • The addition of a second access point to Grove Road which services the industrial area, so as to allow trucks to better circulate through the site.
   • The in-ground storage bins are moved from the eastern boundary to the centre of the site to allow for more direct truck access.
   • The batching plant and the slumping station are shifted slightly eastwards.
   • An additional transfer conveyer is included to move materials between shifted structures.
   • The concrete batching plant office has been shifted slightly south west, closer to Grove Road
   • Three car parking spaces (spaces 11 - 13) are relocated further north.
2. The Geelong Community for Good Life Inc says there has been a serious concealment of facts in the section 87A application. It relies on Section 89(1)(b) of the Act to give it standing. This provides as follows:

(1) Any person who objected or would have been entitled to object to the issue of a permit may ask the Tribunal to cancel or amend the permit if -

(b) the person believes that the person has been adversely affected by -

(i) a material mis-statement or concealment of fact in relation to the application for the permit; or

(ii) any substantial failure to comply with the conditions of the permit; or

(iii) any material mistake in relation to the grant of the permit.

1. The Geelong Community for Good Life Inc says it should have been given notice of the section 87A application. Whilst it relies primarily on the submission that there has been a serious concealment of facts in relation to the application for amendment, it also raises alleged breaches of the permit condition relating to the construction management plan and a question of law relating to the continued validity of and necessity for the EPA works approval, which was directed to be issued by the Tribunal also as an outcome of the original hearing.
2. In terms of the alleged breach of conditions relating to the construction management plan, I rule that this is an enforcement matter and not a matter that is appropriate to deal with in the context of this section 87 application. The ability to cancel or amend a permit on the basis of a substantial failure to comply with conditions is rarely exercised and only in circumstances where there has been a substantial and persistent failure to comply with conditions.[4] The complaints referred to do not fall within this category. If necessary, they are matters to be established properly by way of evidence as part of an enforcement order application.
3. The material question of law is said to arise because although a works approval was required and was issued[5] at the time the planning permit was issued, a subsequent amendment to the Environment Protection Scheduled Premises and Exemptions Regulations 2007 has deleted concrete batching plants from the list of scheduled premises. Concrete batching plants should comply with the Environmental Guidelines for the Concrete Batching Industry[6], but they no longer need a works approval.
4. The status of the works approval, and consequently whether the section 87A amendments to the endorsed plans are contrary to the conditions of the works approval, are questions of law that, if necessary, should be resolved by way of declaration proceedings[7]. They are not matters that arise directly from the current application, which is being made under section 87 and relates to the amendment of endorsed plans by virtue of the section 87A application. I do not need to make any ruling about the works approval in order to deal with this section 87 application. It is therefore unnecessary and inappropriate to make any declarations on the subject using my powers under section 124 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

1. The key issues in this proceeding relate to the nature of the section 87A decision to amend plans and the standing of the Geelong Community for Good Life Inc to make this application.

1. The original hearing dealt with both the planning permit application and the works approval. I am concerned here only with the planning permit application.
2. The land is in a Business 4 Zone. Buildings and works in a Business 4 Zone are exempt from third party notice and review rights[8]. A permit was required for use of the land as a concrete batching plant only because the land was within a distance of 300 metres from a Residential 1 Zone to the north. The Tribunal discussed the need for a permit for use at some length[9]. The Tribunal made the point that:

[33] ... It is the residential zone land within 300 metres, and residential properties within that distance, that give rise to the need for a planning permit to use the land for a concrete batching plant. Consequently it is considerations in relation to those properties that must be assessed in deciding whether such a permit should be granted.

[34] Furthermore, residential uses beyond the 300 metre threshold distance do not occasion the need for a "use" permit. They do not "trigger" the need for such planning permission. As with properties within the business 4 zone, so also in relation to residential properties outside the 300 metre threshold distance, this concrete batching plant could be established without a permit. The relevant considerations in relation to the granting of a permit relate to those residential properties and that portion of the residential zone falling within the 300 metre distance, and not those outside it. ...

1. Therefore, with respect to the planning permit, the objectors had very limited rights. They had no rights of review in respect of the buildings and works, and the only rights of review in respect of the use of the land for a concrete batching plant related to the residential properties within 300 metres of the boundary of the land.
2. In the reasons for its decision to grant a permit[10], the Tribunal considered amenity impacts, including noise, dust and air quality.
3. The Tribunal found that the proposal would cause no undue noise detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area, including the residential zone to the north[11]. Conditions were included in the permit to ensure this.
4. Dust and air quality were of considerable concern to the objectors at the original hearing. The Tribunal found that:

[101] ... modelling of the possible impacts from a concrete batching plant is not required in the approval process. What is required is an adoption of those aspects of best practice management that are relevant to the works application. Such practices are designed to address possible air emissions to remove or reduce dust emissions to an acceptable level. These practices are set out in the Environmental Guidelines for Concrete Batching Industry[12] (the environmental guidelines).

1. Certain design responses were included in the plans considered by the Tribunal to control dust emissions, such as "use of water sprays to wet aggregate, enclosing storage bins, enclosing conveyor belts and enclosing the loading hopper point."[13] However, further improvements in some emission sources were suggested during the course of the hearing:

[103] ... These additional reductions can be achieved by placing the aggregate storage hoppers underground (or more precisely at a level) where unloading into the hoppers is directly from the delivery vehicle, removing the need for double handing with a front end loader (this being common ground from all experts as one of the main sources of dust emissions). Stored aggregate could then be distributed via a more sophisticated system of weigh hoppers and covered conveyor belts to the mixer loading point.

1. These suggestions were incorporated in the permit (see condition 1 (g)).
2. Even though the Tribunal found that modelling of the possible impacts from a concrete batching plant was not required in the approval process, modelling of the dust emissions was in fact undertaken by the EPA, Flintstones and the council. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal found that excursion of dust could potentially occur (under the worst case scenario) in a south-easterly direction from the batching plant but that such excursions would remain within the Business 4 Zone. Excursions of dust at concentrations above the adopted criteria into the northern residential area were not indicated.[14]

1. The section 87A application was made by the permit holder, Flintstones. It sought to amend the endorsed plans and I have already outlined the nature of those changes. A report on acoustics by Burton Acoustic Group was submitted with the application to the Tribunal, together with a submission, which outlined why Flintstones sought an amendment under section 87A rather than requesting a change to the plans under the secondary consent provision offered by condition 2[15].
2. The council advised the Tribunal that the surrounding residences may have a material interest in the outcome of the request due to the impact it may have on the amenity to the area. It also indicated that it consented to the amendment of the permit requested subject to comments being received from its Environmental Health Department in relation to noise issues.
3. A practice day hearing was held on 16 May 2008 to consider whether it was appropriate for a prompt final hearing to proceed and whether further notice was required first. After hearing from Flintstones and the council, I ordered that no further notice was required. By order dated 19 May 2008 I listed the matter for a prompt final hearing on 23 May 2008 but ordered that in the event the responsible authority consented to the proposed amendments, an order would be made on the papers. The council did consent to the amended plans and an order was made on 27 May 2008 amending the permit by replacing the endorsed plans with the amended plans. In her remarks accompanying this order, Member Komasaroff said:

[4] It should be noted that this is a formal order made in the circumstances stated and the Tribunal has not considered the merits of the application.

1. Whilst I gave no written reasons for my decision not to require further notice, I have reviewed my notes and the transcript of the proceeding on 16 May 2008. Although the council indicated that it would like to seek some third party involvement given the nature of the previous appeal to VCAT, I decided that notice was not required because there were no third party rights of review in respect of buildings and works within a Business 4 Zone. If people have no rights of review in respect of the grant of a permit for buildings and works, they equally do not have any right to notice if it is proposed to amend such permit. In cases where there are no third party rights of review, the responsible authority has the responsibility for considering the potential effects of a proposal when it makes it decision.
2. In the present case, the council was particularly concerned about the potential acoustic affects of the proposed changes. Objectors at the original hearing had been most concerned about the potential noise from trucks, especially the noise from beepers when trucks reverse. There is a condition in the permit (condition 21) to address this. The Burton Acoustic Report, which accompanied the section 87A application, concluded that the proposed relocation of the in-ground aggregate and sand storage bins would be a positive move from an acoustic view. This conclusion was ultimately supported by the council's environmental health unit.
3. In terms of other potential effects caused by the proposed relocation of the storage bins, Flintstones submitted a letter it received from the EPA, which stated:

This letter is response to your request seeking EPA's position on your application to VCAT vary the layout of the cement batching plant at 115 Grove Road Grovedale.

In July 2007, just after the issuing of this works approval EPA remade the Scheduled Premises and Exemption Regulations. This resulted in the removal of concrete batching plants. This means that the works are no longer controlled by the issued works approval. However EPA still expects all works are in keeping with the protocol for environmental management for concrete batching works and as a minimum will be kept to the same standard as required by the approval.

The proposed relocation of the plant and storage bins is in keeping with the good practice stipulated in the works approval and therefore they are not of concern to EPA.

1. Section 90(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must give the following persons a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the hearing of any request -

(b) the owner and the occupier of the land concerned;

(c) any person who asked for the cancellation or amendment of the permit under section 87;

(e) any person who asked for the amendment of the permit under section 87A;

1. Section 90(2) provides the Tribunal may give any other person who appears to have a material interest in the outcome of the request an opportunity to be heard at the hearing of the request. There are several important features of this provision. First, it is discretionary, not mandatory, to give such a person an opportunity to be heard. Second, it is the Tribunal who must decide who appears to have a material interest in the outcome of the request. It is not open to people to self select. Finally, the interest in the outcome must be material. Thus, just because someone may have an opinion about the outcome does not mean they necessarily have a material interest in the outcome.
2. In the section 87A application, I exercised my discretion not to require further notice to be given to residents or other objectors in the original hearing for the following reasons.
   • They were not persons who would have been entitled to object to the issue of the permit so far as it related to buildings and works.
   • I was satisfied on the basis of the Burton Acoustic Report, the EPA letter and the explanation by Flintstones of the effect of the changes that they represented a likely improvement. Whilst I did not need to form a concluded view on this because I was only considering the issue of notice, not making a decision on the merits of the application to amend the plans, I still considered whether the changes might cause a discernable detriment to anyone. I considered this was unlikely and, in light of the council's responsibility for approving buildings and works in a Business 4 Zone without input from third parties, that no notice to previous objectors was necessary.
   • Although council wished to seek their input, I did not consider that residents or other parties had a material interest in the outcome of the request to amend the plans in all the circumstances. Just because they had been parties in the original hearing did not necessarily mean they should be involved in this section 87A application.
3. Therefore, to summarise the situation with respect to the section 87A decision, the Tribunal has a discretion under section 90(2) whether to involve third parties and give them an opportunity to be heard. I choose not to do this and there is no opportunity to review my exercise of that discretion except by way of appeal on a point of law to the Supreme Court. After the council further considered the proposed changes, it consented to them and the section 87A order was made.

1. In many respects, this section 87 application by Geelong Community for Good Life Inc is an attempt to be heard on the merits of the proposed changes, which were the subject of the section 87A application. The group takes exception to the description of these changes as representing improvements. It says the council has erred in law by consenting to the amendment because the changes will have a detrimental affect on residential amenity. They say these changes should have required a new planning permit with third party input. It says the most detrimental aspect of the change is to remove the roof and high walls of the building that previously enclosed the sand and aggregate storage bins. Siting the storage bins to the side of the site adjacent to the next door factory building was important to protect residents to the north from dust. Moving the storage bins to the centre of the site, and changing their orientation and construction so that they are now roofless bunkers has removed the protection from dust that the original design and location offered. Geelong Community for Good Life Inc says that Flintstones has been guilty of deception in describing the changes to the Tribunal as part of the section 87A application, and this constitutes a material misstatement or concealment or fact in relation to the application for the section 87A amendment.

Has there been a material misstatement or concealment of fact?

1. I find there has been no material misstatement or concealment of fact by Flintstones in relation to the section 87A application. Although the written description of the changes and the submission by Flintstones accompanying the section 87A application did not refer specifically to removal of the roof over the storage bins, the amended plans referred to in the Tribunal's order accurately depict the changes. The council says it was fully aware of them when it consented to the order.
2. It should be noted that the original storage bins were not fully roofed but only had a partial roof. The Burton Acoustic Report alludes to removal of the partial roof and the lack of effect that this will have on the noise analysis, which was presented at the original hearing, when it says that: "in the original analysis and EPA Conclave calculations no allowance was provided for the partial roof to the original bins. This was provided as an EPA requirement".
3. I am satisfied that there was no concealment of the changes to the nature of the storage bin structure.
4. Equally, I am satisfied that there has been no deceptive description of the changes in location of the various structures. The Geelong Community for Good Life Inc takes issue with the description of the concrete batching plant office being shifted "slightly south-west" and shifting the batching plant and slumping station "slightly eastwards". Whether the shifts are properly described as "slight" or not, they were accurately shown on the amended plans and transparencies that Flintstones produced to illustrate the changes in location of different facilities. I find there was no deception in this respect either.

1. I place no weight on the submission that the council failed in its duty to properly assess impacts of the changes before consenting. This sounds like an argument based on the Wednesbury [16] principle of unreasonableness, which is that no responsible authority acting reasonably could have given its consent. Even if this principle has any relevance to this application, which I do not consider it does, the Federal Court has said[17]:

It appears to be clear that, for Wednesbury unreasonableness to be established, it is not enough that the reviewing court has reached the conclusion that the statutory decision-maker erred, even seriously, in his or her assessment of the facts. Although the matter has been expressed in various ways in particular cases, a recurrent theme is that there must be something that, in effect, vitiates the decision-maker's exercise of discretion.

1. In my view, it would not be possible for Wednesbury unreasonableness to be established in circumstances where the design of the storage bins complies with the Environmental Guidelines for the Concrete Batching Industry and are not of concern to the EPA[18].
2. Section 5.3 of the Environmental Guidelines deals with air quality. In the original design of the concrete batching plant, sand and aggregate stockpiles were proposed to be stored at ground level. In this situation, the guidelines state:

Sand and aggregates should be stored in a hopper or bunker which shields the materials from winds. The bunker should enclose the stockpile on three sides. The walls should extend one metre above the height of the maximum quantity of raw material kept on site, and extend two metres beyond the front of the stockpile.

The hopper or bunker should be fitted with water sprays which keep the stored material damp at all times. Monitor the water content of the stockpile to ensure it is maintained in a damp condition.

If a combination of wall height and length coupled with water sprinklers is unable to contain the material, roofing and/or rubber entry curtains should be installed.

1. However, different guidelines apply to in-ground storage bunkers. They provide as follows:

In-ground storage bunkers minimise dust emissions from stockpiles. Where these are filled by drive-over deliveries, the bunker should be shielded on two sides by shrouds or walls that are at least 0.5 metres high and extend the entire length of the bunker.

It is still essential to ensure the raw ingredients are damp on receipt and before they are delivered to the in-ground bunkers.

1. The design of the storage bins, which used to have 4 metre high walls and a partial roof, were originally designed to meet the guidelines for above ground stockpiles. Now that the storage bins will be underground and filled by drive-over deliveries, different guidelines apply. The amended design meets the Environmental Guidelines and indeed exceeds them in that the walls are 2 metres high compared to the specified minimum height of 0.5 metres.

1. I am aware that this permit and works approval were fiercely contested by residents and other objectors at the original hearing. A number of people have written to the Tribunal expressing their outrage at not being given notice of the section 87A application and stating they had an expectation that they would be involved in any changes to the site. Such an expectation of involvement is misplaced.
2. The concept of legitimate expectations and natural justice was addressed by Justice Morris in Melbourne CC v Becton[19] where he said:

[117] Mr Southall contended that, by reference to the doctrine of legitimate expectations, the Minister had a duty to provide affected persons with an opportunity to make submissions about the December 2001 Concept Plan before he gave approval to this plan. Having regard to my findings, it is unnecessary to determine this submission. However I doubt whether it is correct. In Mietta's Hotels Pty Ltd v Roper (1988) 1 AATR 354 Beach J expressed the view that provisions in the Act concerning the notification that is required for an amendment to a planning scheme forms a code and prevents any implication being made that there is some requirement, over and above those contained in the Act, to observe the rules of natural justice. This decision was followed by Brooking J in Grollo Australia v Minister for Planning [1993] VicRp 45; [1993] 1 VR 627. It seems to me that this same principle is likely to apply to the whole of the Act. The Act makes it clear that certain decisions are to be made after notification, whereas other decisions can be made without notification. Given the extensive consideration which the Parliament has clearly given to this question, it would seem odd if the Parliament intended that additional notification requirements were to be implied.

1. Although residents cannot expect to be involved in subsequent amendments to the plans for buildings and works on the land, where there are no third party review rights, this does not mean that residents concerns about health and amenity are ignored. In the present cases conditions in the planning permit have not altered. Many of them are directed to ensuring that the amenity of the area will not be detrimentally affected by the use or development, including by the emission of noise or dust.

1. I have addressed the substantive submissions put to me on behalf of Geelong Community for Good Life Inc and find that they cannot be substantiated. However, the main reason why this section 87 application must be refused is because the group lacks standing under section 89 of the Act.
2. To have standing to make this application to amend the permit, Geelong Community for Good Life Inc must be a person who objected or would have been entitled to object to the issue of a permit. Although Geelong Community for Good Life Inc was an objector at the original hearing, as I have noted previously, they were not entitled to object to the issue of a permit for the buildings and works.
3. There is a suggestion in paragraph [68] of the Tribunal's decision in the original hearing that third party objectors may have had rights of review in respect of the buildings and works component of the proposal because this was a section 77 application for review of refusal to grant a permit. This view is not correct for the reasons set out in West Valentine Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2005] VCAT 243, which held that if certain classes of permit applications are exempt from the review rights of section 82(1), they are also exempt from the right to be a party in reviews by the permit applicant under section 77, 79 and 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
4. The same logic applies to persons under section 89. Even though they might have objected to a permit, if they had no third party rights of review in respect of that permit, they do not thereby gain a right to make an application under section 87 to cancel or amend that permit as a person under section 89.
5. In my view, section 89(1) only confers standing on a person who objected if they were entitled to object to the issue of a permit. I considered this issue in Cardoso v Greater Bendigo CC[20], where I said:

[14] In West Valentine Pty Ltd v City of Stonnington I examined the implications of provisions in the Act and in planning schemes that exempt certain categories of permit applications from third party notice and appeal rights. This case is authority for the proposition that whilst it is only the review rights of section 82(1) that are exempt under these provisions, which relate to an objector's right to apply to the Tribunal for review of a decision of the responsible authority to grant a permit, the scheme within the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is also intended to exclude the participation of objectors who are exempt from section 82(1) from other applications for review in respect of the decision; for example applications by permit applicants in respect of refusal (section 77), failure (section 79) and conditions (section 80).

[15] The West Valentine case was concerned with the rights of third parties in respect of applications for review of a decision regarding the grant of a permit. I consider that the principle it establishes can be extended to applications to cancel or amend a permit under section 87 as well as applications concerning the initial grant of a permit. Indeed, it would be strange if it was otherwise. As I said in the West Valentine case:

[14] ... The Act and the planning scheme provisions set out certain classes of applications for permit that are exempt from the notice and review provisions of the Act by third party objectors. It would be contrary to the purpose underlying these provisions if, by nevertheless submitting an objection, a person could thereby gain rights to be a party in applications for review other than one concerning a decision to grant the permit.

It would equally undermine the purpose underlying the provisions of the Act and planning scheme regarding exempt applications if a person who was not entitled to notice or review rights could nevertheless challenge a permit, once granted, by lodging a request under section 87 to cancel or amend it.

[16] There is a very explicit scheme in the Act that exempts objectors from reviews in certain classes of permit applications. In my view, the words "entitled to object" in section 89 must be read having regard to the scheme established by the Act as a whole with respect to the opportunities and rights of third parties to participate in the decision making process about the issue of permits.

[17] It is true, as noted in West Valentine, that there is nothing in the Act that precludes a person who may be exempt from notice and review rights from submitting an objection. However, the point was made that:

[6] ... if no notice is required to be given under section 52(1) or the planning scheme of an application, section 60(3) provides that the responsible authority is not required to consider any objection or submission in respect of the application which may have been made. Again, the Act does not preclude a responsible authority from considering such objections if it wishes but that does not thereby create any rights for those objectors.

[18] The whole tenor of the provisions in the Act is that in the case of exempt applications, third parties have no 'rights' to object. They may in fact object but those objections carry no rights to be considered by the responsible authority, or for objectors to be given notice of the decision or to participate in a review of the decision.

to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim .

In the context of applications that are exempt from third party rights of notice and review, such as clause 43.01-3, if a third party objects they have no rights as a result of that objection. In my view, this means they cannot be said to be entitled to object to the issue of a permit. They are not given a right or furnished with grounds for laying any claim, which is what being entitled to something means.

[20] On this basis I therefore find that the applicant was not a person who was entitled to object to the issue of the permit in this case and consequently is not a person who has standing under section 89(1) of the Act to request cancellation or amendment of the permit.

1. I therefore find that Geelong Community for Good Life Inc fails this first fundamental hurdle. They do not fall within the ambit of section 89(1) and therefore have no standing to make this application.

1. Flintstones argued that section 89(1)(b)(i) specifically relates to the application for the permit, not an amendment to the permit. Likewise they say any material mistake must be in relation to the grant of the permit, not an amendment to the permit. In support of this they rely on Saric v Hobsons Bay CC[21].
2. Whilst I note that the Planning and Environment Act 1987 has changed with respect to the amendment of permits since Saric was decided, it is not necessary for me to decide this point because the application fails on other grounds.

[1] Flintstones Garden Supplies Centre Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong CC [2007] VCAT 1614

[2] Application P1298/2008 (27 May 2008). The Tribunal ordered as follows:

The order of the Tribunal is that planning permit 1364/2005 is amended by replacing the endorsed plans with the amended plans marked:

[3] There were a couple of other minor changes, which are not relevant for present purposes.

[4] See City of Springvale v Kydas (1990) 4 AATR 317; Stonnington CC v Cull [2003] VCAT 84

[6] Environmental Guidelines for the Concrete Batching Industry, EPA Publication 628, June 1998

[7] Under section 149A or section 149B of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 depending on who the applicant is.

[8] Clause 34.04-4 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme

[9] [2007] VCAT 1614 at [18] - [42]

[10] I note that there appears to be an error in the Tribunal's decision. It clearly determines to grant a permit for both use and development, but the order only states that a planning permit is granted "for buildings and works for garden supplies and a concrete batching plant". No reference is made to use for concrete batching plant, although clearly this was intended. The planning permit has been issued in accordance with the Tribunal's order. A correction order pursuant to section 119 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 is required to remedy this error. I propose to refer this error to the Tribunal members (Senior Member Byard and Member Potts) to make an appropriate correction order.

[11] [2007] VCAT 1614 at [99]

[12] Environment Protection Authority (State Government of Victoria) Environmental Guidelines for Concrete Batching Industry June 1998.

[13] [2007] VCAT 1614 at [102]

[14] [2007] VCAT 1614 at [108] - [109]

[15] The concern was that this approach might lead to an application for review under section 149 of the Act which could cause delay. As work had already commenced, Flintstones wished to obtain a decision on the amendments as soon as possible.

[16] Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v Wensbury Corporation [1947] EWCA Civ 1; [1948] 1 KB 223

[17] Per Wilcox J in Australian Pork Limited v Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine [2005] FCA 671 at [300]

[18] The last paragraph of the EPA letter to Flintstones dated 16 May 2008 set out above states:

The proposed relocation of the plant and storage bins is in keeping with the good practice stipulated in the works approval and therefore they are not of concern to EPA.

[19] [2003] VCAT 1077

[20] [2006] VCAT 2043

[21] [2000] VSC 476