1. The application is for the re-opening and extending of the former quarry in order to exploit reserves of basalt stone. The proposal includes four stages, Stage 1 being the removal of the overburden on the former quarry site, works to provide for a flat operation area for the proposed crusher and extension works to enlarge the existing settlement dam. The rock extraction area during the first stage will be located some 300 metres from the recently constructed Giles dwelling to the south. The application includes the construction of a 4 metre high bund along the boundary of the construction site to provide for both noise protection and visual screening of the operation from the Giles property and from dwellings to the southwest and southeast of the Work Authority area. The dwelling to the southwest of the quarry site is some 350 metres from the nearest rock extraction area, which will occur in Stage 4 of the operation (decades hence).
2. The subsequent three stages of the development extend the extraction area to the north and west to within 20 metres of Neerim North Road and the northern site boundary. Stage 2 of the proposal will bring the rock extraction area to within some 330 metres of the Carter dwelling to the north.
3. The applicant estimates that there are some 16.5 million tonnes of quality basalt rock overlayed by some 1.2 million tonnes of overburden and weathered basalt. The applicant was of the view that the initial production from the quarry would be of the order of 100,000 tonnes in the first year of operation, increasing to some 200,000 tonnes annually, the annual figure being dependent on the market. The applicant proposes, in the initial stages, to truck rock to a quarry operated by it in Jindivick for crushing. After the completion of Stage 1 it is intended to establish a crushing plant within the quarry.
4. Hours of operation in the draft permit conditions are:

7am to 6pm Monday to Friday - 7am to 1pm on Saturday

1. The anticipated level of production from the quarry indicates that the lifetime of the operation would be of the order of 80 years.

1. The site is located within the Farming Zone, as is the adjoining land. The purposes of the zone strongly support maintenance of agricultural activities and include the encouragement of sustainable land management practices and ensuring that non-agricultural uses, particularly dwellings, do not adversely affect the agricultural use of the land.
2. Stone and soil extraction are section 2 uses in the zone requiring a permit. A permit is also required under the provisions of the clause to construct and carry out buildings or works associated with a section 2 use.
3. The site is located within an Extractive Industry Interest Area 884007 under the Melbourne Supply Area - Extractive Industry Areas Review. The purpose of identifying extractive industry interest areas is to 'create an awareness that extractive industry is a possible land use in these areas'.
4. The excavation area is partly covered by a Wildfire Management Overlay. Buildings and works associated with extractive industry do not generate the need for a permit under the overlay provisions.
5. There is in addition an Erosion and Management Overlay over the eastern portion of the applicant's land. This overlay comes close to, or may even intrude slightly into the works area, and consideration needs to be given on this boundary to minimising the land disturbance to prevent erosion or land slip.
6. Particular provisions with respect to quarrying are contained in Clause 52.09. The clause requires a buffer setback of active quarrying of 20 metres from the boundaries of the land, and consideration of the following:
   • the effect of the proposed extractive industry on any native flora and fauna on and near the land;
   • the impact of the extractive industry operations on sites of cultural and historic significance, including any effects on Aboriginal places;
   • the effect of the extractive industry operation on the natural and cultural landscape of the surrounding land and the locality generally;
   • the ability of the extractive industry operation to contain any resultant industrial emissions within the boundaries of the subject land in accordance with the Regulations associated with the Extractive Industries Development Act 1995 and other relevant regulations;
   • the effect of vehicular traffic, noise, blasting, dust and vibration on the amenity of the surrounding area;
   • the ability to rehabilitate the affected land to a form or for a use which is compatible with the natural systems or visual appearance of the surrounding area;
   • the ability to rehabilitate the land so it can be used for a purpose or purposes beneficial to the community;
   • the effect of the proposed extractive industry on groundwater quality and the impact on any affected water uses;
   • the impact of the proposed extractive industry on surface drainage and surface water quality;
   • any proposed provisions, conditions or requirements in a 'Work Authority' to be issued under the Extractive Industries Development Act 1995.
7. Further assistance is provided with respect to the assessment of an extractive industry application in the Victorian Planning Provisions Practice Note for Extractive Industry Proposals.
8. The particular provisions of the planning scheme with respect to car parking are also relevant to the proposal; however there is no issue in this regard.

1. After hearing the submissions and evidence and visiting the appeal site the key issues in this matter are:

(a) the extent of policy support for or against the proposal;

(b) the amenity impacts on adjoining sensitive land uses including the impact of noise, vibration and the transport of dust;

(c) traffic impact by way of the additional traffic on local roads and the noise and potential safety impacts associated with this;

(d) hydrogeology, specifically the impact of the proposal on groundwater levels, the integrity of springs on the land and on adjoining land, and the potential to pollute a potable water supply;

(f) health risks associated with the potential presence of crystalline silica;

(g) the inability of the applicant to obtain a water entitlement in a capped catchment; and

1. The State Planning Policy Framework contains a number of clauses that are relevant to the quarrying industry. Clause 11.03-3 deals with management of resources and states:

Planning is to assist in the conservation and wise use of natural resources including energy, water, land, flora, fauna and minerals to support both environmental quality and sustainable development over the long term through judicious decisions on the location, pattern and timing of development.

1. Clause 12.04-2 contains the following strategy for resource management:

Maintain access to productive natural resources, an adequate supply of well located land for energy generation, infrastructure and industry by (amongst other things):

• protecting strategic deposits of sand, minerals and stone, to maintain their potentials for exploitation.

1. More specifically clause 17.09 requires that planning schemes 'must not prohibit extractive industries in non urban zones, except if it is prohibited by an Act of Parliament'.
2. Local planning policy also contains support for the protection and use of stone resources.
3. The Municipal Strategic Statement at clause 21.08-2, includes the following relevant objectives:
   • Protect significant stone (including sand) resources to ensure an adequate supply of stone (including sand) in future years.
   • The protection, development and use of stone (including sand) resources is integrated with the management of other natural resources and community needs.
4. Clause 22.05 deals with Economic Development and specifically with the protection of stone resources at clause 22.05-4. Its objective is, inter alia, to ensure that the long term protection of stone resources is in accordance with provisions and recommendations of the Extractive Industry Interest Areas, Melbourne Supply Area, Geological Survey of Victoria Technical Report 1996-1. In particular it is policy that stone resources within Extractive Industry Interest Areas are protected and that extraction of stone resources is carried out in accordance with acceptable environmental standards.
5. As has already been discussed, the subject site is located within Extractive Industry Interest Area 884007 under the Melbourne Supply Area - Extractive Industry Areas Review.
6. On the basis of the above state and local planning policies, there is clear policy support for the extraction of stone from this site.
7. The Extractive Industry Interest Areas identified in the Melbourne Supply Area Extractive Industry Areas Review document are, as one would logically expect, located within the Farming zone. The document notes with respect to the Neerim North Extractive Industry Interest Area that:

Alternative land uses such as residential, intensive agriculture (flower growing and market gardens), tourism and landscape values preclude the establishment of new quarry operations over much of the older volcanics area. Rural agricultural areas such as Neerim North and around Drouin/Warrigal are more amenable to extractive industry.

In many areas thick sequences of interbasaltic tufts and volcanogenic sediments occur. So all areas mapped as older volcanics do not necessarily contain fresh hard basalt. Agriculturally productive soils often form over older volcanic rocks. ... ... ...

1. A number of Ms Valentine's clients are involved in the tourism industry. It was argued that tourism was a developing industry in the Shire encouraged by the planning scheme provisions and potentially threatened by this proposal.
2. We accept that there is encouragement in the planning scheme for tourism in the Shire. Tourism is specifically addressed in the State Planning Policy Framework at 17.04, in the Municipal Strategic Statement at 21.08-1 (which encourages tourism based around agricultural assets while ensuring high quality agricultural land is protected) and at 22.05-2. There is no specific encouragement for tourism in the Farming zone aside from small scale bed and breakfast establishments which are as of right.
3. In our view, there will be minimal impact of the quarry on tourism in the area. The nearest tourist accommodation facility is the very beautiful Feldstone House, which is a significant distance from the quarry site. We conclude that if the necessary standards are met at the nearest dwellings, they will be met with a greater margin of confidence at the nearest tourist accommodation, which in our estimate is more than 1.5km away as the crow flies.
4. The other potential impact on tourism raised was the impact of truck traffic on Main Neerim Road. This matter is dealt with later in this determination; suffice to say in our view the level of traffic is not beyond the capacity of the road nor of a volume sufficient to cause safety or amenity concerns.

1. The subject site is located on the edge of the basalt flow overlain with high agriculturally productive soil. Indeed, the two go hand in hand. We acknowledge that the Baw Baw Planning Scheme seeks to preserve high quality agricultural land from inappropriate uses and, in particular, we note that the extraction of stone resources does not feature in the purposes of the zone. We also note that mineral, stone or soil extraction is a permissible use within the zone and not specifically discouraged by the zone purposes although they include:

To ensure that non-agricultural uses, particularly dwellings, do not adversely affect the use of the land for agriculture.

1. In our view, the emphasis in the purposes with respect to non-agricultural use is on the prevention of dwellings on small lots. The development of lifestyle blocks was acknowledged by the objectors' witness, Mr Anthony Pitt, in cross-examination, as the most significant threat to high quality agricultural land in the area.
2. We also had regard to the fact that the quarry land will not be lost to agriculture as it ultimately will be rehabilitated as farmland although we accept the evidence of Mr Pitt that the present level of productivity will not be restored. We find that the overall loss of high quality land is less than the 1.1% of the total sum of such land in the district originally estimated by Mr Pitt. Mr Pitt conceded that his calculation of the loss was an over-estimate as a result of his inclusion of the land located to the south of Pearce Road (which remains) and as a result of his not taking the former quarry into account.
3. We can only conclude that there is support within the planning scheme provisions for the extraction of basalt from a site in such a location in the Farming zone on land that is contained within an Extractive Industry Interest Area, albeit subject to amenity and environmental considerations.

1. Clause 17.09-1 requires development of stone resources to be in accordance with acceptable environmental standards. Clause 17.09-2 further requires that provision be made for buffer areas between new extractive industries and sensitive land uses in accordance with the following principles:
   • Clearly defined buffer areas appropriate to the nature of the proposed extractive uses which are to be owned or controlled by the proponent of an extractive industry, are specified in an application for permit.
   • Performance standards for the buffer area are set in accordance with the requirements of the Extractive Industries Development Regulations 1996 or a work authority or a permit and have regard to the zoning of the land surrounding the extractive industry.
2. The performance standards contained within the Extractive Industries Development Regulations 1996 require the buffer to be performance based and within the boundaries of land owned and controlled by the work authority holder. The performance standards to be met include:
   • (a) the EPA's Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria N3/89;
   • (b) a 24 average particle concentration of 60mg/m3 for particles less than 10 microns PM and 36mg/m3 for particles less than 2.5 microns PM 2.5;
   • (c) annual average concentration of respirable crystalline silica of 3mg/m as PM2.5
   • (d) a dust standard of four grams per square metre per month at the nearest residence;
   • (e) airblast standard of 115 db(A) for 95 percent of all blasts; and
   • (f) a ground vibration standard of 5mm per second peak particle velocity, again for 95 percent of all blasts, and
   • (g) flyrock.
3. Clause 52.09 on Extractive Industries and Extractive Industry Interest Areas, contains a number of matters which need to be considered (which we set out in paragraph 41). These include the ability of the extractive industry operation to contain any resultant industrial emissions within the boundaries of the land in accordance with the regulations associated with the Extractive Industries Development Act 1995 and other relevant regulations.
4. The objectors were of the view that a set buffer distance should apply to a quarry operation and that this distance should be 500m as set out in the EPA publication Recommended Buffer Distances For Industrial Residual Air Emissions dated July 1990 and known as AQ2/86. This document is also referred to in the DPI Guidelines For Extractive Industries -Determining Suitable Buffers Between Extractive Industries And Sensitive Land Uses, undated, which must date or postdate 2002 as it includes a reference to documents dated 2002.
5. The Tribunal's reading of the reference in the DPI Guidelines to AQ2/86 is that proposals for sensitive land uses within the 500 metre separation distance must demonstrate the distance proposed is appropriate, implying the onus of proof falls on the applicant for the sensitive use to demonstrate performance standards are met. This presupposes that the quarry comes before the sensitive land use. In this case the opposite has occurred.
6. It was pointed out by the objectors that clause 17.03-2 which deals with industry in the State Planning Policy Framework also refers to AQ2/86 as the appropriate standard to have regard to:

Adequate separation and buffer areas must be provided between sensitive uses and offensive or dangerous industries and quarries to ensure that residents are not affected by adverse environmental effects, nuisance or exposure to hazards.

Planning and responsible authorities must have regard to Recommended Buffer Distances for Industrial Residential Air Emissions (EPA 1990) and promote best practice risk and environmental management.

1. The failure of the applicant to provide a 500 metre separation buffer between the quarrying operations and adjoining sensitive land uses, namely dwellings, was argued by the objectors as potentially fatal to the application.
2. It is our view that the appropriate requirement to be placed on the quarry with respect to environmental impact is the meeting of specific performance standards at the boundaries of the land. In coming to this conclusion we note that:

(a) there is a discrepancy between the provisions of clause 17.09 (which specifically relates to extractive industries and requires buffer distances to be set in accordance with performance standards) and clause 17.03-2;

(b) the intent of the Department of Primary Industries' document Guidelines for Extractive Industries with respect to determining suitable buffer distances is a performance based standard;

(c) the EPA publication is old and has not been updated since 1990. Further, its recommendations are limited to industrial residual air emissions which in the present circumstances would specifically relate to dust;

(d) the recommendations contained within AQ2/86 are based on overseas and local experience without any supporting information being provided or any indication of what standard the buffer distances proposed are intended to achieve.

1. We are also of the philosophical view that performance standards are more appropriate than a set distance that takes no account of the particular circumstance or size of the particular proposal.

1. It was put to the Tribunal by both Ms Valentine and Mr Porter that there was no need for an additional quarry in this area and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient justification for the proposal in this regard. Generally speaking, lack of need is not a strong argument against a particular development. In any event, we are of the view that quarry stone is a high demand, low cost material that is needed for a variety of community activities including road building. We therefore find that although there are elements of uncertainty with respect to the extraction rate from the proposed quarry, there is a need for the product and the applicant's estimates are based on reasonable assumptions informed in part by his experience in the industry and at Jindivik. Clearly if the level of demand is less than anticipated, the life of the quarry will be extended and if the demand is greater, the life will be proportionately shortened. In any event in determining whether or not to issue a permit we need to be certain that the required performance standards can be met at the boundaries of the site and if increased activity on the site resulted in these standards being breached then such activity would be prohibited[1].

1. The Environment Protection Authority has an interim guideline for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Areas in N3/89. It was accepted by all parties that this was the appropriate standard to apply. The document states:

Where background sound levels are very low, (ie. less than 25 dB(A) at night or 30 dB(A) during the day or evening period), the minimum limits for noise from industry should be 45 dB(A) in the daytime, measured at residential premises.

1. This is the only standard that is relevant to the proposal, given that the hours of operation are daytime hours. The guideline also provides for a higher noise emission of 10dB(A) during the construction period.
2. The subject site is located in a low noise environment. Measurements of daytime background noise made by Mr Goddard were 25-28 dB(A) for 90% of the time in the day period.
3. It was argued by the objectors that a higher standard should apply to the subject site given the low noise environment in the area. A lower noise limit was supported by the objectors' witness, Mr Huybregts, on the basis of a statement in the notes to the N3/89, that new industries should be encouraged to design for the lowest levels of noise achievable with commonly available technology and where possible, designers should aim to meet octave band levels of 5 to 10 dB above the background. The notes further state that when, in the opinion of the authority, a particularly quiet area should be preserved, it may establish more stringent limits, or oppose the proposal at the outset.
4. We acknowledge that the proposed development will significantly alter the noise environment experienced by residents in adjoining properties during the hours of operation. The extent of the noise impact within the local area will be sufficient to impact on land at a distance of up to 1 kilometre away.
5. It is our view, while acknowledging a change in noise environment will occur that will impact on nearby residents, that the 45dB(A) daytime standard is the noise level to be applied, noting that the guidelines specifically state that this is the appropriate standard where background sound levels are very low and that the proposed activities on site will not be carried out during the night time period. It was conceded by Mr Huybregts that he had no knowledge of, nor had he himself ever recommended the imposition of a more stringent standard than 45dB(A).

1. The applicant called evidence from Mr Neville Goddard of Watson Moss Growcott. Mr Goddard carried out a modelling exercise to determine the noise levels at the nearest dwellings to the quarry operation. The model had regard to:

(a) the noise emissions from the various activities that would take place on the site;

(b) the topography between the noise source and the receiver; and

1. Mr Huybregts, in testing Mr Goddard's approach to determining the noise impact of the proposal, acknowledged that in complex terrain, as is the case here, modelling was the appropriate approach.
2. We were informed that the propagation of sound is influenced by wind with the impact being increased under light wind conditions of up to 3 metres per second. When the wind increases above the 3m/sec level, although noise propagation still occurs, the noise is masked by the interaction of wind with other features of the environment. Further, the EPA document A Guide to the Measurement and Analysis of Noise with respect to the enhancement of noise propagation under light wind conditions, proposes that weather conditions that favour the propagation of noise should not be taken into account if they occur less than 20% of the time. These two contentions were not in dispute.
3. Mr Goddard provided the applicant with three reports: the first in 2006 prior to the DPI's consideration of the new Giles dwelling, and the second (Nov 2007) after the DPI's approval of the revised Work Approval application. This second report used wind data from Noojee (Slivar) and Noojee Monitoring Stations. The weather data from these two locations indicated that the only breezes up to 3m/sec that occurred more than 20% of the time were from the northwest, thereby potentially enhancing the impact at the Giles property to the southeast of the quarry site. Mr Goddard's third report (Nov 2008) made use of wind data from Baw Baw which, in his view, was more relevant to the terrain of the subject site, than the Noojee data. The Baw Baw data indicated that winds of up to 3 metres per second from the south and southwest would together exceed the 20% occurrence threshold in February and March. These winds would have the potential to increase the noise received at 27 Palmer Road (the Carter property) and would potentially reduce the noise received at the Giles property.
4. Mr Goddard's November 2007 report calculated the impact of the hydraulic rock drill separately, which is the noisiest single item that will be used in the quarry (excluding blasting) when assessed against the noise impact of all other sources combined. He did this because he was of the view that the noise emission from the drill was such that all other noise producing operations would need to cease when rock drilling was being undertaken. He subsequently became aware of a so-called silenced drill which had an emission at source of 10 dB(A) less than the standard rock drill. During the hearing, he provided the Tribunal with amended calculations of noise impacts with the silenced rock drill operating separately and in concert with the other sources on site.
5. Noise data was calculated for the worst case conditions, namely when the hydraulic rock drill was being operated at the top benches of Stages 1, 3 and 4, and the second-top bench of Stage 2 which approaches closer to the Giles property than the top bench. Calculations indicate that the 45 dB(A) standard would be exceeded by 1dB(A) at the Giles property during Stage 3, under a 3 metre per second northwest wind with a hydraulic rock drill operating on the top bench level. A 1dB(A) exceedance was acknowledged by Mr Huybregts to be imperceptible.
6. It is however an exceedance that needs to be addressed. It is further our view that the exceedance, although small, when considered together with a number of other scenarios when the noise level at the Giles property is one or two dB(A)s below the standard, is a matter of some concern, as is the number of occasions that the predicted noise levels at 541 Neerim North Road (referred to in the Goddard Report as 140 Palmer Road) although complying, lies within a range of one or two decibels of the dB(A) of the standard.
7. To that end, we have decided that when the rock drill is being operated at the top benches of stages 1, 3 & 4 and at the top bench and second top bench of stage 2, no other machinery or equipment must be used or operated at the same time.
8. It needs to be noted that the hydraulic rock drill will only be used for three or four days in every one or two months, and that the noise levels of the drill operating at lower benches within the quarry will reduce by some 10 dB(A). Further, the noise levels under calm conditions are significantly less than those predicted for 3m/sec winds. The wind data used from all meteorological files show calm and greater than 3m/sec wind conditions occur for the great majority of the time.
9. Mr Goddard suggested that the impact on the Carter property could be addressed by the use of a 2.5 to 3 metre high bund along the northern boundary, extending for some 50 metres to the east of Palmer Road. In our view this is an appropriate measure that would offer greater noise protection and, together with landscaping, visual screening of the quarry site.
10. We are satisfied with respect to the noise emissions that EPA standards can be met. Our conclusion is based on the fact that the calculations relate to worst case conditions and predict a level of exceedance that was acknowledged by the objectors' acoustic witness to be imperceptible. We are further of the view that there are a number of measures open to the applicant to reduce noise emissions further by:

(b) the ceasing of operations in the quarry when the drill and rock breaker are in operation; and

(c) having regard to weather conditions when carrying out drilling and rock breaking activities.

1. On-site testing must be carried out under worst case conditions to ascertain the required standard of 45dB(A) is being met at all dwellings. We accept the contention of Mr Goddard which was supported by Mr Huybregts that compliance testing could be undertaken at a derived point rather than at the dwellings themselves and we have imposed that in the permit conditions. Noises from the quarry associated with the beepers, external phones and operational alarms should also be dealt with. Measures such as the use of broadband beepers, a prohibition on external phones and on operational alarms unless these are required by legislation, will be a requirement on permit.
2. Concerns were expressed about the definition of the construction period when N3/89 allows for noise levels up to 10dB(A) greater than the 45dB(A) operating standard. Mr Goddard's calculations indicated that noise levels associated with the construction of the bund would be 46 dB(A) under worst case conditions. There was concern about defining the construction period. Mr Goddard's suggestion was that the construction period should be activity on site that does not involve product going out the gate. We are of the view that the condition should be more specific and refer to 'any activities that are not part of the process of extracting, drilling, moving, processing (including but not limited to rock crushing or breaking) and transporting rock'.
3. There was a suggestion on the part of the objectors that construction should not occur on Saturday morning. We do not accept the need to apply such a restriction given that Saturday mornings is standard daytime operating time particularly in circumstances where the noise level during construction does not significantly exceed the operational level for the quarry.
4. The Tribunal was informed that rock breakers with reduced noise emissions are becoming available, but that at this stage the noise reductions were relatively small, of the order of 3 decibels. Rock breaking will take place in the base of the quarry, except in circumstances where rocks are too large to be carted; then limited rock breaking will have to take place at higher levels. The conditions therefore require the operation of rock breaking at higher levels to occur for no more than 15 minutes in any 30 minute period during which time no other machinery or equipment may be operated on the site. We are however of the view that the operators should have regard to advances in technology that would reduce noise impact and should actively seek to incorporate any improvements as they come available.

1. The permit applicant called evidence from Mr Nolan of Hyder Consultants with respect to the groundwater and surfacewater regimes relating to the site and any mitigating works that might be necessary. Mr Nolan was retained by the applicant in response to a permit condition required by Southern Rural Water for a brief hydrogeological assessment prior to the commencement of the works to include:

• identify the aquifer and known acquifer characteristics at the site;
• the nature of the groundwater (ie. confirmed/unconfirmed);
• trend analysis in aquifer behaviour (ie. increasing drawdown/decreasing water quality); and
• beneficial uses of aquifer resource.

• could the proposal cause the pollution of the groundwater resource; and
• could it impact on the natural movement of water at the site.

• identify any surface water features within close proximity and assess whether the proposal will impact on the water quality and quantity, including springs and waterways. If so, to what degree?

1. Southern Rural Water also required by conditions that the proponent:
   • undertake sufficient investigations to ensure all springs and waterways on the site or potentially affected by the site are mapped, any party potentially affected by interception of water caused by the excavations is identified; and
   • determine the extent of the impact based on reasonable assumptions and how it intends to mitigate or compensate for the potential adverse impacts; and
   • describe what contingency plan is in place if an unanticipated water source is intercepted during the development of the quarry, ie. how will they contain the discharge and the disposal of water; and
   • consider the need to obtain a licence if it is identified that the excavation is likely to intercept water.
2. It was the objectors' contention that the conclusions in Mr Nolan's report were based on insufficient information and failed to address the potential environmental impact of the quarry. The objectors' concerns centred on the spring-fed watercourses located in the southwest corner of the Work Authority area, towards the northeast corner of the quarry site and on adjoining properties including a spring to the west on land on the opposite side of Neerim North Road, and the potential for loss of supply to adjoining properties and for contamination of groundwater from activities in the quarry. The objectors called Mr Robin Friday of Golder Associates to provide an expert peer review of the permit application and the Nolan report in support of their contentions.
3. The question that needs to be addressed by the Tribunal is whether the data available results in a degree of uncertainty sufficient to prevent a proper assessment of the impact of the quarry.
4. The information available with respect to the hydrogeology of the site is that the existing settling dam contains water at 421 AHD and that this level does not vary much over time, implying the dam is not reliant on surface water flows. We also know that there is a spring at 430 AHD towards the southwest corner of the site which feeds the 'so called' Kookaburra Creek and a spring towards the northeast corner of the works area at 403 AHD, which feeds a watercourse which flows towards the northeast. The spring towards the northeast corner of the works area is outside of the proposed quarrying activity. The spring to the east of the works area that feeds Kookaburra Creek, however will be lost when the quarry proceeds to Stage 2. A third spring located in the southwest corner of the land outside of the works area feeds a drainage line to the south.
5. Information of groundwater levels was available from exploration bores dating from 2006 which were part of a drilling program that included seven bores sunk to assess the quality and location of the basalt flow. Two of these bores intercepted water, one located to the west of the settling dam where water was intercepted at 396 AHD and one towards the northern boundary of the works area, west of the alignment of Palmer Road, where water was intercepted at 452 AHD.
6. It was Mr Nolan's inference from the information available that the springs were fed by perched aquifers located in the weathered basalt and the existing settling dam fed by groundwater inflow. It was acknowledged by Mr Friday that the existence of perched aquifers was a possibility and it was acknowledged by both experts that the groundwater movement and the surface of water movement would be similar, specifically from the north and west of the site to the south and east.
7. It was clear that the spring that feeds Kookaburra Creek will be lost as a result of the quarrying operation. The question then arises whether this loss can be replenished by the quarry operators with the water of equivalent quality to that provided by the existing spring.
8. The applicant proposes replenishing the loss to the Kookaburra Creek spring from the water collected in the settling dam, either directly or after passing through the dam towards the southeast corner of the site, outside of the works area. The applicant proposes that this second dam should be developed as a wetlands area with the planting of appropriate species to provide for additional water treatment prior to discharge entering a watercourse in the southeast corner of the Work Authority area and ultimately the Latrobe River.
9. It was Mr Porter's contention on behalf of Mrs Giles, that his client had a right to the water from Kookaburra Creek, and that under the provisions of the Water Act 1989 a water licence is necessary to take and use water for any purpose other than for stock or domestic use.
10. We find it essential that the environmental flows to Kookaburra Creek be maintained with water of the same quality as at present emerges from the spring. If the removal of the spring and replenishment of the water flow requires a water licence then it is incumbent on the applicant to obtain one. This however, in our view, is not a planning issue and should not influence our determination. As far as water quality is concerned, the applicant will need to instigate a monitoring program to ensure any water leaving the site meets appropriate standards. We do, however, note that the creek is part of a rural catchment, which includes animal grazing and potato growing, and that contamination from these activities is part of the inflow into the creek.
11. We were informed that the Latrobe Catchment is capped which means that no new licences will be issued. We were provided with a letter from the Minister dated 23 June 2008 to this effect, thus implying that the permit applicant would have to purchase a licence for an existing entitlement to be able to proceed. The applicant was of the view that this is a matter that could be dealt with at some later date. We agree that this indeed is the case and that should a licence be necessary and the applicant be unable to obtain one, then the project will not be in a position to proceed. It was therefore our view that there is no necessity for a licence to be obtained prior to the planning application. We note that this appears to be the view of Southern Rural Water, who in their proposed conditions require the proponent to consider the need to obtain a licence if it is identified that the excavation is likely to intercept water.
12. The potential loss of flow from the two other springs in the immediate vicinity of the site and the potential of the proposal to impact on springs further afield relates to the potential drawdown on groundwater as a consequence of inflow of groundwater into the quarry site.
13. Mr Nolan carried out a calculation of the potential drawdown associated with the existing settling dam and proposed sump. Mr Nolan's calculations used a permeability range of 0.4 metres to 4 metres per day, which was acknowledged by Mr Friday to be appropriate. Mr Nolan calculated, assuming a groundwater catchment area of approximately 40 hectares and a recharge rate of 0.5 megalitres per hectare, that that extent of the drawdown would have an impact on a northeastern spring of .02 to 0.4 of a metre, which would result in a zero to 50% loss in flow. The 50% loss would, in Mr Nolan's view, be equivalent to a 15% loss in water flow at the property boundary as a consequence of additional inputs from surface flow. In any event, it was proposed that that surface water be intercepted at the northern boundary of the subject site and redirected to the watercourse that is fed by the northeastern spring. Mr Nolan recommended the placing of a weir to ascertain the flow rate from this spring prior to stage 2 of the project.
14. It was Mr Nolan's contention with respect to the springs not located on the subject land, including that to the northwest, that there would be no significant loss of flow because the drawdown associated with the inflow of water to the quarry would be limited to the extent of the local groundwater catchment, which in his view had a similar dimension to the surface water catchment.
15. The calculations were questioned by Mr Porter. The Tribunal however is satisfied that the calculations are appropriate and contain a reasonable level of conservatism. It was acknowledged by Mr Friday that the extent of the drawdown is a function of the height of the groundwater table. In his view if the groundwater table were at 420AHD then there would be a significant drawdown extending beyond the boundaries of the site whereas, with a water table at 400AHD, water seeping from the quarry into the groundwater would tend to raise the groundwater levels south of the quarry. Mr Nolan's calculations assumed a groundwater level of 400AHD.
16. We are of the view that despite the criticisms of Mr Friday regarding the paucity of information on which Mr Nolan's conclusions were based, there was nothing in his evidence that would lead to a conclusion that this was an unsuitable site for a quarry, or that issues associated with water management, including the provision of compensatory flows to springs impacted by the quarry operation, could not be dealt with. It was further acknowledged by him that the Southern Rural Water conditions, coupled with the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority conditions, were sufficient to ensure that the quality of water at springs and waterways exiting the site were maintained with an equivalent quality of water as is at present the case, noting that Southern Rural Water's conditions required groundwater monitoring bores to be drilled on site prior to the commencement of the use.
17. It is our view that the criticisms of Mr Friday are in no way fatal to this proposal. It was acknowledged by Mr Nolan that more bore information would have been useful in determining the location of perched aquifers and the water table on site. It is also however true that in any operation of this kind, inference has to be made on the basis of reasonable assumptions. In our view the conclusions of Mr Nolan are reasonable on the basis of the information to hand; there was nothing in the peer review of Mr Friday that would indicate this is not the case.
18. We are of the view that as further information comes to hand, some refinements to the project may be necessary. It must be remembered that this is a long term project and that a number of potential impacts will not occur for many years. For example, the impact on the spring to the northeastern corner of the site, would not occur for at least 20 years.
19. There was some dispute between the parties about the adequacy of the storage facility on-site to handle peak storm events and the sufficiency of water supply in the settling dam to provide the necessary water for the quarry operation.
20. Mr Friday queried some of the parameters used in Mr Nolan's calculations to determine the storage capacity of the settling dam of 16 megalitres and whether this was adequate to handle a storm surge. It was Mr Friday's contention that there could be events that would result in some 29 megalitres of water being needed to be stored in the dam. Mr Nolan considered this to be an unlikely scenario and drew attention to the total capacity of the contained area in stage 1 and the option open to the applicant to enlarge the dam if necessary.
21. Mr Friday estimated the average water consumption for the quarry operation and the water available in the settling dam from rainfall runoff in the catchment. It was his conclusion that there would be a deficit of water supply in a dry year, a slight excess in an average year and a significant excess in a wet year, and concluded that there would be sufficient water from the wet years to handle the deficit in the dry years with proper management. It was the applicant's contention that if there were any shortfall in water for necessary dust suppression on the site, water could be bought in from outside.
22. If there is excess water on the site as a consequence of a storm event, it was Mr Nolan's contention that quarrying could be stopped for a period of time, or the water could be used to irrigate the pasture immediately upstream, thereby ensuring any runoff was recaptured within the pit.
23. The remaining concern was the potential for contamination of the water table. The applicant's plan contains measures to ensure that hydrocarbons and chemicals are contained on the site within a bunded area, and that all refuelling activities take place within that area. Mr Nolan recommended a spill kit be maintained on site at all times. Stormwater from the carpark and quarry area is to be discharged directly into the quarry. It was put to the Tribunal that the only contamination of water held on site would be silt, which would settle out in the settlement dam, to be subsequently pumped to the clean water dam/wetlands area.
24. Conditions require an ongoing monitoring program which is essential to ensure the groundwater quality is maintained. Mr Nolan made a number of recommendations with respect to conditions which include the matters discussed above and have been incorporated in the permit.

1. The applicant called evidence from Mr Adrian John Moore with respect to the air and ground vibration impacts from blasting on the site. Mr Moore provided three reports with respect to the impact of blasting on nearby properties: dated 24 October 2007, 26 November 2007 and 10 November 2008. The second report followed the withdrawal of the DPI's endorsement of the initial application after a permit was issued for the construction of a dwelling to the south of the subject land (the Giles dwelling). The second report also took account of new information received by the applicant regarding the orientation of the existing benches. The existing quarry benches face east and south. Stages 1 and 2 will involve re-establishing and reconfiguring these benches. Stage 1 will involve re-establishing the benches and Stage 2 reconfiguring the benches to face towards the east which has the advantage of directing the main impact to this direction (away from dwellings).
2. The 2008 report was directed at clarifying issues raised in the objectors' submissions.
3. It was Mr Moore's evidence that blasting on the site would meet the Department of Primary Industry's guideline limits for both ground and air vibration. Mr Moore made use of ground and air vibration models to determine the impact of the blasting in the quarry.
4. Mr Moore's calculations demonstrated that the ground and air vibration guidelines of the Department of Primary Industry can be met at each of the six most proximate dwellings to the quarry. The ground vibrations require a peak particle velocity of less than 5mm per second for 95% of blasts within a year and less than 10mm per second for all blasts. The air vibration standard is a peak air vibration of less than 100dBL for 95% of the blasts within one year and less than 120dBL for all blasts. The dBL unit of measurement is a change of fluctuation of air pressure and unlike the measurement for noise, is a linear scale.
5. The maximum impacts for both ground and air vibration occur for the Giles dwelling during Stage 2, when blasting is taking place on the upper levels and for the Carter dwelling during Stage 4, under similar circumstances. Mr Moore's calculations were for the worst case scenario when the blasting was occurring nearest to the dwellings concerned. The peak particle velocity at the Giles and Carter dwellings, during Stages 1 and 3 respectively, were 4mm, the maximum air blast levels being 113 dBL and 111 dBL for the Giles and Carter dwellings at Stages 2 and 4 respectively.
6. Further it has to be noted that: most blasting impacts will be below these limits; that blasting is only envisaged to occur on six to ten occasions per year; and that the impact will last for a matter of seconds. Further, the air blast will not be audible at the most impacted dwellings and will only be observed by the vibration of objects or the rattling of windows. Mr Huybregts acknowledged that the predictions made by Mr Moore were appropriate and the impacts were within the standards and not unreasonable.
7. The other potential amenity impact of blasting is the throw of fly rock from site. The maximum throw of fly rock from a blasting operation is dependent on the angle of the charge hole, which should be 10º, the stemming height, (which is the height above the explosive column which is packed with a rock aggregate) and the density of the explosive recommended at 1.3 grams per cc or less. The number of blast holes drilled at any one time are detonated with a time delay of some milliseconds between each explosion.
8. Mr Moore made use of a model to determine the maximum fly rock throw, based on a front row burden, ie the setback from the rock face, of 3.8 metres. The maximum throw based on his calculations forward of the blast is 27.9 metres and to the rear of the blast, 17.3 metres. Mr Moore included a number of conservative elements including a reduction of the setback from the face from 3.8 to 3.3 metres and a stemming height reduction to 3 metres. This would result in a maximum throw of 40.3 metres forward of the hole, and 20.6 metres to the rear. A further margin of safety was obtained by multiplying each of these figures by four, giving a personal protection zone of 180 metres and 81.4 metres (our calculation). The distance back of the hole is the throw distance applicable to all of the dwellings in proximity to the site.
9. The objectors had concerns with respect to the potential impact of fly rock at the boundaries of their properties, in the case of the Carters, at a distance of 50 metres from the blasting face. The land owned by the Carters is within four times the safety margin provided for by Mr Moore but well outside the maximum throw predicted for a properly executed blasting operation. The Carter dwelling at 300 metres is well outside the safety margin. It was Mr Moore's contention that there was almost no possibility of fly rock entering the Carter property, which in any event is prohibited by the regulations.
10. The objectors drew attention to a number of instances where fly rock had been thrown well in excess of 400 metres from a blast face. Mr Moore's response was that this is a possible but accidental occurrence that with proper management techniques should not occur. The frequency of such occurrences, to his knowledge, were in the order of one every two years. He was further of the view that new techniques and standards introduced in the last ten years helped to ensure the charge is properly placed, thereby reducing the risk of accidents occurring.
11. A condition of permit requires notification to nearby dwellings of the date and time when blasting is to occur and further these times are limited to between 10am and 3pm, Monday to Friday. It was Mr Moore's evidence that the shot firer was entitled to ask people in the open within 200 metres of the blasting face to move prior to the blast, and has the authority to call WorkSafe if they refuse. A similar 200 metre exclusion is applied to road traffic within 200 metres of the blasting face.
12. It is our view that there is a sufficient margin of safety associated with the potential throw of fly rock to ensure no risk to adjoining properties and note that the likelihood of a persons on the Carter property being located close to the property boundary during weekdays between 10.00am and 3.00pm would be low and that the imposition of requesting people to move indoors for a short time for an event that occurs on weekdays during those times at a frequency of once a month is not unreasonable.

1. The applicant called evidence from Dr Terry Bellair with respect to the impact of dust on the amenity of adjoining properties. The relevant standards for dust emission are contained in the State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) and an incorporated document, The Protocol for Environmental Management for Mining and Extractive Industry (the PEM). The PEM states with respect to the requirements for assessment and management of emissions to the air environment from the mining and extractive industries that

An air quality assessment in accordance with this PEM is required for proposals requiring an Environmental Effects Statement or an EPA Works Approval and licence, or as specifically required by DPI.

1. Neither of these triggers apply with respect to the present proposal.
2. The relevant criteria for dust emissions are contained within the SEPP (AQM) as set out in Table 2 of the PEM at the nearest sensitive location, as follows:

Deposited dust is an indicator of effectiveness of site management practices and the potential for off-site nuisance and notes that deposited dust should be monitored at the site boundary for most operations.

1. The PEM sets a standard of 4/g/m²/month, and no more than 2/g/m²/month above background, at the boundary for the site.
2. It was argued by the objectors that the buffer distance guidelines contained within EPA AQ2/87 should apply, rather than dust performance standards at the boundaries of the site. This matter has already been dealt with in this determination and will not be revisited.
3. The other issue of concern to the objectors was the potential for respirable crystalline silica to be a component of the airborne dust from the site. The information before the Tribunal provided in a letter from Mr B Natoli of Bell Cochrane & Associates dated 21 July 2008 was that:

Following the recent enquiry we can confirm that from previous petrographic studies on the basalts from this site that there is no free silica, ie. quartz/crystalline silica present in this material.

There would be no risk of silicosis due to quartz (crystalline silica) from the basalts at this site. The Neerim North basalt contains the mineral olivine which is chemically incompatible with crystalline silica or quartz.

1. No evidence was provided by the objectors that challenges the veracity of this statement and the Tribunal accepts the information as provided.
2. The issue that then remains is whether the operations on the site can meet the required standards at the site boundary. It was Dr Bellair's evidence based on his experience with quarries in other locations that subject to good management, the standards could be met. The management measures put forward by Dr Bellair included having regard to forecast weather conditions, limiting vehicle speeds on site and deferring operations or increasing water application rates if hot, windy conditions were forecast. It was further his view that good management included forming good relationships with neighbours and responding to any complaints.
3. Dr Bellair made a number of recommendations with respect to monitoring dust including visual inspections of dust suppression as a responsibility of all site personnel, the installation of real time aerosol monitoring stations and the provision of dust deposition gauges at appropriate locations. It was his view that dust deposition gauges should not be at the boundary of the site as such locations could result in distortion from outside sources. This is particularly true in this area where crop planting is common and there are a number of unsealed roads located in the vicinity. It was Dr Bellair's evidence that the greatest potential for dust emissions from the site was during the establishment works, in particular the removal of top soil and overburden and the construction of the perimeter bunds. Similar control measures to those already mentioned were suggested to reduce dust emissions during these activities together with the benefit of doing the works in the cooler months and minimising the extent of disturbance at any one time.
4. There is a potential for dust to arise from the storage of overburden on the site and the moving of this overburden around the site as the quarry progresses. The moving of overburden around the site, including using it to progressively rehabilitate the quarry as works progress, is a necessary side aspect of any quarry operation. We accept that the measures available for the control of dust, including not carrying out operations under certain weather conditions, equally apply to this procedure and that subject to conditions, including but not limited to the Dust Management Plan, there should be no negative impact associated with airborne dust or dust deposition on adjoining property.

1. The applicant called evidence from Mr Russell Symons of Ratio Consultants with respect to the traffic impacts of the proposed development. It was Mr Symons conclusion that the quarry could be accessed by the existing entrance off Neerim North Road and the surrounding road network without creating any adverse safety capacity or operational limits. In coming to this conclusion he had regard to the requirement of the responsible authority that the applicant construct Neerim North Road from the end of the existing pavement to a point at least 5 metres past the proposed quarry entrance, to a 6 metre wide sealed road pavement, with .9 metre shoulders, and roadside table drains. The responsible authority's condition required that these works be carried out prior to the commencement of the use. Mr Symons argued that this was an onerous requirement on the applicant, seeing the most practicable way to form a road would be by making use of rock from the quarry, which would require the commencement of the use prior to the construction of the road.
2. We agree with the responsible authority in regard to the road construction, given that the applicant is intending to transport quarry rock to Jindivick in the first stages of the operation. It would seem to us that there is no great imposition in requiring the applicant to transport quarry rock from Jindivick to form the road prior to commencement of operations on this site.
3. Also of relevance to Mr Symons' assessment was the requirement that all cartage trucks travelling to and from the quarry must make use of Neerim North Road to Main Neerim Road directly, the only exception being for a local delivery to a location of greater than 2kms by road off Neerim North Road.
4. Mr Symons made use of traffic data collected in Main Neerim Road, north of Neerim North Road and south of Mt Baw Baw Road in 2005. The average daily traffic flow was some 393 vehicles in a northbound direction and 368 in a southbound direction, with trucks comprising between 10 and 15% of daily flow, and that the average weekday traffic flow was 342 vehicles to the north and 309 to the south with the highest traffic volumes on the weekend. It was suggested by the objectors that the traffic counts were not taken at a sufficiently representative location to enable a proper assessment to be made. We however disagree; it is clear to us that the majority of traffic on Main Neerim Road would be comparable north and south of the junction with Neerim North Road given the low traffic flows on Neerim North Road.
5. The traffic flows on Neerim North Road 600 metres from its intersection with Main Neerim Road measured by the Shire in 2000 over three days were a two-way average of 209 vehicles/day of which 7.3% were commercial, ie approximately one third of the traffic on Main Neerim Road.
6. In any event, it was Mr Symons' evidence that a two-lane, two-way rural road is capable of carrying 13,500 vehicles per day, and a maximum volume at peak time of 2,000 vehicles per hour demonstrates that both roads have excess capacity.
7. The quarry intends to make use of truck and dog trailers with average pay loads of some 28 to 30 tonnes. The quarry, at peak production, will produce some 200,000 tonnes of rock per year and for a 275 day operating year, the number of trips would amount to 26 per day, with 26 empty returns. It was contended that this level of truck traffic would be similar to that previously generated by the CSR Ready Mix quarry operation on the site. This represents roughly double the number of truck movements on Main Neerim Road, and an increase of approximately four times the truck traffic on Neerim North Road.
8. Mr Symons found no evidence of any safety problems on either of the roads that will be used by the trucks from the quarry operation and specifically no safety problems at the time when the previous quarry was operating. It was his evidence that there were good site distances available along Neerim North Road and at the intersection between Neerim North Road and Main Neerim Road. He recommended that the applicant undertake a traffic management system to control traffic behaviour to include the following measures:
   • routine patrol of the haulage routes by the Quarry Management and others;
   • common self-policing by drivers, which is encouraged by Transport Workers Union to eliminate inappropriate behaviour. Drivers also alert the Quarry Manager when inappropriate behaviour by others is observed;
   • discipline of drivers that do not conform to appropriate traffic behaviour; and
   • installation of speed cameras along the haulage routes if required.
9. There was a significant amount of cross-examination at the hearing with respect to the speed camera proposal. It is our view that this is not a particularly practical suggestion and certainly not one that we would be prepared to make a condition on a permit.
10. Mr Symons submitted there was no logical reason why the quarry operator should be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of Neerim North Road and that if any contribution were to be made it should be done on a fair and equitable basis using a levy from all landowners that utilise the road for access. We are of the view that as the main user of this road will be the quarry, it is not unreasonable that the quarry owner should be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the road.
11. We conclude that the road system with the proposed conditions is more than adequate for the increased amount of traffic proposed. We are also of the view, having driven on the roads and visited the sites, that there are no major safety issues associated with the use of these roads. We do not think the additional truck traffic will negatively impact on the tourist trade in the townships of Neerim South and Neerim Junction particularly when one has regard to the days and hours of operation of the quarry.

1. The applicant called evidence from Mr Kraan to deal with town planning issues, and among these issues was the visual impact of the proposal as seen from surrounding properties and public areas. It was Mr Kraan's contention that the location of the extraction area, together with the proposed earth bunds and landscape screening, was sufficient to mitigate external views into the site. He provided the Tribunal with a number of sight lines to illustrate his point. Generally speaking the sight lines show that there will be limited views of the quarry from the most proximate residential locations.
2. The property directly to the south of the quarry operation will have no view into the quarry itself as a consequence of the proposed bund to be constructed along the southern boundary of the works area. This dwelling has its orientation and its most expansive views to the south. The responsible authority suggested a condition on permit requiring landscaping along the southern boundary of the subject land adjoining the Giles property. Such landscaping has the potential to have a negative impact on the amenity of the Giles, given that it would be located to the immediate north of their residence. Mrs Giles expressed a wish to have the landscaping relocated closer to the works approval site, which we find reasonable and have included in the conditions.
3. The two dwellings located to the southwest of the quarry site will have their views of the quarry operation screened by the intervening topography, and that located to the southeast will have very limited views as a consequence of the bunding and the topography.
4. The view from the Carter property to the north will also be limited by the separation distance and the cutting of the quarry into the site. Further protection would be provided by the provision of a 2.5 to 3 metre high bund along a section of this northern boundary, suggested by the applicant's noise consultant. Further visual protection can be provided by way of landscaping. We also note that the Carter dwelling is orientated to the east where stunning views are available of the mountains and the Latrobe Valley.

1. Ms Valentine drew the Tribunal's attention to clause 17.05 of the SEPP which is directed at protecting the State's agricultural base. The clause includes at 17.05-2 with respect to the subdivision and development of rural land:

The impacts of the proposed subdivision or development on the continuation of primary production on adjacent land, with particular regard to land values and the viability of infrastructure for such production.

1. She provided us with a number of VCAT cases where the impact of subdivision on the value of farming land had been a factor in the Tribunal's decision. We don't find land values are relevant in the present application. The subject land's value is a consequence of the resource it contains and the accessibility of that resource.
2. It was put to the Tribunal by Mr Porter that the responsible authority and the referral authorities had been too willing to accept the assertions of the applicant with respect to the appropriateness of the development on the land and the potential impacts that it might have on adjoining properties and the environment. The Tribunal in assessing this matter has concluded that sufficient information was provided and that, with improved and tighter conditions, the application is satisfactory and should receive a permit.
3. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal is of the view that the assessment of impact should be based on performance measures and not on a blanket separation buffer or distance. The Tribunal is satisfied that the required performance measures can be met at the boundaries of the site, and that any shortfall in the information available to the Tribunal should not be fatal to the proposal.
4. It was put to us that we should have regard to the precautionary principle as contained in the State Environment Protection Policy, which states as follows:
   1. If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
   2. Decision making should be guided by:
      1. a careful evaluation to avoid serious or irreversible damage to the environment wherever practicable; and
      2. an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.
5. It has not been demonstrated to us in the present circumstances that there are any threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage associated with this development. It is our view that there is nothing unusual about this quarry operation that cannot be addressed by appropriate conditions and management practices.

1. Subject to more stringent permit conditions to ensure the amenity of neighbours and the environment is protected, we direct a permit to issue for a hard rock (basalt) quarry on this site.

[1] eg inability to achieve EPA's N3/89 Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria