2. The kennel building, pup pen and exercise runs must be sited and constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

3. Landscaping must be undertaken in accordance with the approved site plan and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. Except with the prior written approval of the Responsible Authority for the use of used materials, the building must only be constructed of new materials.

5. A maximum of 10 dogs may be kept on the subject land at any one time.

6. All wastes generated by the use must be disposed of into a septic tank system or approved alternative form of waste water treatment and disposal to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. Stormwater runoff and overland flow must be diverted away from the septic tank effluent disposal area.

8. The use of the site must not cause detriment to the amenity of the area by reason of the emission of noise, dust, smell, smoke, fumes, vapour or the presence of vermin or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. Dogs must be securely contained within the subject land at all times.

Mr Jason Taylor, Town Planner, appeared for the Responsible Authority.

Mr Michael Kaufmann of Kaufman Development Group Pty Ltd appeared for the Applicant.

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to review a decision to refuse a permit.

Lot 4 PS 214238N

Buninyong Planning Scheme, Chapter 1, Agricultural B/Rural Zone - Proposed Zone Rural Living (RLZ)

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of the Rural Living zone of the draft Moorabool Planning Scheme.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the Dog Breeding/Keeping Policy contained within the draft Moorabool Planning Scheme.

3. The proposed use and development is not compatible with existing uses in the area.

4. The proposal would result in detriment to the amenity of the area.

2. The issue of the permit will not have an adverse impact on the area.

1. This is an application to review a decision of the Shire of Moorabool to refuse to grant a permit for a Greyhound Breeding and Training establishment at Lot 4 Clarendon Road, Lal Lal.

2. Mr Kaufmann made application under Schedule 64 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 requesting amendment of the permit application by:

1. The substitution of revised plans for those which had originally accompanied the application;

2. To change the purpose of the application from Greyhound Breeding and Training Establishment to Greyhound Keeping Establishment;

3. To reduce the number of dogs from 20 to 10 which included 5 race dogs and 5 pups, and

3. Revised plans show the proposed kennels, pen and exercise runs relocated from close to the south east boundaries of the site closer to the northern boundary. There were no objections to these proposed amendments. The amendments were accordingly made.

4. The following is a description of the site and surrounds taken from Mr Taylor's submission:

"The subject site is described as being Lot 4 (PS 244238N), Clarendon - Lal Lal Road, Clarendon. The site is located approximately 2 kilometres south west of the centre of the Lal Lal Township. The site contains a small single storey house and a small shed.

The property is located on the south side of the Clarendon - Lal Lal Road and is surrounded by rural residential land. The subject site has a total area of 2.015 hectares.

Within a kilometre radius of the subject lot there are approximately 100 lots and a number of these lots are less than 1 hectare in area. The average size of surrounding lots is approximately 2 hectares. Many of the lots are already developed and contain dwellings."

5. The proposal now is to develop and use the land for the purpose of a dog keeping establishment which will house 10 dogs including 5 race dogs and 5 pups. New kennels, a pup pen and exercise runs will be constructed. The kennels will be partly constructed underground with a reinforced concrete slab floor, solid 190mm thick external walls, two layers of 6mm cement sheet to the roofs and mesh wired doors to each kennel. Dog runs will be fenced on the north eastern side of the property and landscaped.

6. The site is zoned part Rural and part Agricultural B under Chapter 1 of the Buninyong Planning Scheme. The proposed use is an innominate one requiring a permit. The objectives of the two zones encourage, promote and safeguard matters such as landscape qualities, conservation of soil, water and vegetation, the quality of water and limiting soil salinity.

7. Under the provisions of the draft Moorabool Planning Scheme the site is zoned Rural Living. This zone has various purposes including provision for residential use in a rural environment, encouraging an integrated approach to land management, protection and creation of effective rural infrastructure, improvement of agricultural techniques, protection by diversity, value adding to agricultural products, promotion of economic development and development and use of sustainable rural living enterprises.

8. The adopted Moorabool Planning Scheme has a number of policies including a dog breeding and keeping policy. This policy discourages establishment of dog breeding and keeping in residential and township areas.

9. The application was advertised to adjoining owners and occupiers and referred to the Central Highlands Regional Water Authority. Five objections were received and the Authority had no objections to the proposal. There were a number of grounds of objection, the most significant being anticipated noise, effluent disposal and smell, disturbance to sleep, existing establishments had a problem in the area and impact on native wildlife.

10. The application was refused by the Responsible Authority on the grounds as listed. The Responsible Authority placed considerable emphasis on the purposes of the Rural Living zone and determined that such a use would not be appropriate in that zone although it is an innominate use requiring a permit, meaning that it is not prohibited. It was also concerned that the proposal did not meet the objectives of the Agricultural B and Rural zones. The surrounding area is generally Rural Residential with the Responsible Authority placing emphasis on the word `Residential'.

11. The Council also considered the application in relation to the keeping and breeding policy which discourages such a use in residential areas.

12. I was advised by Mr Taylor that the planning scheme now allows less than two greyhounds to be kept without a permit however the definition of `Greyhound Keeping Establishment' clearly indicates that two greyhounds may be kept without a permit.

13. It was interesting to note that the Adelfotis Thissoa Inc organisation which is, I am told, a Greek Club, own land immediately to the south east of the proposed site on which its members recreate from time to time. The land is improved by a shed and toilet block. The Responsible Authority in granting a permit for the toilet block fell short of describing the place as a "place of assembly". This organisation wrote a late letter on 5th August to Mr Kaufmann, having received his amended plans, indicating it did not agree to the proposal because of the number of kennels. Mr Medovarski had previously informed me that in years past there had been some noise disturbance from activities on the Club's site which the Council had stopped.

14. Dr Hugh Wirth, leading veterinary surgeon and head of the R.S.P.C.A, has on a number of occasions commented on the keeping and breeding of greyhounds and their behaviour. His comments have been contrary to general perceptions. In his opinion greyhounds are generally docile animals and in fact make excellent pets for children. My own experience has been that these animals, which are deemed to be very valuable by their owners/trainers, are well trained, fed and disciplined. Greyhound Racing Victoria has stringent Codes of Practice for the keeping of greyhounds to ensure that the dogs are kept in clean, stable conditions. These include the construction of kennels, runs etc. In my opinion the proposed kennels certainly meet the stringent requirements of the Codes.

15. I do not accept that there will be a noise problem for the neighbours during the night when it would be expected that the noise of the dogs would cause problems for people in nearby houses. Further, the nearest dwelling is in excess of 200 metres from the proposed kennels.

16. The Tribunal in Appeal No 1993/21659, as submitted by Mr Kaufmann, came to a similar conclusion in relation to hunting dogs.

17. The former Shire of Buninyong issued a number of permits for Greyhound Keeping on sites between 2 and 4 ha in the Lal Lal area. These permits have allowed between 6 and 10 greyhounds. There did not appear to have been any major problems caused by any of these. It seems to me that the relocation of the kennels and exercise runs will effectively remove them further from the principal objector's premises. It also appears that the kennels will be managed by people with a great deal of experience. There will be no breeding and consequently no mating on the premises. The kennels seem to be well placed in relation to other properties with stands of trees on the roadside and towards the Medovarski property and distinct changes in level between this and the next house to the east of the site.

18. The effluent disposal from the kennels will be satisfactorily managed by the construction of a new septic tank and will be subject to the controls of the Council's Environmental Health Officers.

19. Because of the importance of keeping the dogs healthy for racing purposes it is standard practice for there to be regular visits by veterinary surgeons to ensure that they do not harbour any vermin or carry any diseases.

20. To support the proposed management regime the Applicants have decided to place the kennels partly underground and use existing and proposed vegetation and the topography to limit any potential effect on the amenity of people in other properties.

21. Mr Kaufmann rightly pointed out that there would be next to no disturbance from any additional traffic by reason of the Greyhound Establishment.

22. Unfortunately, I think the Responsible Authority in considering this application in relation to its seriously entertained planning proposals under the proposed new Planning Scheme has not taken account of the existing establishments in the area. Most of these are on similar sized allotments with neighbours in similar positions. The Rural Living zone has a minimum lot size of 8 ha. Most of the lots in this subdivision are 2 ha. It is not uncommon to have small greyhound keeping establishments on 2 ha lots. The number of dogs to be kept here is quite small and not out of character in the area.

23. It does not appear as if there will be destruction of native vegetation, nor destruction of wildlife caused by this application.

24. Under the circumstances I am disposed to overturn the Responsible Authority's decision to grant a permit as now directed.

Note: A material mistake has been made in the issue of the Decision dated 6 September 1999. Conditions which should have applied to the permit were not included in that document. The conditions have now been added to the decision.