1. Senior Member Rickards is nominated pursuant to Clause 66(1)(b) of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, as the member who is a legal practitioner to determine the questions of law or of mixed fact pr law set out below.

1. The questions of law to be determined are:
   • Is the proposed broiler farm a Class B broiler farm for the purposes of the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009?
   • If the answer to question 1 is Yes, is an odour environmental risk assessment required to be completed by the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009?
   • If the answer to question 1 is No, is the permit applicant entitled to rely on the provisions of the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 as setting the required separation distance?
   • In the case of a broiler farm with a capacity of less than or equal to 400,000 birds and which meets the required minimum separation distance (i.e. a Class B farm) does the Tribunal have the power to refuse to grant a planning permit to use land for the purpose of a broiler farm on the basis that, under part 6 of the Code the Tribunal is not satisfied that the risk of adverse odour impacts beyond the broiler farm boundary is acceptable?
   • Is the odour environmental risk assessment relevant to any other matter required to be considered under the planning provisions and policies of the Central Goldfields Planning Scheme?

1. An application for review is currently before the Tribunal in relation to the Central Goldfields Shire Council's decision to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit allowing for the development and use of the land at 141 Clarkes Road, Strathlea for the purpose of a 380,000 bird broiler farm (P481/2014).
2. The permit applicant, Grandview Poultry Pty Ltd has requested the Tribunal answer a set of preliminary questions of law. These questions relate to whether the Tribunal hearing the merits review application should hear expert evidence in relation to odour. Two odour expert witness reports from the applicant for review and the permit applicant have been filed with the Tribunal.

Question 1. Is the proposed broiler farm a Class B broiler Farm for the purposes of the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009?

1. The permit applicant contends the proposed broiler farm falls within the description of a Class B broiler farm contained in the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 (the Code).
2. Broiler farms are classified under the Code as Class A, Class B, Special Class or Farm Cluster. Section 5 of the Code contains the relevant definition.

A broiler farm is classified as Class B if all of the following apply:

• the farm capacity is less than or equal to 400,000 birds
• the development can meet the minimum separation distance requirement (as defined by Formula 1) but this distance is not fully contained within the broiler farm boundary.[1]

1. The proposed farm capacity is 380,000 birds. This meets the first dot point of the Class B classification.
2. The separation distance is calculated in accordance with Formula 1 contained in the Code. Formula 1 provides:

The separation distance for a Class A or Class B broiler farm must be at least 250m or as otherwise calculated in accordance with the following formula (which ever is larger):

The formula is applicable to farms up to or equal to 400,000 birds.[2]

1. Applying the formula the separation distance for the proposed farm was agreed to be 668 metres.
2. As the separation distance is not fully contained within the subject land it is said to fall within the classification of a Class B farm.
3. The permit applicant contends that as the definition requirements for a Class B farm are met then the farm should be classified as a Class B farm for the purposes of the Code.
4. The applicants for review contend it is not possible to classify this new farm for the purposes of the Code because to the north of the subject land are two existing broiler farms, one containing 384,000 birds (Farm 1) and the other containing 500,000 birds (Farm 2). These two farms are in close proximity to one another to the extent that they fall within the definition in the Code of a Farm Cluster.

A broiler farm is classified as a Farm Cluster (or part of a farm cluster) if all of the following apply:

• the minimum separation distance requirement (as defined by Formula 1) overlaps with the minimum separation distance requirement of any existing broiler farm, a broiler farm approved by a planning permit or a proposed broiler farm that is the subject of a permit application that has been lodged with the responsible authority
• the combined farm capacity of the broiler farms with overlapping minimum separation distances (as defined by Formula 1) is greater than 400,000 birds.[3]

1. The applicants for review contend that as these two farms to the north meet the definition of a Farm Cluster there is no separation distance and therefore it is impossible to determine whether there is any overlap of the separation distances between the existing broiler farms and the proposed farm.
2. The permit applicant provided a survey plan[4] showing the location of the two existing farms and the separation distances for each based on Formula 1 in the Code. Farm 1 with 384,000 birds is shown with a separation distance of 671.3 metres. Farm 2 with 500,000 birds is shown with a separation distance of 775 metres. The plan shows the proposed farm and its relevant separation distance of 668 metres. The plan indicates that the distance between the external edge of the existing Farm 2 shed and the external edge of the proposed shed is 1476 metres.
3. The separation distance for the proposed farm and the separation distance for Farm 2 do not overlap. The permit applicant indicated there is a gap of approximately 34 metres between the two separation distances.
4. The Code provides for the situation where a farm is located in close proximity to a nearby farm and classifies such farms as a Farm Cluster if their separation distances overlap and their combined capacity is greater than 400,000 birds.
5. In order to determine whether there is a Farm Cluster it is necessary to consider the separation distances of an existing farm, an approved broiler farm under a permit or a proposed broiler farm the subject of a permit application. At all times the separation distance for each individual type is required. It cannot therefore be said, as submitted by the applicants for review that there is no separation distance for the two existing farms as their individual separation distances are relevant to determine their classification and it is also relevant to assist in the classification of the proposed farm.
6. To determine if there is a Farm Cluster the separation distance of each farm is considered based on Formula 1. If as in the case of Farms 1 and 2 they fall within the classification of a Farm Cluster this does not prevent each of those farms within the Farm Cluster having their own individual separation distance. If the separation distance of the proposed farm resulted in an overlap with the separation distance of, in this case Farm 2, then the proposed farm would be classified as a Farm Cluster along with Farms 1 and 2. In this instance however, although the separation distances are in close proximity there is no overlap. The proposed farm is therefore not part of a Farm Cluster.
7. The proposed farm meets the requirements under the Code as set out for a Class B broiler farm. The proposed broiler farm is classified under the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 as a Class B broiler farm.

Question 2. If the answer to question 1 is Yes, is an odour environmental risk assessment required to be completed by the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009?

1. Section 6 of the Code refers to an Odour Environmental Risk Assessment (Odour ERA) and indicates such an assessment 'must be completed for all Special Class and Farm Cluster broiler farm planning permit applications, following the requirements set out in this section'[5]. There is no such specific requirement for a Class A or Class B farm. The permit applicant submits that provided the separation distance is met then the proposed farm is deemed to comply with the requirements for environmental standards.
2. The permit applicant referred to two documents in support of this contention. Table 1 to Practice Note 63, Applying for a Planning Permit to Farm Chickens[6] indicates there is no requirement for an Odour ERA when applying for a new Class A or Class B broiler farm. The second document referred to was published by the Department of Primary Industries and located on their website on 3 October 2009 'shortly after the incorporation of the Code into the Victorian Planning Provisions and all planning schemes in Victoria on 21 September 2009'. In answer to the question 'What are the key benefits of the new Code?' it is stated:

The 2009 Code provides a number of significant benefits to industry, community and local government stakeholders, including:

• clear, 'deemed to comply' requirements which will provide high environmental standards of performance, and a straight forward process for the assessment of a broiler farm planning permit application;

1. The permit applicant also submitted the Environment Protection Authority November 2012 discussion paper [7], as well as a discussion draft circulated in November 2013[8], state an application for a Special Class farm or Farm cluster require an Odour ERA.
2. Whilst the requirement for an Odour ERA is clearly required for an application for a Special Class farm and a Farm Cluster the Code is otherwise silent as to whether there is a requirement for an Odour ERA for an application for a Class A or Class B farm. The documents referred to by the permit applicant merely confirm what the Code specifies, nothing more or less.
3. The reference to "clear, 'deemed to comply' requirements" on the Department of Primary Industries web site in 2009 does not in my view give support to the permit applicant's contention that provided the required separation distance is complied with then the proposed Class B farm is deemed to comply with environmental standards. This is not stated within the Code and the mere fact that no Odour ERA is specifically required for such an application does not in my view lead to the conclusion it 'is deemed to comply'.
4. There is no specific requirement under the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 for an Odour ERA to be completed for a Class B farm.

Question 3. If the answer to question 2 is No, is the permit applicant entitled to rely on the provisions of the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 as setting the required separation distance?

1. The permit applicant contends that they are entitled to rely upon the provisions in the Code that set the separation distance between a broiler farm and a sensitive use to minimise the risk of odour. The Code provides that:

Separation distances provide sufficient space to minimise the risk of offensive odour and dust emissions under both routine and abnormal (or upset) conditions adversely impacting the amenity of existing sensitive uses.[9]

1. Odour is clearly recognised as an issue in the development of broiler farms and to minimise the risk of offensive odour the Code provides a formula for the calculation of what is considered to be the required minimum separation distances for classes of broiler farms.
2. The Code states:

The potential for broiler farm emissions to adversely impact on sensitive uses largely depends on:

• the distance to nearby sensitive uses that the proposed development may affect
• the number of birds kept on the farm
• the design, management and operation of the farm
• local environmental conditions (including meteorology and topography).

The risk associated with a proposed development varies depending on the separation of emission sources from sensitive uses. This Code includes a formula that must be used to calculate the required separation distance between broiler sheds and sensitive uses beyond the broiler farm boundary. [10]

1. The Tribunal in a number of determinations[11] has expressed the view that it is not a matter for the Tribunal to question the adequacy or not of the Code[12], rather the Tribunal is directed to consider whether there is compliance with the Code and if so then that is an end to the matter. These determinations have followed the Supreme Court decision in Thirteenth Beach Coast Watch Inc [13] where the Court said:

Objectively ascertainable standards of environment protection are thereby set. In my view, Parliament did not intend that those standards could be replaced or raised or otherwise modified by the environmental standards of any person or entity who or which might choose to become an applicant for review.[14]

1. The calculation of a separation distance assists in the classification of a broiler farm under the Code and provides for a minimum separation distance to 'minimise risk of offensive odour and dust emissions'. The Code indicates reliance cannot be placed solely on separation distances to avoid off-site impacts: 'broiler farms must also employ best practice to manage and control emissions'. Six best practice elements are identified in the Code. The Code provides that 'all planning permit applications must be assessed (regardless of the farm classification) for a new or expanded broiler farm and must be assessed against each element'. Under element E1 (E1): Location, siting and size 'the following requirements apply in addition to the separation distance requirements used to determine farm classification.'[15]
2. The permit applicant is entitled to apply the separation distance as calculated under Formula 1 in the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009. But applying the calculated separation distance does not indicate there is compliance with the six best practice elements referred to in section 7 of the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009. This will be addressed further in relation to question 5.

Question 4. In the case of a broiler farm with a capacity of less than or equal to 400,000 birds and which meets the required minimum separation distance (i.e. a Class B farm) does the Tribunal have the power to refuse to grant a planning permit to use land for the purpose of a broiler farm on the basis that, under part 6 of the Code the Tribunal is not satisfied that the risk of adverse odour impacts beyond the broiler farm boundary is acceptable?

1. Clause 52.31 requires an application for permit to comply with the Code.

A permit application to use or develop land to establish a new broiler farm, or to increase the farm capacity of an existing broiler farm, must comply with the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009.[16]

Protect local amenity from adverse impacts, including offensive odours, dust, noise and visual impacts.

Permit an economically viable, competitive and sustainable broiler farm industry.[17]

The Code is a document that is incorporated into the Planning Scheme, i.e. it is part of the scheme. By way of clause 53.21 it must be complied with. Similar to the reasons of the Tribunal in Barac[18], we must take the adoption and incorporation of the Code into the planning scheme to be a State Government policy decision with the consequence that compliance with the Code achieves the purposes of planning in Victoria including amongst other outcomes, the fair and equitable development of land while balancing 'the present and future interests of all Victorians'.[19]

1. If the proposed Class B farm meets the required separation distance under the Code it is considered the meeting of the separation distance is taken to 'minimise the risk of offensive odour and dust emissions under both routine and abnormal (or upset) conditions adversely impacting the amenity of existing sensitive uses'.
2. As stated in 134th Larena Pty Ltd v Greater Shepparton CC[20]

The objectors and Council say that 134th Larena should conduct an Odour ERA to properly assess and address odour risks. However if this proposal applies all relevant measures to meet the various amenity standards and all amenity standards are met , then it follows that the relevant amenity objective will be met and no Odour ERA is required.

That single farms which meet their separation distances do not require an Odour ERA is clearly a policy decision taken at State Government level balancing the needs of the community for meat chickens and the operational requirements of the broiler industry against the legitimate expectations of residents surrounding broiler farms.[21]

1. An Odour ERA is only required for particular classified farms (Special Class and Farm cluster) and such an assessment is pursuant to section 6 of the Code for the purpose of determining whether the risk of adverse odour impacts beyond the farm boundary is or is not acceptable. The Code does not specifically require an Odour ERA for a Class B farm therefore in an application before the Tribunal for a Class B farm, there is no specific requirement for an Odour ERA under section 6 of the Code. With no specific Odour ERA it is difficult to see how the Tribunal could refuse a permit on the basis that it is not satisfied under section 6 of the Code.
2. If no specific Odour ERA under section 6 of the Code is required for a Class B farm then the Tribunal is not able to refuse a permit application on the basis that it is not satisfied under section 6 of the Code.

Question 5. Is the odour environmental risk assessment relevant to any other matter required to be considered under the planning provisions and policies of the Central Goldfields Planning Scheme?

1. Under the Central Goldfields Planning Scheme the subject land is located within the Farming Zone. Under Clause 35.07-1 a permit is required in the Farming zone for the use of land for a broiler farm. Such use must comply with the requirements of Clause 52.31. Clause 52.31 requires a broiler farm to comply with the Code.
2. Clause 35.07-6 provides that before deciding on an application to use land in the Farming zone, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

 The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

 Any Regional Catchment Strategy and associated plan applying to the land.

 The capability of the land to accommodate the proposed use or development, including the disposal of effluent.

 How the use or development relates to sustainable land management.

 Whether the site is suitable for the use or development and whether the proposal is compatible with adjoining and nearby land uses.

 How the use and development makes use of existing infrastructure and services.

Agricultural issues and the impacts from non-agricultural uses

 Whether the use or development will support and enhance agricultural production.

 Whether the use or development will adversely affect soil quality or permanently remove land from agricultural production.

 The potential for the use or development to limit the operation and expansion of adjoining and nearby agricultural uses.

 The capacity of the site to sustain the agricultural use.

 The agricultural qualities of the land, such as soil quality, access to water and access to rural infrastructure.

 Any integrated land management plan prepared for the site.[22]

1. Clause 65 provides that amongst other things a Responsible Authority must consider, as appropriate:

�� The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

�� The purpose of the zone, overlay or other provision.

�� Any matter required to be considered in the zone, overlay or other provision.

�� The effect on the amenity of the area.[23]

1. Clause 14.01-2 indicates there is clear State Planning Policy support for the establishment and expansion of broiler farms. This policy requires specific reference to the Code.

Facilitate the establishment and expansion of cattle feedlots, piggeries, poultry farms and other intensive animal industries in a manner consistent with orderly and proper planning and protection of the environment.[24]

1. The applicants for review contend the Responsible Authority and on review the Tribunal under Clause 65.01of the planning scheme are required to consider as appropriate 'the effect on the amenity of the area'. The provisions of the planning scheme direct a Responsible Authority and in turn the Tribunal to consider in an application for a broiler farm the decision guidelines in Clauses 35.07-6 and 65.01, as well as the provisions of the Code.
2. Section 7 of the Code identifies 'six best practice elements of broiler farm siting, design and operation that make up the key components of this Code' and the Code indicates that 'all planning permit applications (regardless of the farm classification) for a new or expanded broiler farm must be assessed against each element'. Each element consists of an objective, standard and approved measures and 'where the development proposal adopts all the approved measures for a standard, the application is deemed to comply with the standard'[25].
3. The Code defines objectives, standards and approved measures as follows:

Objectives: An objective describes the desired outcome to be achieved from the completed development and operation of the broiler farm. All permit applications must satisfy the objectives for each element.

Standards: a standard contains the requirements to meet the objective. In most cases, a standard expressed as a design or operational requirement. All permit applications must comply with all relevant standards.

Approved measures: An approved measure is an approach, action, practice or method that permit applicants should incorporate into their development proposal to comply with the standard. Where the development proposal adopts all the approved measures for a standard, the application is deemed to comply with the standard.[26] [Tribunal underlining]

1. The Code states that the 'elements should be considered as a whole as many of the approved measures are inter-related' and that 'a responsible authority may require more detailed information to demonstrate compliance with particular elements, depending on the circumstances and risks of the proposed development and the development site'.[27]
2. Objective E1seeks 'to ensure the location and size of the broiler farm, and the siting of the broiler sheds, temporary litter stockpiles, compost piles and litter spreading areas' amongst other things:
   • minimise the risk of adverse amenity impacts on nearby existing, planned and potential future sensitive use as a result of odour, dust and noise.[28]
3. Standard E1 S1 Amenity Protection provides:

Adverse impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area are minimised by ensuring broiler sheds, temporary litter stockpiles, compost piles and litter spreading areas are adequately separated from existing and planned residential and rural living areas. Sensitive uses and broiler farm property boundaries.[29]

1. To comply with this standard, the Code advises applicants they should incorporate the following approved measures into their development proposal including 'Approved measure E1 M1.3'which provides:

Prevailing meteorological conditions and topographical features are taken into account in determining the adequacy of separation distances to nearby sensitive uses. The minimum separation distances (as prescribed by Formula 1 of the Code) may need to be greater for some limited site specific circumstances. For example, the separation distance to a sensitive use located downslope in a drainage valley may need to be increased to minimise the risk of odour impacts[30].

1. The Code clearly provides that objective E1 must be satisfied, and in order to satisfy objective E1, standard E1 S1 must be complied with and to comply with this standard approved measures including Approved measure E1 M1.3 should be incorporated into the development. The Code also indicates that alternative measures could be carried out in order to meet the objectives and standards. However to do this an applicant must demonstrate that by following an alternative measure the objectives and standards can still be met.
2. Even if the separation distance under Formula 1 in the Code is complied with for a proposed Class B farm it will still be necessary for an applicant to demonstrate that 'approved measure E1 M1.3' either should be incorporated into the development or an alternative measure is provided in order to consider whether the separation distance needs to be greater when 'prevailing meteorological conditions and topographical features are taken into account'. The Code states that the requirements under Element 1 (E1) 'apply in addition to the separation distance requirements used to determine farm classification (found in the 'Classification of broiler farms' section of this Code)'.[31]
3. In order to therefore determine whether there are any prevailing meteorological conditions or topographical features that may require a greater separation distance the Tribunal, standing in the shoes of the Responsible Authority, may require such detailed information from the permit applicant, as was the case in 134th Larena Pty Ltd[32] where the Tribunal accepted an assessment by the permit applicant of 'prevailing meteorological conditions and topographic features' which resulted in modified separation distances which were found:

...to achieve the same level of amenity protection as applying the separation distances calculated under Formula 1 of the Code for all but one dwelling. This dwelling was Mrs Black's which lies to the east of the broiler farm. As a result of this assessment, the proposed broiler farm sheds pad was moved 150m west, to provide the necessary separation distance. [33]

1. Whilst in 134th Larena Pty Ltd the Tribunal did not consider it necessary to also obtain an assessment of odour, it is open for the Tribunal to seek 'more detailed information' in the form of an odour assessment to determine whether the separation distance to nearby sensitive uses is adequate or whether it needs to be greater in 'limited site specific circumstances'.
2. Requiring an odour assessment in such circumstances, is not required to comply with an Odour ERA under section 6 of the Code, however formulating an assessment in similar terms to what is specified under section 6 may provide an appropriate methodology of odour assessment.
3. The Code does not take into account other nearby uses that may also generate odour. That is, unless there is another broiler farm nearby and the separation distance of the proposed broiler farm overlaps the separation distance of the nearby broiler farm. As stated above this would result in a classification of a Farm cluster and a requirement for an Odour ERA under section 6 of the Code.
4. The applicants for review contend the odour of the existing Farm cluster to the north of the proposed broiler farm should also be taken into account when assessing the impact of odour from the proposed farm. They submit 'there is no reason in policy or principle why such an outcome should not also apply when it is proposed to add a new Class B farm into a landscape that already experiences adverse odour impacts from an existing use'. In support of this contention the applicants for review referred to Barac v Strathbogie SC [34]. In Barac there was a Farm cluster, therefore an Odour ERA was required under section 6 of the Code. Under the requirements of the Odour ERA cumulative odour emissions must be assessed from all broiler farms within the cluster. The proposed Class B farm is not part of a Farm cluster, therefore there is no requirement that the odour emissions from the existing Farm cluster to the north should be assessed in conjunction with odour emissions from the Class B farm. If there is an existing problem with odour emissions from the Farm cluster then there are appropriate means of addressing that situation, but they are not through a cumulative odour assessment in conjunction with the proposed Class B farm. The Code provides that:

Broiler farms cannot rely solely on boundary setback and separation distances to avoid off-site impacts and associated complaints. Broiler farms must also employ best practice to manage and control emissions and wastes. The separation distance requirements in this Code were established assuming that the design and ongoing management of broiler farms employ best practice.[35]

1. Whilst the applicants for review referred to the general amenity considerations under the decision guidelines in Clause 65 this must be assessed in terms of the specific requirements of the Code[36] under which a proposed broiler farm must comply. If a proposed broiler farm is determined to comply with all provisions of the Code then it is accepted that the risk of adverse amenity impacts on sensitive uses as a result of odour, dust and noise is minimised.
2. The Code is specifically required to be complied with under the Central Goldfields Planning Scheme. In order to determine whether the Code has been complied with, an odour assessment may be relevant in determining whether Approved measure E1 M1.3 has been addressed in the proposed development. It is open therefore for the Tribunal to seek evidence in the form of an odour assessment in order to be satisfied the Code has been complied with or there is a need, depending on the circumstances and risks of the proposed development and the development site, that a greater separation distance than the minimum separation distance may be required.

1. I determine that the questions of law set out above should be determined as follows:
   • The proposed broiler farm is classified under the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 as a Class B broiler farm.
   • There is no specific requirement under the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 for an Odour ERA to be completed for a Class B broiler farm.
   • The permit applicant is entitled to apply the separation distance as calculated under Formula 1 in the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009. But applying the calculated separation distance does not indicate there is compliance with the six best practice elements referred to in section 7 of the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009.
   • If no specific Odour ERA under section 6 of the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 is required for a Class B farm then the Tribunal is not able to refuse a permit application on the basis that it is not satisfied under section 6 of the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009.
   • The Code is specifically required to be complied with under the Central Goldfields Planning Scheme. In order to determine whether the Code has been complied with, an odour assessment may be relevant in determining whether Approved measure E1 M1.3 has been addressed in the proposed development. It is open therefore for the Tribunal to seek evidence in the form of an odour assessment in order to be satisfied the Code has been complied with or there is a need, depending on the circumstances and risks of the proposed development and the development site, that a greater separation distance than the minimum separation distance may be required.

[1] Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 page 17

[4] Prepared by Land Management Surveys (Melbourne) Sheet 2 of 6 Revision C dated 23-07-2014

[5] Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 page 20

[6] Department of Planning and Community Development, December 2012

[7] 'Broiler Farm Odour Environmental Risk Assessment Discussion Paper', Publication No. 1509, November 2012

[8] 'Guidelines for an Odour Environmental Risk Assessment for Victorian Broiler Farms' Not yet adopted by EPA but circulated November 2013

[9] Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 page 13

[11] 134th Larena Pty Ltd v Greater Shepparton CC [2014] VCAT 408; Austin & Others v Golden Plains SC [2013] VCAT 804;

[12] Fraser v Cardinia SC [2012] VCAT 127

[13] Thirteenth Beach Coast Watch Inc v The Environment Protection Authority & Anor [2009] VSC 53

[15] Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 page26

[16] Central Goldfields Planning Scheme

[17] Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 page 4

[18] Barac v Strathbogie SC [2011] VCAT 1146 at [79]

[19] Clause 10.02 Central Goldfields Planning Scheme

[20] [2014] VCAT 408

[22] Central Goldfields Planning Scheme

[25] Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 page 24

[32] 134th Larena Pty Ltd v Greater Shepparton CC [2014] VCAT 408

[34] [2011] VCAT 1146

[35] Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 page 14

[36] Thirteenth Beach Coast Watch Inc v The Environment Protection Authority & Anor [2009] VSC 53