1. The decision of the Responsible Authority in permit application no. PLN09/0409 is set aside.
2. A permit is granted in relation to land at 109-133 Ordish Road, Dandenong South. The permit will allow the development and use of part of the land for an integrated waste treatment and resource recovery facility (materials recycling) together with a display of business identification signage generally, in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1 of this decision.

Mr Juliet Forsyth, Barrister briefed by Clayton Utz solicitors. Ms Forsyth called the following witnesses:

Mr Andrew Rodda, Town Planner of Contour Consultants Australia.

Mr Perez-Reigosa, Principal Engineer, Waste Management of Coffey Environments Pty Ltd.

Mr John Rantino, Solicitor of Maddocks. He called Mr Peter Nadebaum, Senior Principal - Environment of GHD.

An integrated waste treatment and resource recovery facility (treatment of contaminated soils and other waste oils and shredder flock) which includes plastics, mouldings, seat material and some metal and display of associated business identification signage.

Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Clause 33.02 (materials recycling) in a Industrial 2 zone (IN2Z)

The part of the lot being some 4 hectares in area is located approximately 100 metres south of Cahill Street (93 metres north of Berends Drive and 250 metres east of the East Link reservation), Dandenong South. The land has a frontage of 173.30 metres to Ordish Road with access being gained from that road. The site is generally flat and is cleared and fenced.

Sita Australia Pty Ltd and PWM (Lindhurst) Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2007] VCAT 156,

Clayton Sands Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2007] VCAT 766 and

Skye Environmental Services Pty Ltd v D & R Anderson and others [2004] VCAT 682

1. In July 2009, Australand Holdings Ltd applied to Dandenong City Council for the resource recovery facility. Due to the land being zoned Industrial 2 there were no third party appeal rights although a number of "interested parties" made submissions to Council prior to a decision being made in relation to the application. Council eventually resolved to refuse the application in November 2009 on a range of grounds.[1]
2. Following Council's refusal of the application, the permit applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.

1. By letter dated the 15th of February 2010 Clayton Utz on behalf of Renex Group Pty Ltd made application to the Tribunal to change the name of the permit applicant in this matter to Renex Pty Ltd and to substitute Renex Group Pty Ltd as the applicant for review. The Tribunal issued an order on the 22nd of February 2010 to that effect.
2. Residents Against Toxic Wastes in the South East (RATWISE) applied to the Tribunal by letter dated the 20th of April 2010 seeking to be granted the status of "interested party" and that the Tribunal give the written submission the weight it deemed appropriate. No objections from the parties were received to this application and by order dated 28 May 2010 RATWISE was granted the status of being an "interested party" and were given approval to lodge with the Tribunal and other parties a written submission and that the Tribunal would give written submission such weight as it deemed appropriate.

1. Having reviewed the file and the submissions put before us, and visited the site and surrounds we consider that the issues to be addressed in this decision are:
   • inter industry conflict related to the actual or perceived impact of the proposed facility on an adjacent abattoir.
   • the quality of the proposed emissions from the various roof vents; as distinct from the emissions from the high temperature exhaust stack.
   • the suitability of the site for the facility.
   • buffer distances of the facility from sensitive users, and
   • assurances that the facility will continue to be operated in accordance with required standards.
   • Other issues.

1. We consider it is appropriate at this point to describe the processes to be undertaken on the site in some detail as the process to be used is new technology in Australia; however, we understand that the process of pyrolysis has been used in Europe for some 20 odd years, particularly in Germany. For the purposes of this decision we have taken the description of the process from Mr Rodda's submission rather than the detailed technical description provided in other submissions that are held on the Tribunals files.

In summary, the following treatments are undertaken following receipt and confirmation of the type and level of contamination of the soil delivered to the facility;

• Mechanical pre treatment system to break up the material and expose contaminants to optimise the effectiveness of the thermal treatment process.
• The Thermal Treatment System using a dryer, pyrolysis rotary kiln and multi- fuel burning chambers (fuelled by gas from the soil and/or waste oils or natural gas). The soil is rendered clean and available for reuse in most cases.
• Flue Gas Cleaning system cleans the pollutants released from the contaminated soil using specialised equipment that is specific to the type of the pollutant. The system involves a quench (spray dryer) system, adsorbent reactor, bag houser filter, venturi and wet scrubber column, and a two stage activated fixed carbon system.
• The cleaned "gases" are monitored through a stack as they are discharged to the atmosphere. The monitoring provides information concerning discharged gases and an early detection warning if gas cleaning is not effective; to enable the soil cleaning process to be stopped if pollutant discharges levels are not met.

1. It is proposed that the plant would treat some 220 tonnes of waste material per day and it is proposed to operate 24 hours a day with three shift changes at 8.00 am, 4.00 pm and midnight.
2. This would provide flexibility to enable contaminated material to be removed from the source and transported by road to the facility during evening hours if required. We note the dispatch of processed material will occur during the day. All of these activities will occur within a large purpose built building to be constructed on the land. The building will be 184 metres in length and 142 metres in width and between 12.2 and 25 metres in height. The stack will have a height of 30 metres.
3. The site is arranged to have a central warehouse building with a one way driveway extending around the perimeter of the site with six loading docks on the northern elevation, seven to the east elevation and three to the south. The central warehouse building will have an area of 25,662 square metres with an additional 885 square metres of ancillary administration and testing laboratory floor space.
4. In addition to receiving contaminated soils the facility will accept and utilise in its process or treat waste oils and shredder flocs, a residue of car shredding involving plastics, mouldings, seat material and some metal. It is further understood that certain types of soils and liquid waste will not be accepted by the facility that has the floor space to allow bulk receiving and storage of contaminated soils.
5. An EPA Works Approval was issued for the facility on 9 November 2009.
6. At the hearing, considerable information was provided to the Tribunal relating to the proposed operations, including the suitability of the process and health concerns. The Tribunal heard submissions from both parties and reviewed documentation from the EPA, all of which were in agreement that the proposed process and facility was capable of being constructed and operated in accordance with appropriate environmental, etc standards.
7. Both parties agreed that there were a number of issues raised in Councils grounds of refusal, including the proposed signage that had been addressed prior to the hearing and had or could be resolved without reference to the Tribunal. These issues have therefore not been addressed further.
8. The issues that we consider must be addressed are:
   • Suitability of the location
   • Inter industry conflict related to the perceived impact of the proposed facility on an adjacent abattoir.
   • Roof vent emissions.
   • Buffer distances from sensitive receptors.
   • On-going operator capability.

1. There was considerable evidence presented to the Tribunal in relation to suitability of the Zone for such a use and the relevance to the proposed development in relation to state planning policy.
2. The Dandenong IN2 Zone in which site is located was acknowledged by Mr Rantino as one of only three strategic locations of state significance[1] for industries that require significant buffers. Mr Rantino's submission was that the site should be maintained for other industries that would be more appropriate to develop on the site and noted that the development of a soil pyrolysis facility was not identified in the Schedule to the IN2 Zone.
3. Mr Rodda, Planning Consultant for Renex put the case that the site was ideally suited for such a development as the site was within the central core of the Industrial 2 Zone which provides the greatest buffers to sensitive uses and that the proposed development was compatible to other developments in the vicinity of the site.
4. The Tribunal noted that while Clause 52.10 did not specifically identify a soil pyrolysis facility as an acceptable use it did identify a number of purposes which could be considered applicable, eg Waste incinerator for - chemical, biomedical or organic waste; treatment of organic wastes; temporary storage of industrial wastes, storage of bulk volatile organic compounds in quantities greater than 1000 tonnes, etc.
5. The nearest sensitive uses were the playing fields for the Mt Hira College approximately 2000 metres to the northwest and Willow Lodge Mobile Home Village approximately 1500 metres to the South. We consider that the sophisticated operating procedures for the proposed development mean that there will be no off-site emissions that would cause detriment to the two uses that are sufficiently distant from the site.
6. We therefore consider that while not specifically listed the use is suitable for establishment in the Industrial 2 Zone and one could ask the rhetorical question:- If such a facility were not located in this zone where else could it be located?

Inter industry conflict related to the perceived impact of the proposed facility on an adjacent abattoir.

1. Mr Rantino raised the issue of inter-industry conflict in relation to the proximity of the Castricum Brothers abattoir and rendering facility, the boundary of which is situated approximately 290 metres to the east of the boundary of the Renex site. Mr Rantino's submission referenced the submission to the City of Greater Dandenong by Mr Guenther of Macpherson & Kelley, on behalf of Castricum Brothers. Mr Rantino raised concerns in relation to the perceived or actual impact of the emissions and proximity of the facility on the business interests of the Castricum Brothers facility, identifying that clients, especially overseas clients perceptions in relation to the proximity of the facility may impact on future sales.
2. Ms Forsyth for Clayton Utz, on behalf of Renex advised that the proposed environmental controls on the emissions from the site were such that the stack emissions would meet EPA requirements and the process, controls and interlocks would be at industry best practice. The Tribunal noted that in addition to studies undertaken on behalf of Renex and a review by Dr Peter Nadebaum on behalf of Council, the EPA also undertook a review of the proposed facility and in addition commissioned an Independent Environmental Audit of the Works Approval Application. All reviews identified that the proposed facility could comply with relevant requirements. The EPA Assessment Report reviewed the proposed process and came to the following conclusion;
   • "The assessment of air emission from Renex indicates that it is unlikely to have any adverse environmental and health impact to the amenities or activities of the nearby surrounding land use and expected to comply with the limits stipulated in Schedule E of SEPP (AQM) and German Standards. This is based on the following factors:
     1. Best practice soil treatment technology and proven flue gas cleaning process is assessed as MEA
     2. Renex contribution to ground level concentration is very small. Its effects on the Dandenong air quality are insignificant.
     3. Air emissions are meeting Schedule E of SEPP (AGM) and below the design criteria of SEPP (AGM) for the various pollutants with large safety margin.
     4. Air emissions are also below the limits in the German Standard
     5. Similar thermal soil treatment technology treating PCB contaminated soil (Innova) recently has no reported problem or complaint from residential areas 500m away."[2]
3. It was common ground between the parties that noise would not be an issue as all activities are to be undertaken within a fully enclosed building.
4. The Tribunal noted both from the information provided by both parties and an unaccompanied site inspection of the area following the hearing that there are a number of other industries in the vicinity of the site that could be considered to have the potential to impact on public perceptions. The following examples were taken from a list of Planning Permits for neighbouring developments provided to the Tribunal by Mr Rantino. (Waste Stabilisation Plant, Receipt and Treatment of Prescribed Waste, Composting Facility, Waste Incinerator Facility, Refuse Transfer Station, etc).
5. It was Mr Rantino's submission that these other facilities which were established after the construction of the Castricum Brothers facility are not directly comparable. However, the Tribunal is of the opinion that they are comparable and would appear in some cases to have a higher potential for perceived and actual impact than the Renex facility. Given the quality of environmental controls and treatment proposed for the Renex facility and the other facilities in operation in the vicinity of the site we consider that the Renex facility will cause limited or no perceived or actual inter- industry conflict with the Castricum Brothers facility.

1. Dr Peter Nadebaum for the City of Greater Dandenong raised concerns in relation to the cumulative discharges from the various roof vents on the facility, specifically in relation to volatile organics from the storage areas.
2. The Tribunal noted that the independent risk assessment[3] assumed that ventilation system for the facility would pass all air through both a bag filter and a carbon bed and concluded that volatile emissions would be adequately addressed. However, the submission from Coffey Environments[4] advised that it be proposed that not all facility vents would include a carbon bed.
3. The Tribunal noted the EPA response to the Works Approval[5] 20B Conference that, air emissions are assessed as being "well within Victorian and European standards", the German regulatory Authority "has confirmed that a similar plant at Herne complies with German standards" and that Proof of Performance testing will be required to verify claims regarding emissions before a Licence is issued. Further, the EPA Works Approval requires submission of the detailed design of the ventilation and air treatment system of the building one month prior to commissioning[6]. The EPA Assessment Report[7] identifies a commissioning approval condition requiring the sampling and testing of each vent to verify the emissions after the facility has commenced.
4. The Tribunal notes the discrepancies between the various parties understanding in relation to the concept design of the ventilation and air cleaning system. We accept the evidence provided by the parties that with appropriate design the quality of air emissions from the building ventilation and air cleaning system can be within standards; however, we raise this issue as a detailed design aspect that requires appropriate investigation and review by both the Renex and the EPA.

1. Mr Rantino's submission was that the facility should comply with the recommendations and buffers identified in the HWSAC[8] Report. In essence the Report identified;
   • a 200m inner radius within which only compatible land uses will be permitted and that the land must be owned or controlled by the operator
   • An outer buffer between 200 and 2000m within which there will be no sensitive land uses unless permitted in accordance with a planning overlay.
2. Ms Forsyth, for Renex raised the Tribunals attention to the HWSAC Report page 19. "Many people have interpreted the 2Km default outer buffer zone as being a measure of the risk associated with soil recycling and treatment facilities. They have then sometimes concluded that if a major hazard facility, such as an oil refinery, might have a default buffer of 1km, then soil recycling and treatment facilities must be much more dangerous than an oil refinery. This is not the case - soil recycling and treatment facilities are not major hazard facilities. If buffer distances for soil recycling and treatment facilities were set on the basis of risk calculations alone they would probably be of the order of a few hundred metres or less."
3. The Tribunal also noted page 85 of the HWSAC Report that advised, "The inability of a proposal to meet any Secondary Exclusion Criteria does not lead to an automatic rejection of the proposal. If a proposal does not meet a secondary criterion, the option is available to the proponent to attempt to demonstrate that the object of the criterion can be met in some alternative way." This point was noted in the EPA Assessment Report[9] that went on to note, "The Renex proposal has the following features that qualify for a site specific variation.
   • All operations within enclosed building
   • No bypass of flue cleaning process
   • Best available technology for contaminated soil treatment
   • Proven flue gas cleaning process considered as a maximum extent achievable ("MEA")treatment
   • Continuous emission monitoring with alarm system and electrical interlock to PLC for safe shutdown mode if stack emission exceeds any set pollutant concentration
   • Air Emissions comply with
     1. SEPP (AQM) design criteria
     2. Schedule E of SEPP (AQM)
     3. DIRECTIVE 2000/76/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 4 December 2000("EU Directive") on the incineration of waste
     4. Germany's Federal Emission Control Act (17.BlmSchV) ("German Standards").
   • Confirmation from German Governments that similar plants has no major process upsets / incidents and has not caused any community issues and there was no need for enforcement actions.
4. The EPA further documented[10] that "Directly heated thermal soil treatment technology (Innova) treating PCB contaminated soil at Springvale, Victoria recently has no reported problem or complaint from residential areas 500m away."
5. It was acknowledged by all parties that the facility would have a buffer of 1500 metres to the Willow Lodge Caravan Park and 2km to Mt Hira College, being the nearest sensitive receptors.
6. Mr Rantino noted that the HWSAC had undertaken a review of a soil remediation facility further north of the proposed site in the same zone, and identified that the site was considered unsuitable for development. However, the Tribunal notes several differences between the sites including, the treatment facilities proposed on the other site were considerable more basic than proposed on this site, there were residences within 700 metres, a substantial portion of the site was within the 1:100 year floodplain, etc.
7. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the proposed buffer zones on the site are adequate to prevent any adverse impact to the sensitive uses which are more than 1500 metres away and also the Castricum site that is located approximately 300 metres to the east.

1. Mr Rantino initially raised concerns in relation to the experience and capabilities of Renex to operate the facility in accordance with EPA, etc requirements. Following submissions by Mr Perez-Reigosa of Coffey Environments and by Mr Mirkov of Renex, Mr Rantino accepted that Renex was developing procedures etc to ensure that the facility would be correctly operated and would be monitored by the EPA as part of the Works Approval and Licence requirements.
2. Mr Rantino in closing expressed concerns in relation to the capabilities of potential future operators and sought to have a planning permit condition or EPA licence requirement that was linked to Renex rather than the site. Ms Forsyth argued that the EPA licence is linked to the site and that in the event of a different owner taking over the site the EPA licence requirements would ensure that the facility continued to operate in accordance with all relevant requirements.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the EPA Works Approval and Licence requirements are the appropriate vehicle to ensure that in the event of a change of ownership the plant will continue to be operated in accordance with relevant requirements and therefore will not require an operator- specific permit condition.

1. Mr Rantino raised concerns in relation to the ongoing monitoring and compliance reporting, especially in relation to the availability of monitoring and other information to Council. Ms Forsyth argued that the request for the ongoing provision of information should not be required as the relevant monitoring information will be provided to the EPA as part of Licence requirements.
2. Ms Forsyth advised the Tribunal that it was EPA practice to make monitoring information available to interested parties.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the City of Greater Dandenong will be able to access relevant monitoring information from the EPA when requested.

Do any other matters warrant rejection of the proposal?

1. Several other matters were raised in submissions and the objections originally lodged with the Council including 24-hour operation and signage to the building. 24-hour operation we consider appropriate to accommodate out of normal business requirements for receival of goods. We note other businesses in the area operate on this basis and do not give cause for concern. None of these issues provide the basis for rejecting the permit application or requiring additional conditions.

1. A detailed discussion regarding suitable conditions to be placed on any permit that issued together with subsequent consultation between the parties was tendered to the Tribunal for consideration. Submissions were made by the Responsible Authority that the permit should be operator specific and tied to Renex Pty Ltd; however, the Tribunal does not consider that this is necessary because the EPA Works Approval is tied to the land and suitable ongoing expertise is required to oversee the operations of the facility. The conditions proposed to be placed on the permit reflect those discussions together with further consideration by the Tribunal and are attached at Appendix 1 of this decision.

1. It follows from the above reasons that it is the Tribunal's conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit be granted.

To develop and use part of the land known as 109-133 Ordish Road, Dandenong South, being that part of the land more particularly described as Lot 1on Plan of Subdivision PS 630152M, for the purpose of an integrated waste treatment and resource recovery facility (materials recycling), together with the display of business identification signage.

1. Before the development and use starts, three (3) copies of an amended plan/plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, but modified to include:

(a) A wheel wash to the south of the building;

(b) Enclosure of the unloading and loading areas and expansion of those areas to accommodate B-double trucks within the enclosed areas as required;

(c) The uses of each part of the building;

(d) An increase in the height of the stack to not less than 30m;

(e) details of proposed fencing throughout the development site;

(f) a comprehensive landscape plan prepared for the site in accordance with Condition 25;

(g) provision of a water tank and associated equipment (pump house) sufficient in size, operation and location for effective fire-fighting purposes. The water tank must be non-reflective or non-zincalume steel in finish;

(h) all easements affecting the land;

(i) a reduction in the size of the signs to 1.5m by 10 m on the wall of the building facing Ordish Road

(j) the proposed location of the tyre storage, which must be stored within closed containers;

(k) a roof plan showing details and location of any proposed vents, exhaust stacks as well as roof-top air extraction and treatment equipment;

(l) the building elevations to show the location of any vents, exhaust stacks, etc, protruding above the roof top;

(m) deletion of the word 'warehouse' from the site plan;

(n) proposed external building and fence materials, colours and finishes, which materials, colours and finishes must be of a non-reflective nature;

(o) kerbing or such other measures within or bordering car parking areas and access ways to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas;

(p) all external pavement between the entry and exit weighbridges which is to be bunded and is to drain to the trade-waste collection and treatment system;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plan/s (including finished floor levels) must not be altered without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the commencement of the use three (3) copies of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. Once approved the TMP will be endorsed and form part of the permit. The TMP shall address the following matters to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
   • (a) loading and unloading of vehicles and the flow of vehicles throughout the site and wheel washing requirements for vehicles using the site.

Once approved, the use must be conducted at all times in accordance with the TMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the use, three (3) copies of a Vermin Prevention Plan (VPP) must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. Once approved the VPP will be endorsed and form part of the permit. Once approved, the use must be conducted at all times in accordance with the VPP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the commencement of the use, three (3) copies of a Fire Prevention and Management Plan (FPMP) must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. Once approved the FPMP will be endorsed and form part of the permit. Once approved, the use must be conducted at all times in accordance with the FPMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the use, three (3) copies of a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. Once approved the SWMP will be endorsed and form part of the permit. The SWMP shall include measures which identify the proposed location and details of stormwater controls, including measures which ensure that ;
   • (i) drainage flows are connected to a lawful point of discharge as approved by the Responsible Authority;
   • (ii) contaminated waste and contaminated effluent is not discharged into stormwater system; and
   • (iii) the wheel wash is maintained in good order and all liquid and solid waste or like material collected therein must be retained on the site for disposal to an appropriate facility;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the SWMP shall be endorsed and shall form part of this permit. The use and development must at all times be conducted and maintained in accordance with the SWMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All trade waste discharged to sewer must be discharged in accordance with a trade waste agreement entered into with the relevant water authority.
2. The treatment facility described in the permit application as forming part of stage 2 of the proposal must be operational within 12 months of the commencement of the receipt of any contaminated soil or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Conditions required by the Environment Protection Authority

1. The use and development must be conducted at all times in accordance with the requirements of any relevant works approval or licence or other approval in force from time to time under the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the EPA.

Conditions required by the Country Fire Authority

1. Access Requirements:
   • (a) all roads must be of all weather construction and be designed, constructed and maintained for a load limit of at least 23 tonnes; and
   • (b) an emergency service vehicle access road of at least 9 metres width is to be provided into the car parking area as shown on plan V09-106-FS-002 via truck entry and truck exit points.
2. Once the development has started, it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Stage 2 (comprising the treatment facility and gas cleaning process plant) of the permitted use of the land must not commence operation until all buildings and works are completed, unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
4. The buildings and works, including finishes, must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Contaminated soils and other prescribed industrial wastes must not be stored outside the building/s, unless with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.
6. The loading and unloading of contaminated soils and other prescribed industrial wastes from or to vehicles must only be carried out undercover within the building and within the respective loading docks/bays as shown on the endorsed plan/s unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
7. Shipping container/s on the site must not be stacked more than two (2) containers high along the site's eastern boundary unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, and must be appropriately bunded, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. Before the use of the land starts, areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
   • (a) constructed in accordance with the endorsed plan/s;
   • (b) properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;
   • (c) surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat;
   • (d) drained to the legal point of discharge;
   • (e) line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

1. A sign(s) not exceeding 0.3 square metres, must be provided directing drivers to the area set aside for carparking and must be located and maintained all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The carparking provided on the land must always be available for use by persons employed on or visiting the subject premises.
3. The car parking space/s for disabled persons designated on the endorsed plan/s must be clearly set aside for such a purpose and must not be used for any other purpose.
4. Standard concrete vehicular crossing/s must be constructed to suit the proposed driveway/s in accordance with the Council's standard specifications. Any vehicle crossing/s made redundant by the development must be removed and the land, footpath, kerb and channel reinstated, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. All vehicles entering and exiting the site must do so in a forward direction.
6. All external lighting of the site, including car parking areas and buildings, must be located, directed and baffled to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. Noise from mechanical plant and equipment must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Industrial, Commercial and Trade Premises) No. N-1 (SEPP N-1).
8. The site shall be kept in a neat and tidy condition at all times, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9. A landscape plan for the site shall be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The plan shall show a strip of landscaping (using appropriate trees) to the north of the northern driveway from the frontage to the gatehouse (a distance of approximately 40 metres) which largely matches the treatment shown for the southern driveway/boundary forward of the gatehouse.
10. Prior to occupation of the building hereby approved or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, all landscaping works, as shown on the endorsed plan/s, shall be planted and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The sign must not be animated and no flashing or intermittent light(s) may be displayed.
2. All signs must be constructed and thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. This permit will expire if:-
   • (a) the development does not start within two (2) years of the date of this permit, or
   • (b) the development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit; or
   • (c) the use does not start within one (1) year of the completion of the development.

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

[1]. The application fails to satisfactorily respond to Clause 11.03-2 of the Planning Scheme in that it does not positively contribute to the protection of air, land and water quality, including the adoption of a best practice environmental management and risk management approach which aims to avoid or minimize environmental degradation and hazards, as well as impacts on existing sensitive land uses for the following reasons:

1.1 the buffer distance for sensitive uses (an education centre and an existing residential area (Willow Lodge)) will be breached;

1.2 there is no demonstrated commitment to an independent review and auditing by an appropriately experienced and independent environmental auditor who would report to the regulatory authorities and the public on the establishment, operation and monitoring of the business;

1.3 risks do remain around the characterization and blending of soils in a steady operation. It is assumed in the application that this can be met and that sudden releases of gases will not occur;

1.4 the use of bins and closed and evacuated storage and handling systems is limited and may not extend to all soils containing volatile substances and these may be released into the building atmosphere. Council's consultant considers this aspect of the facility is not sufficiently well documented in the Application and it is not clear that a safe working environment will be able to be maintained within the factory building;

1.5 the air treatment system will be large and costly and it has not been well documented in the application received by Council's consultant;

1.6 with regard to containing emissions and avoiding bypassing untreated emissions to air in abnormal operations two high risk situations were identified:

1.6.1 failure of the burner or air controls due to water condensation; and

1.7 there are aspects of the facility design and operation that have not been adequately detailed in the application to Council's consultant. The consultant believes it essential that formal written confirmation from the EPA that such material has formed part of the application and has been adequately assessed by the EPA and an appropriately qualified and experienced professional is provided.

2. The application fails to satisfactorily respond to Clause 21.04-3 (Industrial) of the Planning Scheme, in that it does not protect areas suitable for industries requiring extensive buffer distances from residential and other sensitive uses and ensuring that that such uses do not encroach within the buffer area; and does not minimize inter- industry conflict having regard to its proximity to an existing meat processing plant.

3. The proposal is contrary to Clause 12.04-2 and Clause 17.03 (Industry) as it does not protect the Dandenong Heavy Industrial area form inappropriate development due to its inability to maintain adequate buffer distances to existing sensitive land uses as recommended by the Hazardous Waste Siting Advisory Committee, a body formed by the Victorian State Government to advise on the siting of hazardous waste treatment facilities.

4. The proposal is contrary to Clause 18.10 as it does not sufficiently address the objective of this clause, which is to assist control of generation, transportation and disposal of wastes so as to prevent pollution and land degradation.

5. The proposed land use does not adequately address one of the land use application requirements at Clause 33.02-2, as the proposal would be located too close to existing sensitive land uses, thus potentially affecting the safety of local communities arising from potentially hazardous air-borne emissions.

[1] Local Planning Policy Frame Work. Clause 21.02-3 (land use)

[2] EPA Assessment Report- Application No. WA65201, 6 November 2009. Pg 9

[3] Renex Group Pty Ltd 109-133 Ordish Road South Dandenong. Environmental audit of the Works Approval Application. John Cumming. Amended 22 June 2009. Pg 19.

[4] Renex Integrated Waste treatment and Resource Recovery Facility Information to complement Works Approval Application. undated

[5] Renex Group Pty Ltd Works Approval Application Response to the 20B Conference Recommendations, undated

[6]EPA Works Approval WA65201, 9 November 2009. Clause 3.1 (b)

[7] EPA assessment Report WA65201, 6 November 2009. Clause 10.2

[8] Hazardous Waste Siting Advisory Committee - Siting of Soil Recycling and Treatment Facilities 2002.

[9] EPA Assessment Report WA65201. 6 November 2009. Pg 20

[10] EPA Assessment Report WA65201. 6 November 2009. Pg 20