Policy guidelines

Consider as relevant:

Whether buildings and structures have been designed or sited to be visually recessive and can blend into the surrounding landscape and natural environment through design, landscaping, materials and colours.

Whether the environmental condition of the land could be enhanced by fencing off remnant vegetation and revegetating along waterways and in other strategic areas.

Where infrastructure is required or needs upgrading, whether the land owner should meet all costs.

1. The Council submits that the proposal is contrary to policy at Clause 11.01 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, as it would allow an urban use of land to be established in the Framing Zone surrounded by agricultural land uses. The Council also submits that the land use is inappropriate as it is not associated with an agricultural land use, and could potentially be in conflict with surrounding agricultural uses, contrary to the purposes and decision guidelines of the Farming Zone. The following is an extract from the Council's written submission that sets out this concern in more detail.

A key general issue in the FZ is land use compatibility. The proposal is incompatible with nearby agricultural activities, given it has no connection to an agricultural pursuit. Land holdings surrounding the subject site are more than 100ha across multiple parcels of land which would allow for more intensive agricultural activities to occur that would conflict with the proposed land use.

An example of significant land holdings in contiguous ownership nearby include:

• 105 Toynes Road, directly west of the subject site across Farrars Road - 133ha
• 330 Farrars Road and 50-110 You Yangs Road, abutting the east and south boundaries of the subject site - 220ha.
• 65 Little River-Ripley Road, 85-185 Little River-Ripley Road, 90 Little River-Ripley Road and 85 You Yangs Road, directly north-northwest of the subject site - 514ha.

These sites are considered capable of more intense agricultural uses, however their proximity to the subject site may give rise land use conflicts if a permit was issued allowing a place of worship effectively in the middle of these larger land holdings. Farming activities nearby could include the relocation of livestock and farm machinery that would require the use of local roads given that several land holdings are located on both sides of the roads. Other farming activities would likely include ploughing and other maintenance such as burning off stubble in paddocks to manage weed infestation when cropping. The burning of stubble would emit significant amounts of smoke but is common in farming areas.

...

Key purposes of the FZ in relation to agricultural issues are to provide for the use of land for agriculture, to encourage the retention of productive agricultural land and to ensure that non-agricultural uses, do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture. Whilst the FZ does not prohibit non-agricultural uses, it is clear by the purpose, that agricultural land use is the principal direction of the FZ. As such, non-agricultural uses proposed for the FZ must be considered against the relevant PPF and the decision guidelines of the FZ. The application is unable to adequately address the decision guidelines relating to agricultural issues.

The proposal is for the use and development of a place of worship on a 2ha lot within the FZ. The proposal has the potential to prejudice the expansion of a nearby agricultural use in the future given that the use is on an isolated small lot within the FZ. The PPF further encourages the consolidation of small, isolated lots in rural zones as development of these lots can be at odds with the purpose of a rural zone in this instance the FZ and the policy direction to allow for agricultural use on larger parcels of land in the northern areas of Greater Geelong.

1. I am not persuaded by these submissions, and instead find that the proposal is an appropriate use of the review site. I make this finding for the following reasons.
2. Firstly, I am not persuaded that the use of land for a Place of worship is solely an urban use of land, and is therefore unsuitable in this rural setting. This is a matter about which I made the following findings in the decision of Ross v Frankston CC [2017] VCAT 274.

[48] Finally, it is the submission of the Applicant that the proposal is for an urban land use that will fundamentally change the appearance of the review site. A Place of worship and a Place of assembly can be considered as an urban, regional or rural land use. The needs for a Place of worship and a Place of assembly exists in all of these contexts.

3. For this reason I find that a Place of worship can be an appropriate use of land in the Farming Zone, on the right piece of land, and in the right context. If this were not the case, then a Place of worship would be a prohibited land use in the Farming Zone.
4. Secondly, while I acknowledge that land in the Farming Zone has a primary purpose of providing for agriculture, the review site has not, and cannot, provide this role. The land at present is 2 hectares in size, with a centrally located dwelling, and covered in a scattering of vegetation. While the entirety of the review site is not incapable of being farmed, the land that is available for agriculture is so small, as to not be able to support a viable or meaningful agricultural enterprise, without substantial investment in a very intensive operation. The fact that this has not occurred to date, and noting the broadacre form of agriculture that currently occurs on surrounding land, provides a strong suggestion that a very intensive form of agriculture is unlikely to be established on the review site in the future.
5. As such, the use of the land for a Place of worship will see the review site continue to be used for a non-agricultural use, and will not result in land being taken out of agricultural production. Indeed, to the extent that the applicant intends to commence a low scale market garden to provide some food for its community, indicates that the contrary will occur. That is, that this proposal will lift the existing agricultural production from the land. This is confirmed in the following extract from the written evidence of Mr Beaver.

The property is ~2ha. It is vegetated with nearly 100% introduced/planted species, see Figure 1. The property is very small and has been used for rural living and it has had no agricultural output. It is proposed to be used as a place of worship and for fruit and vegetable growing and associated community activities and development.

The proposed agricultural use is vegetable and fruit production in a Market Garden that will support the Karen Community, harness the experience and passion of members and introduce other members of the Community to agriculture and provide a community development activity.

The proposed Market Garden is an innovative way to improve the local rural economy as the produce grown will service the community directly. It is expected that on average 3-10 people a day will volunteer in the farming component of the proposal, which will bring welfare and community development benefits.

The Karen have a long history in agriculture and in the refugee camps, fruit and vegetable growing has been a key industry and a way of contributing to the needs of the community.

The site has no potential for traditional broadacre agriculture and this initiative will see an optimum contribution to agriculture as well as supporting community development.[2]

1. Thirdly, as set out above, the Council submits that the proposed land use could be in conflict with the surrounding agricultural land uses, and could frustrate more intensive use of the land for agriculture in the future. The review site is presently used and developed with a dwelling, that is not associated with any agriculture. This dwelling can be occupied full time and create a full time conflict with a nearby agricultural use. The proposal that is before me will introduce a Place of worship that will be used largely on Sundays, and cause the conversion of the existing dwelling into an office associated with the Place of worship. Therefore, the proposal that is before me will remove a land use (a dwelling) that could be in conflict with agricultural uses 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, and replace it with a land use that could also be in conflict with agricultural uses, but which will only operate for very restricted hours each week. It can therefore be argued that the extent of the conflict with agricultural uses is reduced by the proposal.
2. Further, I do not regard the proposed Place of worship as a land use that is likely to be in conflict with surrounding agricultural land uses, or frustrate future intensive agricultural uses on surrounding and nearby land. The proposed land use will be conducted entirely within a building (aside from the parking of vehicles, and the market garden which I discuss below), and therefore will be insulated from the noise, dust and smells sometimes associated with agricultural activity. Further, worship services are themselves likely to generate a level of noise, which will further mask any potential noise arising from surrounding agricultural activity. This is to be contrasted with an outdoor land use, such as a golf course or a Cemetery, that would be more sensitive to disturbance by way of dust, noise or smells.
3. While the market garden activities proposed for the review site will operate outdoors, that is the use of the land for agriculture. I do not regard it likely that the use of the review site for agriculture, could cause a conflict with surrounding agricultural land uses. At least, that is not a conflict that the Farming Zone seeks to avoid.
4. Finally, I find that the proposal is consistent with policy at Clause 14.01-1L-01 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, which intends to support discretionary uses in the Farming Zone if certain outcomes are achieved. I comment on these outcomes below:
   1. The intensity of the proposed land use is very low, occurring mostly on a Sunday, and as such will be a land use that will not create a conflict for surrounding agricultural land uses.
   2. The existing agricultural activity on surrounding land comprises broadacre farming, that would not be compromised by the proposed Place of worship.
   3. The scale of the proposed development is low, and will cover a small proportion of the review site. As I explore later in these reasons, the Council raises no concerns with the scale and design of the proposed building.
   4. The review site has access to a sealed road, that I am advised is capable of accommodating the additional traffic associated with the proposed land use. Again, the Council raises no traffic related concerns with the proposal, despite a review of the proposal by their own independent traffic engineers.
   5. I am advised that the site has access to all necessary servicing infrastructure, and that a septic system can service the proposed Place of worship, as confirmed by a referral to the Council's Environmental Health team.
5. I also note that Mr Jobling is concerned that the congregation for this proposed Place of worship are not from this municipality, but rather are based in Werribee. On this basis he submits that the proposal will not benefit the local community. I do not make the same link as put forward by Mr Jobling. Just because the current congregation travel from a town other than Little River, does not mean that in the future they will not contribute to the local community in some way. In any case, under the decision guidelines of the Farming Zone and the policy at Clause 14.01-1L-01 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, the proposal does not need to serve a local need or make a contribution to the local area, in order to be granted a planning permit. For this reason I cannot give any substantive weight to these submissions.
6. For these reasons I find that the proposed land use is appropriate for this site in the Framing Zone, and is consistent with the guidance provided by the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

ARE THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND WORKS REASONABLE FOR THIS CONTEXT?

1. The Council makes the following submissions in relation to the proposed built form.

Generally, the design of the building is acceptable given the use of materials and colours and visually, the retention of onsite vegetation along boundaries. From a visual perspective, the siting of the building would conserve the natural and physical features of the subject site.

At issue with siting and in accordance with the decision guideline of 'The need to locate buildings in one area to avoid any adverse impacts on surrounding agricultural uses and to minimise the loss of productive agricultural land', is the smaller size of the lot being 2ha, compared with abutting land that is over 100ha. Given there is little to no opportunity to site buildings on the subject site away from larger adjoining farming lots, it would be considered that the proposal is unable to provide an acceptable outcome in relation to siting the proposal in an area that would not impact surrounding agricultural use.

The siting would bring into question the fragmentation of farmland given its proximity to large farming lots and could further restrict the future expansion of nearby agricultural uses.

It is considered that the proposal is unable to adequately address the decision guidelines for design and siting.

1. Having undertaken my own assessment of the proposal, I agree with the Council's analysis that the proposed building design is appropriate for the review site. The proposed church building is low scale, modest in size, sited with generous setbacks from boundaries, and screened from surrounding land by established vegetation.
2. Earlier in these reasons I identified that this is a land use that is largely contained within a building, and therefore has a low prospect of being affected by surrounding agricultural activities. For this reason, I am not persuaded by the Council's submissions that the location of a Place of worship of this scale, on this sized lot in this agricultural context, is capable of impacting the surrounding agricultural land uses.
3. Further, the proposal is not linked in any way to the fragmentation of agricultural land. Rather, that fragmentation occurred when a former Council approved a house lot excision by way of a subdivision in 1988. It was that decision which created a non-agricultural allotment and land use amongst larger agricultural land holdings. The proposal that is before me simply replaces one non-agricultural land use (dwelling) with a Place of worship that will primarily operate for a few hours each week.
4. Finally, I do not regard the proposed use and development as capable of impacting the expansion of any nearby farm. Due to the characteristics of the review site that I have previously described, the review site is not attractive as farming land, and with an existing dwelling it has a land value that likely places it higher than surrounding agricultural land.
5. The Council does not raise any environmental concerns with the proposal, and sets out the following in their written submissions.

The application in its current form does not cause an adverse effect to the environmental values of the area. Some planted native vegetation is required to be removed, however is exempt from a permit requirement. Further noting the majority of vegetation on the site is retained particularly around boundary lines and within the central and southern portions of the site. There is no impact to waterways, noting a drainage line exists approximately 150m to the north.

The 2ha would be considered capable of retaining and treating wastewater through the installation of a new Onsite Wastewater Management System (OWMS) with an effluent field to be sited in the southern portion of the site. The accompanying Land Capability Assessment specifies that the system would employ a secondary treatment system meaning wastewater is treated before it's sub-surface disposal. This is common in designated water supply catchments and smaller allotments in rural zones for the protection of waterways, again noting no waterways traverse the site.

Any permit issued would also require the new building to implement the required ESD measures to ensure the building is meeting the obligation within the scheme under clause 15.02-1L.

It's considered the proposal would not give rise to environment issues including not being detrimental to biodiversity in the area.

1. Mr Jobling is particularly concerned regarding the ability of the review site to treat the effluent from the Place of worship, given the number of people who will be on site. He questions whether the effluent will be able to be treated and contained on site, and also questions whether the effluent disposal field will be in conflict with the area intended to be used as a market garden, as well as an identified patch of native vegetation. A detailed Land Capability Assessment (Provincial Geotechnical Pty Ltd, 20 November 2023) was prepared for the planning permit application, which details how effluent can be treated and contained on the review site. This assessment was then reviewed by the Council's Environmental Health team, who confirms from their own expert and independent review, that effluent can be treated and contained on the review site. Given the detail contained in this assessment and the Council's own review, I am persuaded that effluent disposal has been properly considered and addressed.
2. Further, I am also satisfied that the effluent disposal field will be separated from the proposed market garden and patch of native vegetation, noting the respective areas identified on the following plan extracted from the evidence of Mr Beaver.

1. For these reasons, I find that the proposal is an appropriate response to the design and siting guidance provided by the Farming Zone, and the broader Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

1. The proposal provides the amount of car parking that is required under Clause 52.06 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. As such, no reduction of car parking is sought, and I cannot require any additional car parking to be provided on the review site. I also note that the car park layout is designed in accordance with the relevant standards, and will allow all vehicles to enter and exit the review site in a forward motion.
2. During the course of the planning permit application, the applicant had a Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Red Square Traffic (14 February 2024). This Assessment set out the following in relation to the potential traffic impact on the surrounding toad network.

Both You Yangs Road and Farrars Road are understood to have a capacity of at least 3000vpd, which translates to a peak capacity of 300 vehicles per hour. Pre-development on-site observations suggested that traffic volumes are extremely low in this regional area. Following the development, the current volumes are expected to rise by approximately 38 for the two roads during afternoon periods of a Sunday (only).

Traffic movements on the surrounding roads are currently well-within its capacity and are expected to continue in the same manner, especially on a Sunday. As such, the proposed traffic generated by the church is expected to fall well within traffic capacity thresholds for You Yangs Road and Farrars Road and is therefore expected to be sufficiently absorbed by the local and surrounding road network.[3]

1. This report has been considered by Council's own traffic engineers, who support the grant of a planning permit. I give this independent assessment of the potential traffic impacts of the proposal some weight.
2. Mr Jobling's Statement of grounds raises the following traffic concerns.

The intersection of Farrars and Little River Rds is already a busy intersection owing to the proximity of the You Yangs Regional Park. Increased access to and from this site will only add more congestion to the area.

As this proposed site has operated for several years now without a permit I have witnessed many gatherings there that seemed to exceed the number of congregants as per the application. It is reasonable to infer as the group grows in size, there will be increased traffic/attendance at the place of worship.

1. I understand Mr Jobling's concern regarding traffic congestion, however the potential for congestion of traffic alone is insufficient to cause one to consider whether a permit should be granted for a use or development. Instead, there needs to be some evidence of an existing or potential safety issue, or where the capacity of a road or intersection is likely to be exceeded, causing unreasonable delays and traffic queues. The potential for traffic safety issues and unreasonable delays and queues has been explored in the aforementioned Traffic Impact Assessment, and reviewed by the Council. As neither of these experts raise any concerns, I am not persuaded by the submissions of Mr Jobling.
2. For these reasons I find that the proposal will appropriately provide for car parking and traffic movements.

1. One of the Statements of grounds lodged by a respondent raises concerns relating to the potential risk of bushfire to the review site. As the review site is not covered by a Bushfire Management Overlay, bushfire risk is not a relevant consideration when considering the grant of a planning permit.
2. Mr Hedt also raises a concern regarding where the water will come from, for the toilets and other amenities in the proposal. The plans that are before me detail that a large water tank is to be installed on the review site, connected to the toilets. There is no planning reason to require any further detail than that, to support the grant of a planning permit.

1. A number of other matters about permit conditions were raised by the parties. With respect to those matters, other than those already addressed above, I summarise my conclusions as follows:
   1. At the hearing the Council agreed to some changes to its drafted permit conditions, comprising the following:
      1. Amendments to Condition 2 to recognise that there will not be a dwelling on the land, nor any functions held during the week;
      2. Deletion of a component of Condition 15 that had referred to the removal of a crossover, and the provision of kerb and channelling, and a footpath, none of which is relevant to this proposal or this context;
      3. Amendment of Condition 17, in order to allow people to attend the site to work in the proposed market garden; and,
      4. Deletion of a condition that had required an acoustic report, on the acknowledgement that the nearest dwelling is at least 700 metres away, and therefore, there is no need for such a report.
   2. The applicant offered to include a condition for a land management plan covering the establishment and operation of the agricultural activity proposed for the review site. As my assessment that this proposed use and development is appropriate for the review site has not relied on the proposed agricultural activity, I will not require such a permit condition.
   3. Finally, I will replace the drafted permit expiry condition with the one applied as standard by the Tribunal.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

To construct a building and construct or carry out works.

1. Prior to the commencement of use and development, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority 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 received 15 March 2024 but modified to show:

(a) The car park is to be treated with an all-weather seal and line-marked.

(b) Swept paths for the largest vehicle expected to traverse the site.

(c) Dimensions for the accessible car parks.

(d) The existing vehicle crossing on You Yangs Road to be sealed.

(e) New crossing on Farrars Road to be shown on plan set with a width up to 6 metres only. If the width is more than 6 metres, reconsideration of the crossover location (in line with Clause 52.17 requirements) may be required.

(f) The effluent disposal field be located at least 10 metres away from native vegetation to be retained and must be designed to ensure that native vegetation to be protected.

(g) Initiatives contained within the SDA report along with the proposed changes, including:

1. Information regarding xeriscaping and/or the use of drought tolerant species should be added to the landscape and/or architectural plans.
2. The cross-sectional build-up of raingardens is to be included on the development and/ or landscape drawings.

(h) The BESS report must achieve an overall score of 50% or higher and have a minimum 'pass' rates of 50% for the Energy, Water and IEQ categories and 100% for the Stormwater category.

1. Prior to the commencement of use and development, an updated Land Capability Assessment (LCA) with calculations for converted dwelling to an office (for 2 staff), new building and 250 people must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the submitted Plan, SDA report and stormwater management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to these plans may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and no concentrated storm water may drain or discharge from the land to adjoining properties.

1. Prior to works commencing, the permit holder must advise all persons undertaking the vegetation removal or works on site of all relevant permit conditions and endorsed plans/documents.
2. The effluent disposal field be located at least 10 metres away from native vegetation to be retained and must be designed to ensure that native vegetation to be protected is not compromised, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Tree and Vegetation Protection Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified arborist and must include all:

(a) Council-owned trees.

(b) Privately owned trees.

(c) Trees owned by other parties that are located within 4 metres of the property boundary.

(d) 2 patches of Plains Grassland EVC to be retained.

When approved the Tree Protection Management Plan and its recommendations will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

The approved Tree Protection Management Plan must not be amended or altered without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), a letter of engagement must be provided to us (as the Responsible Authority) from the Project Arborist selected to oversee all relevant tree protection works. In accordance with Australian Standard 4970-2009 Protection of trees on developments sites the Project Arborist must be an appropriately experienced and qualified professional (minimum AQF Level 5 Arborist).
2. Prior to the works commencing (including any demolition works), Tree Protection Fencing must be installed and maintained until works are completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. An inspection is required once the Tree Protection Fencing has been erected. Please contact the City's Environment Unit on 5272 5272 to arrange this inspection.

All works within the nominated Tree Protection Zones must be:

(a) Carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees and Australian Standard 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites.

(b) Overseen by a suitably qualified, Level-5 arborist.

(c) Carried out to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by suitably trained and qualified arboricultural staff.

Works encroaching within the nominated Tree Protection Zones must not be undertaken without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. No works are permitted within the retained patches of Plains Grassland.

1. Prior to use commencing, a written statement from the Project Arborist must be submitted to the Responsible Authority that certifies that the following items have been addressed as part of the works:

(a) Installation and correct placement of tree protection fencing 2 weeks prior to works commencing and for the duration of works

(b) Attendance during Tree Protection Zone incursions

(c) Adherence to Australian Standard 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites

1. Prior to the commencement of works, a Weed Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved this Weed Management Plan will form part of this permit. The plan must detail:

(a) Species and extent of weed infestation.

(b) Current and/or proposed treatment methods.

(c) Timeframes.

(d) Any other relevant information

Once approved, the approved weed management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of any tree removal or other potential fauna habitat, the permit holder must appoint an ecologist to conduct a pre-clearing survey to assess the presence of fauna. Where fauna is likely to be present in trees or vegetation proposed for removal, a suitably qualified wildlife handler must be present to ensure that native fauna is managed in accordance with DECCA guidance and all necessary authorisations must be obtained prior to removing native fauna. Dams filled as part of the approved development must be drained at least 48 hours prior to works commencing to enable the relocation or translocation of fauna.

A brief letter style report must be submitted to the Responsible Authority to satisfy the condition. The report must include a description of the survey, any fauna found, and steps taken to protect fauna during the works. Any instances of harm or death to fauna need to be reported.

1. Prior to works commencing, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved this Construction Environmental Management Plan will form part of this permit. This plan must incorporate, but is not limited to, the following information:

(a) The CMP must be prepared in accordance with the EPA - Civil Construction, building and demolition guide Publication 1834.1, September 2023.

(b) Measures to protect native vegetation and/or trees to be retained.

(c) Weed control measures including the identification of infestations and the proposed treatment measures for any species identified.

(d) Plant and vehicle hygiene measures.

(e) Intended access for construction vehicles.

(f) Dust suppression measures.

(g) Stockpile locations and laydown areas.

(h) Parking locations for machinery and construction personnel.

All development and works must be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any non-compliance identified by the Responsible Authority must be rectified immediately and at no cost to Council.

1. Prior to the commencement of use, the developer must:

(a) Construct the site stormwater into the swale drain You Yang Road or other nominated point/s as approved by the Responsible Authority. The stormwater connection must be in accordance with City of Greater Geelong Standard Drawings.

(b) Re-construct the existing crossover with an all-weather seal in accordance with Infrastructure Design Manual Standard Drawing 260 and the requirements and standards of the City of Greater Geelong.

(c) Construct the new vehicular crossing in accordance with Infrastructure Design Manual Standard Drawing 260 and the requirements and standards of the City of Greater Geelong.

(d) Construct the car park including accessways, surface with an all-weather sealed coat and linemark the car and accessways in accordance with the endorsed plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority:

(a) no more than 250 people on each Sunday are to assemble at the site, and

(b) visitors may only visit between 12noon and 3.30pm.

1. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority:

(a) no more than 2 pastors in the office only at the site between the hours of 9.30am to 2pm Monday to Friday; and,

(b) no more than 10 people at any one time working on the market garden on the review site.

1. No amplified music, including live amplified music, must be played or piped to external areas without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. No music or announcements may be audible outside the boundaries of the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All waste material must be regularly removed from the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, noting no Council waste and recycling services will be provided, private collection services required
2. Provision must be made on the land for the storage and collection of garbage and other solid waste. This area must be graded, drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The storage, removal and disposal of such/garbage refuse must be undertaken in such a manner so as to avoid any nuisance, pollution or loss amenity to the surrounding area and must at all times be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. An approved onsite wastewater management system must be installed concurrently with the erection of the building and all wastewater must be disposed of within the curtilage of the property in accordance with the approved land capability assessment report, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Dependant on the updated LCA supplied to the Responsible Authority, the existing onsite wastewater management system (OWMS) must be brought into compliance with the latest version of the 'EPA Code of Practice - Onsite Wastewater Management' and the relevant certificate of conformance be submitted with the appropriate application to the responsible authority as required. All waste water fixtures from the existing building must be connected to the new onsite wastewater management system (OWMS) associated with the new dwelling being constructed.
6. The existing onsite wastewater management system (OWMS) must be altered/replaced so that the wastewater is contained and not likely to overflow in accordance with the Environment Protection Act 2017, subordinate legislation and Council requirements.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development is not started within two (2) years of the issued date of this permit.

(b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issued date of this permit.

(c) The use does not start within two (2) years of completion of the development.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] Page 3 of the expert witness statement of Mr Beaver, dated 23 April 2025.