GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 CAPE NELSON LIVESTOCK ASSEMBLY DEPOTS

PANEL REPORT

September 2004 CAPE NELSON LIVESTOCK ASSEMBLY DEPOTS GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12

PANEL REPORT

CHRIS HARTY, CHAIR

ALAN THATCHER, MEMBER

September 2004 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY...... 1

2. THE PANEL PROCESS ...... 4 2.1 THE PANEL ...... 4 2.2 HEARINGS, DIRECTIONS AND INSPECTIONS ...... 5 2.3 SUBMISSIONS ...... 6

3. WHAT IS PROPOSED?...... 9 3.1 THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS...... 9 3.2 THE AMENDMENT...... 12 3.3 NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL ...... 14

4. ISSUES...... 17 4.1 NATURE OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 17 4.1.1 THE PLANNING AUTHORITY ...... 17 4.1.2 THE PROPONENT...... 17 4.1.3 KEY AUTHORITIES ...... 18 4.1.4 COMMUNITY SUBMITTORS...... 20 4.2 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE PANEL ...... 20 4.3 APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE PANEL...... 21

5. STRATEGIC CONTEXT ...... 22 5.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK ...... 22 5.2 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (SPPF) ...... 22 5.3 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (LPPF)...... 24 5.3.1 MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT...... 24 5.3.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES...... 25 5.4 ZONES AND OVERLAYS...... 26 5.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RURAL ZONE...... 26 5.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OVERLAY 1 – COASTAL AREAS ...... 27 5.4.3 NEW RURAL ZONES...... 28 5.5 PARTICULAR PROVISIONS...... 28 5.6 OTHER DOCUMENTS ...... 29 5.6.1 VICTORIAN COASTAL STRATEGY 2002...... 29 5.6.2 GLENELG SHIRE COASTAL ACTION PLAN 2002...... 30 5.6.3 DISCOVERY BAY PARKS MANAGEMENT PLAN 2004...... 30 5.6.4 GLENELG HOPKINS REGIONAL CATCHMENT STRATEGY 2003-2007...... 31 5.6.5 STATE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION POLICY - WATERS OF VICTORIA ...... 31 5.6.6 STATE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION POLICY - GROUNDWATERS OF VICTORIA ...... 31

6. FORM OF PLANNING CONTROL ...... 32 6.1 APPROPRIATENESS OF THE INCORPORATED DOCUMENT...... 32 6.2 DEFINITIONS AND THE VICTORIAN CODE FOR CATTLE FEEDLOTS ...... 37

7. SUSTAINABILITY...... 40 7.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT...... 40 7.2 AMENITY ...... 48 7.2.1 TRAFFIC ...... 48 7.2.2 NOISE, ODOUR, DUST AND FLIES...... 49 7.3 FLORA AND FAUNA ...... 51 7.4 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER...... 56 7.5 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (EMP) ...... 58

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page ii

8. GOOLAGAR LAND ...... 61

9. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES ...... 63 9.1 IS AN AMENDMENT REQUIRED?...... 63 9.2 STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION...... 64 9.3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT ...... 64 9.4 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK ...... 66 9.5 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK...... 69 9.5.1 MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT...... 69 9.5.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY ...... 71 9.6 ZONES, OVERLAYS, PARTICULAR PROVISIONS AND SCHEDULES...... 72 9.7 REFERRAL AUTHORITIES...... 72 9.8 OUTCOME OF THE AMENDMENT ...... 73

10. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS...... 75 10.1 CONCLUSIONS...... 75 10.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 77

APPENDICES

A. LIST OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

B. EXHIBITED AMENDMENT

C. REVISED INCORPORATED DOCUMENT

D. TABLED DOCUMENTS WITH LAND AREAS, REVISED STOCK NUMBERS, WASTE LOADS AND TRAFFIC DATA

E. PANEL RECOMMENDED INCORPORATED DOCUMENT

F. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page iii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depot Sites and Surrounds ...... 11 Figure 2: View of the D.J. Peddie land showing cleared paddocks used to currently hold cattle...... 43 Figure 3: View of the Livestock Assembly Depots looking south towards the Cape Nelson Lighthouse...... 56

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Total Livestock Numbers proposed under Amendment C12...... 4 Table 2: Existing and proposed operating conditions for the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots...... 15 Table 3: Total waste levels comparisons for cattle and sheep per containment period, based on maximum numbers of cattle and sheep proposed at any one time...... 46 Table 4: Total number of projected truck movements ...... 48 Table 5: Total number of truck movements under existing maximum levels of cattle and sheep allowed...... 49 Table 6: Native vegetation status for the three assembly depot sites ...... 51

[Tell the Panel Business Manager if you have made manual changes to the list of figures when you submit your report.]

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 1

1. SUMMARY

Glenelg Amendment C12 seeks to facilitate the continued operation of existing livestock assembly depots located on Cape Nelson Lighthouse Road, Cape Nelson near Portland to hold sheep, goats and cattle for an extended period of time, generally between ten days for sheep and thirty days for cattle.

A livestock assembly depot is a facility that holds sheep, cattle and goats for a period of time prior to the livestock then being exported overseas. The containment period for livestock is dependent upon the country that it is being exported to. Current approvals allow a 10 day containment period. The amendment also seeks to increase the number of cattle to be contained on the subject lands with a reduction in the number of sheep.

Currently, the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots can hold up to 290,000 sheep and goats and 8,000 cattle at any one point in time. Under the amendment, stock numbers are to be changed to a maximum of 120,000 sheep and 24,000 cattle at any one point in time with an annual maximum number of 1,200,000 sheep and goats and 120,000 cattle. On average each 30 day containment period would hold 12,000 cattle.

The holding of 24,000 cattle as a maximum number at any one point in time would also effectively reduce the number of 30 day containment periods overall.

The amendment is therefore required to permit an increase in both cattle numbers and containment times.

The amendment affects three properties referred to as the Overoceans Land, the D J Peddie land and the Bramcote land, all of which are located on Cape Nelson in close proximity to both the Cape Nelson Lighthouse and the Discovery Bay Coastal Park and Cape Nelson State Park. These properties represent a combined land area proposed under the amendment of approximately 347 hectares. These properties have operated as livestock assembly depots for around the last 30 years under a combination of existing use rights and previous planning permits. However, with the introduction of the new format Glenelg Planning Scheme, the Cape Nelson area, which was previously zoned for rural land use, was rezoned to an Environmental Rural Zone. The change in zoning has had the effect of making the existing livestock assembly depots prohibited uses and therefore unable to apply for planning permits to modify their operational status to reflect changes in livestock export markets, namely the new market to China who require a 30 day quarantine period before livestock can be exported.

Accordingly, the operators of the livestock assembly depots have proposed under Amendment C12 to insert a site specific control into the Glenelg Planning Scheme pursuant to Clause 52.03 to provide for the use of the livestock assembly depots in accordance with conditions contained within the document “Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots, August 2004” which is proposed to be incorporated under the Schedule to Clause 81 into the Glenelg Planning Scheme. Included within the incorporated document are requirements for developing a range of management plans including a Weed Control Management Plan, a Dead or Injured Animals Management Plan and an Environmental Management Plan which will impose a monitoring program for groundwater, surface water, soil, dust, odour, noise and wastes.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 2

The Panel has considered a large range of strategic planning documents and both written and verbal submissions for and against the amendment. Many submissions stated that the past performance of the assembly depots had not complied with approvals or operated within the spirit of their existing use rights. The local community does not have confidence that the livestock assembly depots can be operated within the limits of their approvals nor be made accountable for any breaches of operating conditions by Council. Accordingly, they consider that the proposed changes to the operation of the assembly depots will increase the detrimental impacts on adjoining properties and the environmental and tourism values of Cape Nelson and its coastal setting. The Panel noted these concerns, however, its consideration of the amendment is related to the nature and effects of the changes proposed to the operation of the livestock assembly depots and not to their past level of compliance. The Panel acknowledges that irrespective of the need for the amendment the livestock assembly depots exist and are quite entitled to continue operating as they have done so in the past in accordance with their existing use rights and previous planning approvals.

Given these considerations the Panel did express its concern about the land capability of the existing livestock assembly depots to accommodate the increase in cattle numbers without causing significant land degradation and impacting groundwater resources and amenity. The increase in cattle numbers will lead to a change in manure loads. This concern was initially reinforced during the Panel’s inspection of the depots and the Cape Nelson area when it learned that land scraping, which is a practice of collecting built up waste material has increased in frequency between the change over in stock composition from sheep to cattle since the mid to late 1990’s.

In response to these concerns and those raised in submissions and evidence from other parties particularly the Department of Sustainability and Environment, the Proponent provided the Panel with revised stock numbers that would be contained on the properties to satisfy concerns that both submitters and the Panel had with land capability.

In reviewing the revised stock numbers and operational conditions proposed under the amendments to the incorporated document, the Panel notes and takes confidence in the fact that the increased emphasis on land capability monitoring and mitigation measures to be developed through an environmental management plan.

The introduction of an annual ceiling on stocking rates for 120,000 cattle to be held on all three assembly depots represents an increase of 4,000 cattle above the 8,000 cattle permitted under current planning approvals. This equates to the introduction of 4,000 cattle onto the Bramcote land for the first time alongside the 8,000 cattle permitted on both the Overoceans land and D J Peddie land.

The Panel notes that the stock numbers will decrease overall although with a change in the livestock mix with less sheep and more cattle and that the overall annual waste manure loads will increase by 2.7%. The Panel also notes that for those containment periods where up to 24,000 cattle may be held the waste volumes will be high. The consequences of these high stocking rates are that the number of containment periods over a year will be less. The Panel considers that such operational changes must be monitored to ensure that soil, surface and groundwater quality is not reduced and that amenity values related to noise, dust, odour and flies are monitored with mitigation measures clearly outlined to avoid significant impacts from occurring.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 3

The Panel considers that the amendment will put in place for the first time an effective and integrated management regime over all three existing assembly depots, which will ensure that land capability becomes of paramount importance and is watched, analysed and most importantly, independently audited. The Panel has confidence that with the involvement of an independent auditor approved by the Environment Protection Authority, that the environmental stress triggers should not be exceeded as a result of the operational changes proposed for the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots under the amendment.

On balance the Panel considers that the amendment will result in a net community benefit to not only the Portland community but for the State of Victoria primarily because these assembly depots are the only such facilities in the State. The operational changes and monitoring and safeguards established through the incorporated document ensures that the development is sustainable and will support the local and regional economy while protecting the environmental values of Cape Nelson and its coastal setting.

On balance, the Panel recommends that the amendment be approved with changes as recommended by the Panel to reflect the above issues.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 4

2. THE PANEL PROCESS

2.1 THE PANEL

This Panel was appointed under delegation on the 4 June 2004 pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions in respect of Amendment C12. This amendment concerns a proposal to facilitate the continued operation of livestock assembly depots on Cape Nelson Lighthouse Road, Cape Nelson to hold sheep, goats and cattle for an extended period of time, generally between ten days for sheep and thirty days for cattle with the possibility of occasional longer periods of up to 60 days prior to being exported overseas. The containment period for livestock is dependent upon the importing country.

The amendment seeks to insert a site specific control into the Glenelg Planning Scheme pursuant to Clause 52.03 to provide for the use of the livestock assembly depots in accordance with conditions contained within the document “Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots, August 2004” which is proposed to be incorporated under the Schedule to Clause 81 into the Glenelg Planning Scheme.

A livestock assembly depot is a facility that holds sheep, cattle and goats for a period of time prior to the livestock then being exported overseas. The containment period for livestock is dependent upon the country that it is being exported to. Current approvals allow a 10 day containment period while the Amendment seeks to increase the containment period to 30 days or for longer periods in accordance with the requirements of the relevant importing country. The Panel was advised that approval has been granted by the Planning Authority under the existing planning approvals, for cattle to be quarantined for 30 days prior to shipment overseas and that this has been occurring on some of the livestock assembly depot properties over the last 18 months.

The Amendment also seeks to increase the number of cattle to be contained on the subject lands with a reduction in the number of sheep. The maximum number of livestock, proposed under the Amendment to be contained on the combined area of the subject lands are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Total Livestock Numbers proposed under Amendment C12

COMBINED TOTALS FOR ALL THREE LIVESTOCK ASSEMBLY DEPOTS Maximum number of Sheep and Sheep and Goats with Goats with no Cattle at 5:1 ratio Cattle Cattle increase for every less head of cattle Peak at the same 240,000 (peak at any one time with 24,000 120,000 time no cattle) Annual Maximum 120,000 1,200,000 1,800,000 (with no cattle) Containment periods Containment periods of Containment Period Containment periods of 10 days of 30 days 10 days

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 5

The planning authority is Glenelg Shire Council and the proponent is Mr D J Peddie and Mr P King acting through the assistance of Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd (ERM).

The amendment affects land located either side of Cape Nelson Lighthouse Road, Cape Nelson and described as: ƒ Crown Allotment 1 Section 5 Parish of Trewalla known as the D.J. Peddie land; ƒ Crown Allotment 1A Section 5 Parish of Trewalla known as the Bramcote Pty Ltd land; and ƒ Crown Allotments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 Section 4 Parish of Trewalla known as the Overoceans Pty Ltd land.

The Panel consisted of: ƒ Chairperson: Mr Chris Harty ƒ Member: Mr Alan Thatcher

2.2 HEARINGS, DIRECTIONS AND INSPECTIONS

A Directions Hearing was held on Monday 5 July 2004 at the Glenelg Shire Council Chambers, Portland. A number of directions were made about: ƒ Hearing arrangements; ƒ Exchange of expert witness reports or statements; ƒ Presentation of witness reports and cross examination; ƒ Strategic assessment guidelines; ƒ Land capability and effects on the environment; ƒ Copy of relevant documents; ƒ Site inspection; and ƒ Concluding comments at the end of the hearing.

The various parties to the hearing largely complied with these directions.

The Panel Hearings were held on Tuesday 10 August 2004, Wednesday 11 August 2004 and Thursday 12 August 2004 at the Glenelg Shire Council Chambers, Cliff Street Portland.

The Panel members inspected the site and surrounding areas, following the Directions Hearing on Monday 5 July 2004. The inspection comprised an accompanied view with the proponent and submitters of the following sites: ƒ The transport route between the Port of Portland and the subject lands; ƒ The Overoceans Pty Ltd property; ƒ The D J Peddie Land; ƒ The Bramcote Pty Ltd land; ƒ The Taffs property; ƒ The Egan property; and ƒ The Murrell property (Picnic Hill).

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 6

The Panel also inspected the area on its own from the Cape Nelson Tourist Road following along the edge of the subject lands from the Discovery Bay Coastal Park and Cape Nelson State Park.

2.3 SUBMISSIONS

A list of all written submissions to Amendment C12 is included in Appendix A.

The Panel has considered all written and oral submissions and all material presented to it in connection with this matter.

The Panel heard the following parties.

Submitter Represented By Glenelg Shire Council – Mr. Bernie Wilder, Town Planner Mr Phillip King & Mr David Peddie Mr. Mark Dwyer instructed by Ms Michelle Keen from Freehills. He called the following witnesses: – Debra Butcher, Town Planner, ERM. – Paul Kelly, Principal Ecologist, ERM. – Steven Laking, Principal Hydrogeologist, ERM. Department of Sustainability and Environment Mr Grant Hull, Senior Land Use Planner. He called the following witness: – John Kane, Project Leader for South West Dairy Effluent Project, Department of Primary Industries. Mr Gordon Stokes supported by the Trust’s – National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Portland Conservation Manager Branch. Mr Peter Klein Marketing Manager, Port of Portland Mr Phillip King On behalf of Goolagar Pty Ltd. Mr Gareth Gunn Submitter Mr Lyle Taffs Submitter Mr Trevor Budge Town Planner on behalf of Mr Taffs and Cape Nelson Landcare Inc. Mr Lyn Murrell Cape Nelson Landcare Inc. Mr Warren Mars Submitter Ms Hilary Turner Submitter Ms Hilda Egan Submitter Mr Brampton & Jacqueline LePage Submitter Mr Lindsay Hill Submitter

The Port of Portland and Mr E. Hallewas were late submitters, who requested to be heard. The Panel considered that it was appropriate to permit them to be heard because the Port of Portland are a relevant stakeholder associated with the operation of the livestock assembly depots and that Mr E. Hallewas was a submitter who had been overlooked because of some confusion regarding the status of his original submission. Mr Hallewas did not appear during the Panel Hearing despite instruction from the Panel for the Planning Authority to advise him

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 7 to attend on the morning of the first day of the hearing. Accordingly, the Panel advised parties at the hearing that his written submission would be considered in conjunction with all other written material provided to the Panel.

At the commencement of the Panel Hearing another late submission was received from the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) seeking to support the Amendment. The VFF submission requested to be heard however upon confirmation they declined the opportunity on the basis that their submission is taken into consideration. The Panel accepted this and considered the submission of the VFF in conjunction with other written submissions.

During the Panel Hearing Ms Turner and Mr Hill advised the Panel, that they did not receive the expert witness statements prepared by ERM on behalf of the proponent. Accordingly, the Panel made a direction that they be provided with a copy of the relevant expert witness statements and were given until Monday 23 August 2004 to respond in writing to the Panel regarding any comments that they may wish to make on the expert witness statements.

A the conclusion of the Panel Hearing the proponent presented to the Panel a revised version of the incorporated document dated August 2004. The Panel directed that parties may submit written comments on the revised incorporated document by Monday 23 August 2004 to the Panel for its consideration.

Additional comments were received from the following parties: ƒ Mimi Murrell - Secretary of the Friends of Cape Nelson Landcare/Coastcare Inc.; ƒ Hilda Egan; ƒ Hilary Turner; ƒ Lindsay Hill; ƒ Phillip King – Overoceans Pty Ltd; and ƒ Ross Martin - Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Issues raised in these additional submissions related to the following: ƒ Re-affirming submissions made during the Panel Hearing; ƒ Requesting Condition 11 of the revised incorporated document be amended to established a Committee to provide advice and assistance to the transparency of the auditing process and the decision making process of the Responsible Authority and Minister for Planning; ƒ Transparent and scientifically justified trigger levels to be established for all issues identified under Condition 16 of the revised incorporated document and especially for odour; ƒ That clear actions are articulated when trigger levels are exceeded; ƒ Seek to have the revised incorporated document recognise a role for the Cape Nelson Landcare Group to have with the livestock assembly depots; ƒ Questions the expertise of the Responsible Authority to manage issues and requires another independent authority; ƒ Do not further degrade the tourism value of Cape Nelson by expanding the feedlots; ƒ The feedlots should be relocated away from the sensitive coastal location; ƒ Request that a plan be required to be submitted and approved under the incorporated document showing the location of any hospital paddocks, which must be located within the Overoceans, D J Peddie and/or Bramcote land and not the Goolagar land;

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 8

ƒ The Goolagar land should not be condoned for use as a feedlot or as part of any feedlot operations; ƒ Pre export quarantine areas only hold Australian animals and any diseases, which lead to the rejection of animals are not linked with overseas animals or diseases; ƒ Stock rejected for export are removed from the depots within 24 hours and in many cases are returned to farmers; ƒ Stock held on Goolagar are not reject animals but the result of the exporter purchasing more than the vessel can carry and are normally exported on the next vessel; ƒ Although weeds are present there is no evidence that weeds are solely the result of operations of the depots on Cape Nelson; ƒ Goolagar is approved by AQIS as a pre-export quarantine area and is used for shipments to Mexico, which have a 7 days containment period. Stocking rates are equivalent to extensive animal husbandry grazing levels; ƒ The additional land at Goolagar comprising 166 hectares was available for reducing stocking densities and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) submission was unaware that additional land was available for this purpose; and ƒ Bores located on the assembly depots have not dried up nor had to be deepened over the last 22 yeas.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment also made a number of recommendations for amending the revised incorporated document, which included minor wording changes to the Land Management condition to ensure greater clarity for approval and requirements for the Environmental Management Plan.

These additional comments have been considered by the Panel as part of its overall assessment of all submissions received and presented to it on the amendment.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 9

3. WHAT IS PROPOSED?

3.1 THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS

The subject site comprises three separate land areas shown in Figure 1 and described below:

D J Peddie Land, Crown Allotment 1 Section 5 Parish of Trewalla

This land is located on the west side of Cape Nelson Lighthouse Road and has direct abuttal along its southern and western boundary with the Cape Nelson State Park. The land parcel has a total area of approximately 169 hectares and is undulating. Approximately 40 hectares of this area contains native vegetation, which is fenced off from the assembly depot and not used or proposed to be used as part of the livestock assembly depot operations. This leaves an area of approximately 129 hectares of the D J Peddie land to be used as a livestock assembly depot. This area includes a 10.57 hectare area of land in the south west portion of the site which is currently not used to hold livestock.

A centrally located driveway provides access to this land and there are a number of outbuildings associated with the operation located adjacent to this driveway, including cattle handling facilities, loading and unloading facilities and a manager’s residence further to the west. There are existing accessways running between paddocks providing for vehicular access to the livestock assembly paddocks. A quarry is also located on this land in the south west corner of the site. Products from this quarry are used for internal purposes only as part of the assembly depot operations.

The land is undulating with a westerly aspect and at a generally lower elevation than the Overoceans Pty Ltd land. The site is principally cleared, however, it does contain some large patches of remnant vegetation, which is fenced off from the assembly depot operations. The majority of these remnants represent the Coastal Mallee Scrub Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC’s). The remnant patches of vegetation are dominated by the State significant Coast Gum (Eucalyptus diversifolia), Moonah (Melaleuca lanceolata) and Coast Wattle (Acacia longifolia).

The land also forms part of the Portland Windfarm project and will contain nine wind turbines.

Bramcote Pty Ltd, Crown Allotment 1A Section 5 Parish of Trewalla

This land is located on the east side of Cape Nelson Lighthouse Road, opposite the D.J. Peddie land and is also owned by Mr Peddie. This land parcel comprises a total of 97 hectares, all of which forms part of the livestock assembly depot operations. The land is undulating and principally cleared (with the exception of planted buffer areas). The vegetation remnants represent the following EVC’s; Coastal Mallee Scrub and Sand Heathland, which are abutted to the south and east by the Cape Nelson Tourist Road, which runs along the coastal edge of Cape Nelson and through the Cape Nelson State Park.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 10

This land contains key operational components of the livestock assembly depot operations such as the weighbridge, office and various other outbuildings and the sheep loading area located in proximity to Cape Nelson Lighthouse Road. The weighing of livestock occurs on this land for both properties owned by Mr Peddie. This land also contains accessways running between paddocks for vehicular access and also forms part of the Portland Windfarm project with six wind turbines to be located on this site.

Overoceans Pty Ltd, Crown Allotments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 Section 4 Parish of Trewalla

This land is owned by Mr King and is located on the west side of Cape Nelson Lighthouse Road, to the north of the D J Peddie land. It comprises 121 hectares and is abutted to the south by the D J Peddie land and other farmland, to the west by adjoining farmland and to the north in part by the Discovery Bay Coastal Park and in part by farmland. The land is undulating with a westerly aspect with exposure to strong salt-laden southwesterly winds. The land is principally cleared of indigenous native vegetation with the exception of screen planting located around various paddocks. These remnants represent the following EVC’s; Damp Sands Herb Rich Woodland and Coastal Heathland Scrub. The remnant patches of vegetation are dominated by Brown Stringybark (Eucalyptus baxteri) and Manna Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis subsp. pryoriana).

The key infrastructure associated with the use comprising a weighbridge, associated outbuildings and the livestock loading area is located centrally on the land with direct access to the Cape Nelson Lighthouse Road. The existing loading area for the livestock is screened from the Cape Nelson Lighthouse Road by a mounded area located adjacent to the road.

Accessways are located between paddocks providing vehicular access to all of these paddocks. All boundaries to the paddocks are double fenced and planted with trees.

The land comprising the subject site is located on Cape Nelson, approximately 5 kilometres south west of Portland. The subject lands occupy a significant proportion of Cape Nelson, however there are various other smaller rural landholdings also located on the Cape, with direct access from Cape Nelson Lighthouse Road. These rural landholdings are generally used for grazing purposes and for dwellings located on rural land (refer to Figure 1).

The Cape Nelson State Park extends around the edge of the Cape with a larger park area located on the southern tip, where the Cape Nelson Lighthouse is located. The Cape Nelson Tourist Road provides access to the lighthouse from Portland, without requiring vehicles to use Cape Nelson Lighthouse Road. Also extending around the Cape, adjacent to the Cape Nelson Tourist Road is the Great South West Walk which stretches from Portland to Nelson on the South Australian border. This Walk is located in proximity to the eastern boundary of the Bramcote Pty Ltd land. To the west of Cape Nelson is Cape Bridgewater. The Discovery Bay Coastal Park extends around Cape Bridgewater and beyond to Nelson in the far west.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 11

Figure 1: Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depot Sites and Surrounds

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 12 3.2 THE AMENDMENT

The subject lands have operated as livestock assembly depots for many years. In the case of the Bramcote Pty Ltd land since the 1970’s under existing use rights, while for the D J Peddie and Overoceans Pty Ltd land under existing planning permits issued in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Since 1982, the livestock assembly depots have prepared over 25 million sheep and 250,000 cattle for export.

Amendment C12 effectively seeks to change the operating conditions of the existing assembly depots at Cape Nelson in the following way: ƒ Operate livestock assembly depots at Cape Nelson over a total land area of 347 hectares covering the D J Peddie land including an additional 10.57 hectare portion of the D J Peddie land, the Bramcote Pty Ltd land and the Overoceans Pty Ltd land; ƒ Modification to the existing maximum containment period for cattle only from ten days to 30 days or in accordance with the requirements of the importing country. This may include occasional extensions beyond 30 days for periods such as 60 days associated with countries like the USA. Such extensions of time would be subject to the consent of both the Glenelg Shire Council and if authorised would be on a condition that a 30 day containment period would be lost. This requirement to be included as part of the Environmental Management Plan; ƒ Approval to accommodate a maximum of 24,000 cattle (the Amendment originally proposed 30,000 cattle but was amended during expert evidence on the basis of the proponents giving further consideration in terms of shipping capacity) on the combined landholdings at any one time with an annual maximum number of 120,000 cattle; ƒ The ability to accommodate a maximum of 120,000 sheep and goats on the combined landholdings at any one time with cattle with containment periods of 10 days. An annual maximum of 1,200,000 sheep and goats but with the ability to increase the number of sheep and goats by 5 for every one head of cattle below the maximum permitted. This would equate to a potential maximum of 240,000 sheep and goats at any one time over the combined landholdings with no cattle and up to 1,800,000 sheep and goats annually over the combined landholdings with no cattle; ƒ The imposition of operating conditions on the use of the Bramcote land; ƒ The requirement for all three assembly depots to operate in accordance with the requirements of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP).

The exhibited amendment proposed to incorporate the document ‘Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots December 2003’ into the Scheme to facilitate these modifications to the existing operations. The Scheme would be amended to include reference to the proposed incorporated document in the Schedules to Clauses 52.03 and 81 of the Scheme.

The incorporated document has been prepared in a similar format to that of a planning permit and to include the various requirements on the existing permits, to refine or improve these requirements where necessary and to put in place more stringent environmental requirements associated with the use.

Conditions incorporated in the document include: ƒ The preparation and submission of site plans. ƒ The planting of vegetation buffers (to be specified on the site plans). ƒ The provision of hospital paddocks.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 13

ƒ Compliance with Livestock Export standards and other relevant standards. ƒ The provision of adequate drinking water in all paddocks. ƒ Restriction on delivery and pick-up of livestock so that it only occurs between the hours of 6.00am and 10.00pm. ƒ The disposal of dead and injured animals in accordance with a Dead and Injured Animals Management Plan. ƒ The retention and fencing of all native vegetation on the site. ƒ The preparation of a Weed Control Management Plan. ƒ Annual monitoring of soil and groundwater. ƒ Preparation of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) ƒ Requirements associated with the transport of stock, the routes to be taken, delivery and pick up and parking of vehicles on site.

Towards the end of the Panel Hearing a revised incorporated document was prepared, ‘Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots August 2004, which amended the conditions concerning stocking rates, containment times and requirements for the approval and operation of the EMP including approval by both the Glenelg Shire Council and the Minister for Planning. The revised incorporated document also provided clear requirements for the EMP to include monitoring and independent auditing of all monitoring for soil and groundwater conditions.

An EMP (dated December 2003) was prepared by ERM and was made available with the exhibited documentation. The EMP addresses the issues of: noise, dust, odour, impacts on flora and fauna, soil erosion, soil quality, impacts on surrounding rural uses, traffic and waste management.

No changes were proposed to either the Municipal Strategic Statement or the Local Policies section of the Scheme as part of the Amendment.

A number of submissions were made to the exhibited Amendment, including a submission from the DSE and from the Glenelg Hopkins Regional Catchment Authority. Following review of the submissions, a revised EMP (dated July 2004) was prepared to address a number of the issues raised in the submissions. Some of the key changes include: ƒ The requirement for the preparation of a baseline study in relation to groundwater, surface water and soil. ƒ The identification of an on-going monitoring program for groundwater, surface water and soil and the requirement for this to be audited annually by an accredited EPA auditor. ƒ The identification of detailed requirements for an on-going weed management and revegetation program. ƒ The identification of additional control measures for the disposal of manure.

The exhibited Amendment including the exhibited version of the incorporated document is contained in Appendix B while a copy of the revised incorporated document dated August 2004 is contained in Appendix C.

The Amendment was required to enable the continued operation of the livestock assembly depots to accommodate changing export markets primarily in relation to stricter (lengthier) quarantine periods for countries like China and an increasing demand for cattle and because

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 14

of the current inflexibility associated with the existing use rights for the Bramcote Pty Ltd land and the planning permits for the D J Peddie land and the Overoceans Pty Ltd land.

The subject lands are included within the Environmental Rural Zone (ERZ) of the Glenelg Planning Scheme. Under that zone the use of land for a livestock assembly depot (which falls within the definition of intensive animal husbandry) is a prohibited use. The change of zone occurred during the review of the new format VPP Glenelg Planning Scheme. Under the exhibited version of the new format planning scheme the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots were proposed to be included within the Rural Zone (RUZ). However, due to issues associated with the potential impacts on the coastal area from timber plantation development the Panel reviewing the new format planning scheme suggested that the use of the ERZ would be appropriate to control timber plantation development in the coastal areas of the Shire. Accordingly, under the approved new format Glenelg Planning Scheme, the Cape Nelson area was included within the ERZ.

The Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots are reliant upon existing use rights or planning permits that were issued prior to the introduction of the new format Glenelg Planning Scheme, when the land was included in the Rural 2 Zone of the Heywood Planning Scheme and accordingly, were a permissible use. The ability of the livestock assembly depots to operate with certainty and to adequately capitalise on livestock export market changes is constrained by a combination of prohibitive zoning and old approvals and existing use rights that are not integrated over the three existing livestock assembly depot properties.

The Amendment was exhibited between the 9 February 2004 until the 12 March 2004 and was undertaken correctly. As a result a total number of 19 submissions were received, which were subsequently referred to the Panel for consideration. The Panel requested that the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) be notified specifically as it appeared that they were not originally. Consequently the EPA lodged a late submission. Also a late submission was received from the Port of Portland, the Victorian Farmers Federation and another submission was received by Mr E. Hallewas, which was not recognised by the Planning Authority due to confusion associated with the addressee of the letter. All such late submissions have been included for consideration by the Panel.

3.3 NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL

The following provides a brief description of the way in which the livestock assembly depots operate. ƒ Cattle and sheep are transported by road from farms throughout the eastern states to the livestock assembly depots, for holding prior to live export by ship. Transportation is usually by semi-trailers and ‘B doubles’, with a capacity of 200 to 600 sheep or 20 to 100 cattle. Trucks are weighed before and after delivery to ascertain the weight of the livestock delivered. ƒ On delivery livestock are discharged into the receival yards, which are concrete based to facilitate washing after each consignment. Blood testing and various veterinary tests are performed. The animals are also sorted and tagged and drafted into weight categories. ƒ After the initial medical requirements the livestock are then herded into holding yards for the required period at an average density of 1,000 sheep per hectare or 200 cattle per hectare. Containment around the paddocks is in the form of stock proof fencing in line

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 15

with AQIS (Australian Quarantine and Inspection Services) requirements. Each holding pen is spelled to allow the land to regenerate between consignments. During the containment period further routine blood and veterinary tests are performed depending on the individual country requirements. ƒ Animals are fed commercial pellets by use of a self-feeder or open troughs. Hay is also periodically supplied. Animals are provided enough food to encourage consumption of provided pellets and hay. ƒ Any animals that die are currently removed from site with the exception of the Overoceans land where sheep are buried on site in a specified pit, in accordance with the requirements of the EPA. ƒ At the end of the quarantine period the livestock are herded into the stockyard and collected by trucks for delivery to the port in Portland. ƒ Trucks are typically operated by local drivers and are principally single deck semi- trailers. Typically each truck can carry 200 sheep or 25 cattle. ƒ The trucks travel along Cape Nelson Lighthouse Road to the port via the ring road.

Containment periods at present allow for animals to be quarantined for 10 days. However, the amendment seeks to allow quarantine containment to increase for cattle to 30 days for countries like China and possibly 60 days for countries like the USA. The main reason for increased containment is so that additional blood testing can occur prior to export.

Table 2 below provides a summary of what is currently permitted and what is proposed under the amendment for the operation of the livestock assembly depots. Table 2: Existing and proposed operating conditions for the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots.

Sheep and goats Cattle Containment (at any one time) (at any one time) EXISTING 50,000 4,000 (max. at time 50,000 max sheep/goats in wet or Peddie of cattle that could heavy shipping conditions be carried by a Max. 10 days containment with min. 5 ship) days between rotations No more than 10 times per year 20m wide buffer along southern boundary 10m buffer along the boundary with Cape Nelson Road 120,000 (sheep) No other conditions or constraints Bramcote Not operate more than 10 days at any one time or 120 days total for the year 120,000 4,000 Cattle on specified 25 ha Overoceans Max no. goats not to exceed 2500

Total 290,000 8,000

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 16

Sheep and goats Cattle Containment (at any one time) (at any one time) PROPOSED Peddie, Bramcote Numbers increase Peak at any one Max. containment period for Cattle of and Overoceans by 5:1 for every time 30 days or the requirements of the combined head of cattle below importing country Cattle - 24,000 the permitted Max. containment period for Sheep maximum Sheep and Goats – and Goats of 10 days or the 120,000 Peak at any one requirements of the importing country time = 240,000 Annual Maximum Annual maximum = Cattle – 120,000 1,800,000 Sheep and Goats – 1,200,000

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 17

4. ISSUES

4.1 NATURE OF SUBMISSIONS

4.1.1 THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

The Glenelg Shire Council, as the planning authority, supported the Amendment on the basis that: The proposal will bring about a better site management regime consistent with contemporary and Best Practice for land and livestock management.

The Council noted that the request for the amendment is prompted in part by an alleged mistake at the time of approval of the current Planning Scheme associated with the rezoning of the livestock assembly depots to the ERZ, which made the assembly depots prohibited uses. The Council supports their continuing operation on the basis of existing use rights and existing planning permit approvals.

The Council’s major concern with the current operation under these existing use rights and planning permits is the lack of flexibility to operate in a world market. A specific issue is with changing containment periods required by different importing countries (eg China has a requirement for a 30 day containment period and if US markets were to open up the period could extend to 60 days).

The Council in their submission said that: The amendment does not seek to increase the total number of livestock that can be contained at the assembly depots under the existing permits and existing use rights, it only seeks to change the operational conditions imposed by the current permits to enable more efficient management of the depots to the benefit of the livestock.

The Council saw the incorporated document as the appropriate planning tool to achieve these ends.

4.1.2 THE PROPONENT

Mr Mark Dwyer from Freehills presented a submission, on behalf of the proponents David Peddie and Phillip King of Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots.

The assembly depots comprises two areas of land, known as the ‘D J Peddie’ land (164.4 ha) and the ‘Bramcote’ land (97 ha) owned by David Peddie and ‘Overoceans’ land (121 ha) owned by Phillip King.

The major issues for the owners were the need for increased flexibility in terms of meeting changing containment period requirements of different export markets and the capacity to

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 18

increase cattle numbers. It was described that a growing China market has lead to a great increase in demand for dairy cattle and a requirement for a 30-day containment period. They are also seeking to better meet current difficulties with environmental requirements through the development of an Environmental Management Plan.

The owners felt that: It would create greater certainty for the Council, themselves and the community if they sought new planning approvals rather than rely on their broader existing use rights. Whilst the current drafting of the permit conditions allows Mr Peddie and Mr King to apply to the responsible authority to exceed the containment periods and the frequency of containment, there is no flexibility in the permits relating to cattle numbers that can be held at anyone time.

After a long history of consideration of different planning options, the proponents are now seeking the adoption of an incorporated document as part of the Glenelg Planning Scheme.

Expert witnesses were called to present: ƒ A Planning Report ƒ An Ecology Report ƒ A Native Vegetation Management Plan ƒ A Hydrogeological Report

The proponents also presented a revised Environment Management Plan.

4.1.3 KEY AUTHORITIES

Environment Protection Authority

In the written submission to the Panel, the EPA supported: The rationalisation of the livestock assembly depot operations and the application of appropriate planning controls as we consider this should improve environmental management at these sites.

The EPA was concerned with meeting the requirements of State Environment Protection Policy – Waters of Victoria 2003 (SEPP Waters of Victoria) and specifically that waste and wastewater from intensive animal industries must not be discharged to surface waters. EPA acknowledged that livestock assembly depots are not listed under the Environment Protection (Scheduled Premises and Exemptions) Regulation 1996 and therefore are not required to obtain Works Approval and Licences from the EPA. The EPA did say, however, that they have been in recent years involved with the depots, Council, other government departments and some of the properties adjoining the depots in relation to the management of dead stock and other local environment protection measures.

The EPA submission commented on the incorporated document in relation to the following issues which, are dealt with in detail later in this report: ƒ Stock numbers and density ƒ Management of dead stock ƒ Land management and monitoring, and ƒ Environmental Management Reporting

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 19

Department of Sustainability and Environment

DSE prepared a written submission and provided further material when presenting at the Panel Hearing. DSE recognised the importance of the livestock export industry to Portland and its community but were concerned with the need for such an intensive use to be managed in a way consistent with ‘world’s best practice’.

The potential impact and management of animal waste was the main issue identified by DSE. Concerns were also expressed about meeting the requirements of both the SEPP (Waters of Victoria) and the State Environment Protection Policy – Groundwaters of Victoria and the need to prevent pollution of groundwater to protect specified beneficial uses. They identified a particular concern with the aquifer known as the Bridgewater Formation and stated: In consideration of the above, the Department is seriously concerned that the proposed Amendment does not adequately address the management of waste and effluent arising from these facilities, or protects the environment from contamination arising from these facilities.

The issue of pest plants and animals and weed encroachment and the escape of animals into the adjoining public land of Cape Nelson were also raised. They did not support the amendment because the incorporated document and nested EMP were considered inadequate as they were not consistent with a number of state policy documents and did not provide: ƒ Clear and measurable strategies for the management of waste and effluent; ƒ Clear management strategies which address the issue of escapee goats and sheep into the adjacent coastal parks; ƒ Clear management strategies which address the management of weeds originating from Peddie land; and ƒ Details in relation to the loss of native vegetation from the land or the revegetation of buffer zones.

DSE recommended that the incorporated document and EMP be redrafted to address the issues identified above as well as a range of changes and improvements that they considered were required for them to support the amendment. In addition, they recommended that the operators of the assembly depots should be encouraged to join the National Feedlot Accreditation Scheme to assist in improving operations and work practices.

Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority

The Glenelg Hopkins CMA in its submission neither supported nor objected to the amendment. The CMA saw the introduction of new operating conditions and management plans as wise land management. But also had concerns about possible environmental impact on the natural resources of Cape Nelson, such as weeds, erosion, odour, noise and dust. They supported the need for an annual independent audit with a strong enforcement regime being linked to operating conditions.

Port of Portland

The Port of Portland supported the amendment because they saw it as: Essential to ensuring the viability of this trade in general and specifically of livestock exports from Portland.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 20

They provided estimates of the total value of the livestock exports in 2003 being approximately $140 m.

4.1.4 COMMUNITY SUBMITTORS

Individuals

Submissions, almost solely, were received from landholders with properties adjoining the assembly depots and were objections to the amendment on the following grounds: ƒ Use of an incorporated document seen as an inappropriate ƒ The assembly depots are a non conforming use ƒ The amendment amounts to an expansion of the current operation ƒ Concern at increase in cattle numbers ƒ Problem of increased truck traffic ƒ Proposed EMP inadequate ƒ Potential problems of noise, dust, and flies ƒ Too higher stocking rates ƒ Expansion of depots bad for tourism ƒ Need for 30m buffer zones where properties adjoin depots ƒ Problem of weeds ƒ Problems of animal disposal ƒ Lack of confidence in self regulation for compliance with conditions

National Trust of Australia

The National Trust (Portland Branch) objected to the amendment considering that the proposed increase of cattle would place further pressures on an already fragile environment and reduce neighbouring amenity to unacceptable standards and further compromise tourist visitations. The Trust saw the amendment as contrary to planning policy directions and considered that the environmental values of the Cape Nelson landscape outweighed the socio-economic benefits of the amendment.

4.2 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE PANEL

The main issues identified by the panel were:

Planning ƒ The incorporated document as the planning tool - Application of ‘exceptional circumstances’ ƒ The nature of the amendment - Clarity on what is actually being proposed - Not an increase in stock numbers - Main issues are containment period and increased cattle numbers

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 21

Environment ƒ Waste management - Potential impact of groundwater and protection of beneficial uses - Stock numbers and production of waste (existing and proposed) - Waste disposal - Land degradation - Dead stock disposal ƒ Amenity - Noise, flies and dust from the depots - Traffic (stock transport, feed transport, operating hours and codes of practice) ƒ Flora and fauna - Pest plants and animals - Public / private land interface - Buffer planting - Cooperative programs ƒ Landscape - Public / private land interface - Now and the future

Management systems ƒ The EMP ƒ Monitoring and Compliance

4.3 APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE PANEL

The Panel’s consideration of Amendment C12 is based on the consideration of the relationship between the existing use of the land at Cape Nelson for livestock assembly depots compared to the changes to the existing operations of the assembly depots proposed under the amendment. The Panel’s considerations relate to applying the tests of material detriment associated with the proposed changes to the operations of the livestock assembly depots. It is not the role of this Panel to review or assess the past or current performance of the livestock assembly depots, but to consider the proposed changes of use against what use is currently permitted to occur.

The Panel’s approach to its task of considering Amendment C12 is to use the principles of net community benefit and sustainable development. All submissions both written and verbal including all evidence presented and provided to the Panel have been taken into consideration. Although individual submissions have not been specifically referred to in the report, the Panel has nevertheless considered these in terms of identifying the key issues raised and discussed as part of the Panel process and considered in this report.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 22

5. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

5.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK

This Section identifies the strategic context within which issues associated with Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots must be considered.

The relevant documents that provide the strategic context for considering the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots are as follows: ƒ Glenelg Planning Scheme – SPPF, LPPF, Zones, Overlays and Particular Provisions ƒ Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002 ƒ Glenelg Shire Coastal Action Plan 2002 ƒ Discovery Bay Parks Management Plan 2004 ƒ Glenelg Hopkins Regional Catchment Strategy 2003-2007 ƒ EPA SEPP Waters of Victoria ƒ EPA SEPP Groundwaters of Victoria

5.2 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (SPPF)

The purpose of the SPPF in planning schemes is to inform planning authorities and others of those aspects of state level planning policy, which need to be taken into account and given effect to in planning and development proposals. Planning policies are directed to land use and development through the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a primary objective of which is to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land. Clause 13 of the SPPF contains seven principles of land use and development planning, and these include settlement, environment, management of resources, infrastructure, economic well-being, social needs and regional co-operation.

There are a number of clauses in the SPPF that are of direct relevance to this proposal including: ƒ Clause 15 of the SPPF relates specifically to the environment. ƒ Clause 15.01 relates to the protection of Catchments, Waterways and Groundwater. This clause identifies the need for planning proposals to have regard to any regional catchment strategies approved under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 and any associated implementation plans or strategies. In this instance the Glenelg Hopkins Regional Catchment Strategy 2003 – 2007, the Glenelg Hopkins Nutrient Management Plan and the Draft Glenelg Hopkins Native Vegetation Management Plan are considered relevant pursuant to this clause. The clause also addresses the need for water quality protection and in particular the need to ensure that land use activities are managed to ensure that the quality of surface and groundwater is protected from land use activities that have the potential to discharge contaminated runoff or wastes to waterways.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 23

ƒ Clause 15.04 relates to air emissions and identifies the need for consideration to be given to recommended buffer distances for Industrial Residual Air emissions. ƒ Clause 15.05 relates to noise abatement and identifies the need to ensure that community amenity is not reduced as a result of noise emissions. ƒ Clause 15.08 relates to coastal areas and identifies the importance of protecting and maintaining significant environmental features and sustainable use of natural coastal resources. This clause identifies the need for planning decisions to be consistent with the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002 and any relevant coastal action plan or management plan. In this case it is considered that the Glenelg Shire Coastal Action Plan (December 2002) and the Discovery Bay Parks Management Plan (April 2004) are relevant documents for consideration. ƒ Clause 15.09 relates to the conservation of flora and fauna and identifies the need to minimise vegetation removal as part of land use or development proposals and, where appropriate, to require the replacement of any vegetation that is to be removed in accordance with Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action. ƒ Clause 17.05 of the SPPF addresses agriculture. This clause identifies the need for planning to support effective agricultural production and processing infrastructure, rural industry and farm related retailing and to assist genuine farming enterprises to adjust flexibly to market changes. The clause also notes that in assessing rural development proposals, planning and responsible authorities must balance the potential off-site effects of rural land use proposals, which might affect productive agricultural land. It also identifies the need for responsible authorities to consider the potential impacts of land use and development on the spread of plant and animal pests into agricultural areas. ƒ Clause 17.06 relates to intensive animal industries and identifies the need to facilitate the establishment and expansion of intensive animal industries in a manner consistent with orderly and proper planning and protection of the environment. ƒ Clause 18.01 relates to declared highways, railways and tramways. The clause identifies the need for transport routes to be located to minimise disruption of residential communities and their amenity. ƒ Clause 18.05 is also of relevance to this amendment. This clause recognises the importance to Victoria of its economically sustainable major ports, of which Portland is one, and identifies the importance of preserving land resources adjacent to ports for uses that depend upon or gain significant economic advantage as a result of being in proximity to the Port.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 24

5.3 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (LPPF)

There are various elements of the Glenelg Planning Scheme LPPF that are relevant to the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots. Many of the issues and objectives of the LPPF directly overlap with those of the SPPF. The following clauses are of particular relevance.

5.3.1 MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT

The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) identifies at its outset the key resources of the Shire of Glenelg. These key resources include: ƒ The deep water port at Portland; ƒ Productive primary industries, particularly agriculture, timber, fishing and the growing importance of horticulture; ƒ The area’s groundwater, reliable rainfall and high quality soils; ƒ The coastline and coastal environment as an environmental and recreational resource.

At Clause 21.03 the MSS identifies a vision for the Shire and states that planning for development will be based upon: ƒ Supporting economic development based on the Shire’s natural and locational assets; ƒ Realising the potential of Portland as a major regional deep water port with associated industries, employment opportunities and value added processing; ƒ Ensuring sustainable management and protection of the natural resources of soil, water and coastal areas; ƒ Protecting and conserving biodiversity in the Shire including provision of habitat areas for native plants and animals.

Clause 21.09 of the MSS identifies the Shire’s planning objectives and strategies. Of particular relevance to this amendment is the objective that relates to agriculture, which reads as follows: ƒ To provide for agricultural uses which are environmentally and ecologically sustainable through encouraging investment in existing agricultural enterprises and diversification of agricultural enterprises.

A relevant strategy to support this objective is: ƒ To provide a diversity of locational opportunities for agriculture including agroforestry, horticulture and appropriately sited intensive animal husbandry.

The MSS identifies ways in which this objective will be implemented including: ƒ Applying the Rural Zone to areas of the Shire currently in agricultural production except for areas suitable for intensive agriculture which shall be included in the Environmental Rural Zone. ƒ Using local policies to protect sound land management and protection of natural resources, to promote protection of high quality agricultural land; to encourage

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 25

opportunities for expansion of new agricultural enterprises; and to promote good siting and design of outbuildings.

Also included at Clause 21.09 is a section on the environment. Relevant objectives include: ƒ To protect groundwater resource water quality and secure a potable water supply. ƒ To protect and conserve the Shire’s biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and provision of habitats for native birds and animals. ƒ To protect and manage the Shire’s coastline as a significant environmental resource and long term public asset.

Strategies identified to respond to these objectives include: ƒ To minimise damage to water catchments and watercourses. ƒ To rectify salinity, soil erosion and vegetation loss through the encouragement of Landcare principles and comprehensive catchment management. ƒ To protect significant rural landscape from inappropriate development. ƒ To protect and maintain areas of environmental and landscape significance ƒ To prevent inappropriate development in coastal areas that is likely to prejudice the long term environmental values of the coast.

Tourism is also addressed within this clause. Relevant strategies include: ƒ To focus tourism on the attributes of the coast, the area’s rural products and the heritage values of all towns, especially Portland. ƒ To support the continuing development of a quality tourist and recreation product based on the built heritage assets, natural environment features such as the coast, National Parks, agriculture and food processing.

A relevant strategy includes: ƒ To promote the rugged coastline and environment as an alternative destination – this theme to be linked with the Great South West Walk.

The MSS identifies that the Environmental Significance Overlay and ERZ will be applied to coastal areas to protect natural and coastal values.

5.3.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES

Clause 22.02 of the Scheme relates to the environment. Clause 22.02-1 relates to land management and protection and includes the following relevant objectives: ƒ To adopt the principles of Landcare when considering applications to use and develop land. ƒ To have regard to the regional catchment strategy as prepared by the Glenelg Regional Catchment and Land Protection Board.

Clause 22.02-4 relates to coastal areas and applies to land included in Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay. Relevant policies to this clause include: ƒ To protect the natural and cultural values of the coast. ƒ To use and develop the coast in a sustainable manner.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 26

The clause identifies the importance of good quality water to marine ecosystems and the importance of maintaining sites of biological importance, biodiversity and indigenous coastal flora and fauna.

This clause also identifies the coast as a major economic asset in the Shire (containing the major concentrations of the Shire’s population and industry) and highlights the fact that some activities in the Shire (such as the Port) are reliant upon a coastal location and the economic and social values of tourism in the coastal area.

The clause also identifies the need for integrated management and protection of the coastal zone and in particular the coast.

The economic and social values of the coast from a tourism perspective are also identified, as is the need for significant scenic coastal transport routes to be identified and managed to ensure sustainable benefits for tourism and recreation value and amenity.

Clause 22.03 relates to economic development and includes the following objectives: ƒ To ensure that changes to the use of land are not prejudicial to the continued production and operation of the agricultural, horticultural, timber and fishing industries or to the productive capacity of the land. ƒ To encourage opportunities for the expansion of agriculture, horticulture and timber production where compatible with adjoining land uses.

This clause also identifies the importance of the port and of tourist development. In regard to tourism, the coastline and coastal features are identified as major assets, which must be considered as part of any development proposal.

Clause 22.04 relates to infrastructure. Of relevance is Clause 22.04-2, which relates to road construction and access in rural zones. The clause specifies that all new uses and development should be provided with two way access and that access is safe and efficient.

5.4 ZONES AND OVERLAYS

The Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots are included within the Environmental Rural Zone (Clause 35.02) and the Environmental Significance Overlay 1 – Coastal Areas (Clause 42.01) of the Glenelg Planning Scheme.

5.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RURAL ZONE

The Environmental Rural Zone (ERZ) has as it purpose the following: ƒ To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. ƒ To give effect to the environmental outcome specified in the schedule to this zone. ƒ To conserve and permanently maintain flora and fauna species, soil quality and water quality and areas of historic, archaeological and scientific interest and areas of natural scenic beauty or importance so that the viability of natural eco-systems and the natural and historic environment is enhanced.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 27

ƒ To encourage development and the use of land which is in accordance with sound management and land capability practices and which takes into account the environmental sensitivity and the bio-diversity of the locality.

The relevant environmental outcome specified in the schedule to the Zone is as follows: For the Cape Bridgewater-Bridgewater Lakes area, generally west of Kennedy’s Road, south of Bridgewater Lakes Road and west of Sheoke Road, the environmental outcome is to conserve the environment, landscape and vegetation qualities of the area by encouraging sound management practices and land capability principles which recognise the environmental sensitivity and biodiversity of the locality.

Under the provisions of the ERZ the use of land for livestock assembly depots is prohibited.

Under the Zone a planning permit is also required to construct a building or carry out works in particular circumstances and for subdivision. Under the provisions of the schedule to the Zone the minimum subdivision area appears to be 2 hectares.

The Zone identifies a series of issues to be considered by the responsible authority when assessing a permit application. These include: ƒ Any catchment and land protection strategy and policies applying to the land. ƒ The capability of the land to accommodate the proposed use or development, addressing site quality attributes including soil types, soil fertility, soil structure, soil permeability, aspect, contour and drainage patterns. ƒ Whether the site is suitable for the use or development and the compatibility of the proposal with adjoining and nearby land uses. ƒ The need to prepare an integrated land management plan. ƒ An assessment of the likely environmental impact on the natural physical features and resources of the area and in particular any impact caused by the proposal on soil and water quality and by the emission of noise, dust and odours. ƒ The impact of the use or development on the flora, fauna and landscape features of the locality. ƒ The impact on the character and appearance of the area of features of architectural, historic or scientific significance or of natural or scenic beauty. ƒ The impact of the use or development on the existing and surrounding rural uses.

5.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OVERLAY 1 – COASTAL AREAS

The purpose of the ESO includes: ƒ To identify areas where the development of land may be affected by environmental constraints. ƒ To ensure that development is compatible with identified environmental values.

Schedule 1 includes the following Statement of Environmental Significance. The Shire’s coastline is a significant environmental resource and long term public asset which should not be compromised by inappropriate development. Coastal environments must be protected especially features of ecological, geological, geomorphological, cultural and historic significance.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 28

The Schedule identifies the following as permit requirements: ƒ Environmental assessment of impacts associated with development will be provided to Council demonstrating compliance with the above objectives. ƒ A soil and water report will be provided demonstrating that stormwater flows and drainage from the site shall not cause erosion, siltation, or degradation of any watercourse downstream of the development site.

5.4.3 NEW RURAL ZONES

The State Government has undertaken a review of the Rural Zones in Victoria, which was completed in June this year with the introduction into the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs) of three new rural zones. This followed the introduction into the VPPs, in November 2003, of the Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ). It is understood that it is up to the individual Council’s throughout Victoria how the new zones will be implemented into their respective planning schemes. However, it is a requirement of DSE that the transition to the new zones occur either before or as part of the next MSS review for each municipality.

The RCZ is intended to replace the ERZ and accordingly is of most relevance to Amendment C12, as it is this Zone that is likely to apply to the subject land once Council makes the conversion to the new zones (on the basis of a blanket translation of the ERZ).

The main purpose of the RCZ is to provide for the protection and enhancement of the natural environment for its historic, archaeological, scientific, landscape, faunal habitat and cultural values.

It is a requirement of the RCZ that the schedule to the zone has the specific conservation values of the land to which it applies stated (as the ERZ does currently). Under the provisions of the RCZ the use of land for intensive animal husbandry is prohibited.

5.5 PARTICULAR PROVISIONS

Clause 52.03 of the Scheme relates to ‘specific sites and exclusions’ and has the following purpose: ƒ To recognise specific controls designed to achieve a particular land use and development outcome existing on the approval date. ƒ To provide in extraordinary circumstances specific controls designed to achieve a particular land use and development outcome.

The clause specifies that land identified in the Schedule to the clause may be used or developed in accordance with the specific controls contained in the incorporated document corresponding to that land.

Clause 52.17 of the Scheme relates to native vegetation. The purpose of this clause is to protect and conserve native vegetation. A permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation on a site of over 0.4 hectares in area although numerous exemptions apply.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 29 5.6 OTHER DOCUMENTS

There are various other key documents, which provide either strategic planning direction or regulatory control for the Amendment and are considered relevant for the consideration of the proposed changes to the operation of the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots.

5.6.1 VICTORIAN COASTAL STRATEGY 2002

The Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002 is referenced at Clause 15.08-2 of the Scheme. One of the key goals of the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002 is to help conserve and manage the Victorian coast for present and future generations by providing a framework for ecologically sustainable development.

The Strategy notes that the environmental, social and economic significance of the coast are all considered to be integral aspects of coastal planning and that all of these aspects are considered as part of the Strategy.

The VCS covers both public and private land and contains a hierarchy of principles for coastal planning and management to guide the long term planning of the coast, consistent with the concepts of ecologically sustainable development and integrated coastal planning and management. The hierarchy of principles for guiding decision makers’ priorities are: 1. Provide for the protection of significant environmental features; 2. Ensure the sustainable use of natural coastal resources; 3. Undertake integrated planning and provide direction for the future; and 4. When the above principles have been met, facilitate suitable development on the coast within existing modified and resilient environments where demand for services is evident and requires management.

The VCS also focuses on six main themes including: ƒ Marine and estuarine environments. This theme identifies the need to protect and improve the biological condition of the marine and estuarine environment and reduce the impact of effluent in these systems. ƒ Natural onshore environment. This theme identifies the need to protect coastal habitats and native flora and fauna and to improve conservation outcomes on freehold land. ƒ People on the coast. This theme identifies the need to effectively manage the use of the coast by residents and visitors to protect the values of the coast and ensure adequate public safety and to ensure that Aboriginal sites are protected. ƒ Access. This theme seeks to ensure that access to the coast is provided in a manner, which ensures the protection of the coast’s values and respects the sensitivity of the coastal zone. ƒ Built environment and coastal infrastructure. This theme identifies the importance of ensuring appropriate direction is provided for the location and scale of uses along the coastline and the need to ensure that sensitive sites are identified to protect against inappropriate development and use. ƒ Coastal dependent industry. This theme identifies the importance of ensuring that the environmental impacts of the expansion of coast dependent industries must be appropriately considered and that appropriate mitigation and management measures put in place to ensure protection of the coast.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 30

5.6.2 GLENELG SHIRE COASTAL ACTION PLAN 2002

The document was prepared by the Western Coastal Board and Glenelg Shire Council and aims to provide strategic guidance for the use and management of coastal land within the Glenelg Shire area and sets out a framework for implementing the Victorian Coastal Strategy within the municipality.

The Plan identifies ten strategic management actions identified as follows: ƒ Agency management processes. This section relates to the processes involved with consultation between government agencies and community and Aboriginal groups. ƒ Coastal access. This section relates to the provision, management and control of various forms of access to the coastal zone. ƒ Marine Management. This section relates to protecting the marine environment and encouraging a cooperative approach to managing the marine environment between relevant managers and the community. ƒ Estuary Management. This section relates to sustainable management of the environmental, economic and social values of estuaries within the Glenelg Shire region. ƒ Foreshore infrastructure. This section relates to providing a range of safe and well maintained foreshore infrastructure along the coast. ƒ Landscape Values. This section identifies the need to consider siting and design issues of development along the coastline to ensure landscape values are appropriately protected. ƒ Plants and Animals. This section identifies the importance of managing and controlling pest plants and animals to minimise environmental impacts on the coastline. ƒ Significant Flora and Fauna Species. This section identifies the need to protect native flora and fauna species from threatening processes. ƒ Recreation and tourism. This section seeks to encourage a range of coastal recreation and tourism opportunities in the Shire. ƒ Indigenous and European cultural heritage. This section relates to improved protection of indigenous and European cultural heritage and consultation procedures.

5.6.3 DISCOVERY BAY PARKS MANAGEMENT PLAN 2004

This Plan was prepared under Sections 17 and 18 of the National Parks Act 1975. Accordingly, pursuant to clause 15.08-2 the SPPF the Plan forms a reference document to the Scheme. The Plan relates to the Mount Richmond National Park, Cape Nelson State Park, Discovery Bay Coastal Park and Cape Nelson Lighthouse Reserve.

Whilst the main focus of the Plan is to provide management strategies for the various parks listed above, some consideration is given to the impacts of adjoining private land uses on the various parks. In particular the plan notes the need to minimise visual impacts on the landscape of the planning area. In this regard the report notes that in most instances the principal visual intrusions are along access roads, with the livestock assembly depots at Cape Nelson and pine forests and logging operations behind Discovery Bay cited as examples of this. However, the plan also notes that these operations are promoted as ‘interesting local industries’ in the local tourist handbook.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 31

The Plan also identifies the need for the control of pest plants and animals and identifies as a management strategy the need to work with neighbours and local community to develop and implement appropriate control programs.

5.6.4 GLENELG HOPKINS REGIONAL CATCHMENT STRATEGY 2003-2007

The Glenelg Hopkins Regional Catchment Strategy 2003-2007 aims to integrate natural resource management across a regional area, including marine and coastal waters. The Strategy identifies six regional challenges including: regional sustainability, biodiversity, waterway health and water quality, pest plants and animals and coastal areas.

The Strategy also makes reference to the Draft Glenelg Hopkins CMA Native Vegetation Plan and the Glenelg Hopkins Nutrient Management Plan.

5.6.5 STATE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION POLICY - WATERS OF VICTORIA

The purpose of the State Environment Protection Policy Waters of Victoria (SEPP-Waters of Victoria) is to help achieve sustainable water by setting out the environmental values and beneficial uses of water that Victorians want, and the environmental quality required to protect them and sets goals for protection agencies, businesses and communities and means by which they can be met.

The SEPP Waters of Victoria makes specific recognition of intensive agricultural industries and specifies that waste and wastewater from intensive agricultural industries must not be discharged to surface water. To enable this, managers of intensive agricultural operations need to implement effective management practices that are consistent with guidance from protection agencies, including where relevant, that provided in approved protocols, guidelines and codes of practice.

5.6.6 STATE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION POLICY - GROUNDWATERS OF VICTORIA

The purpose of the State Environment Protection Policy Groundwaters of Victoria (SEPP- Groundwaters of Victoria) is to maintain and where necessary improve groundwater quality sufficient to protect existing and potential beneficial uses of groundwaters throughout Victoria.

The SEPP Groundwaters of Victoria provides for the protection of beneficial uses of groundwater resources and that groundwater quality is maintained as close as practicable to background levels.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 32

6. FORM OF PLANNING CONTROL

The form of the amendment and the planning controls proposed to implement the proposal was the subject of discussion at the hearing and a matter required by the Panel directions to be addressed in submissions to the Panel. The Panel considers that it is important to address the appropriateness and form of the incorporated document, “Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots August 2004” which is proposed to be included as part of the Glenelg Planning Scheme.

6.1 APPROPRIATENESS OF THE INCORPORATED DOCUMENT

The Panel was advised by Ms Debra Butcher from ERM, in her evidence that: An amendment is required because the existing assembly depot operations are prohibited under the provisions of the ERZ. The existing assembly depots operate either as a result of existing planning permits that preceded inclusion of the properties in the ERZ or in the case of the Bramcote land on the basis of existing use rights. It is my view that the changes proposed by the amendment are not able to meet the requirements of Clause 63.05 of the Scheme, which outlines the circumstances where Section 2 and 3 uses with established existing use rights are able to change their operating conditions. Accordingly a planning scheme amendment is required to facilitate the proposed changes to the operating conditions, the inclusion of a small area of additional land and the imposition of more stringent controls over potential environmental and amenity impacts.

The Panel acknowledges that the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots have been in operation since the 1970’s and that they occupy a large percentage of the Cape Nelson land area. The Panel understands that the need for the amendment is based on two key restrictions on the operation of the livestock assembly depots under the current planning permit/existing use rights regime: 1. The inability for approvals to be granted under the existing planning permits for the D J Peddie land and the Overoceans land to contain more than 4,000 cattle; and 2. The lack of clarity with respect to whether the existing use rights for the Bramcote land permit the containment of cattle at all.

Due to the above zoning circumstances and the limitations of previous planning permits and existing use rights, a number of options were considered by the proponent. Mr Mark Dwyer advised the Panel that these options included: ƒ Preparing an incorporated document, which describes the conditions of the use and incorporate that document into the planning scheme by amending the schedule to Clause 81 and listing the incorporated document and the effected of properties in the schedule to Clause 52.03;

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 33

ƒ Change the zoning of the land to a Special Use Zone; ƒ Change the zoning of the land to a Rural Zone; or ƒ Amend the definitions section in the Victorian Planning Provisions to include a more appropriate land use definition of assembly depot, which would be included in the definitions of agriculture and animal husbandry but separated from intensive animal husbandry, so that an assembly depot would not be prohibited in the Environmental Rural Zone.

Mr Dwyer advised the Panel that the preferred option was an incorporated document included under Clause 81 and listed in the schedule to Clause 52.03 together with the three livestock assembly depot properties within the Glenelg Planning Scheme. The reasons provided to the Panel by Ms Butcher in her evidence were: ƒ Inclusion of the land in the RUZ would reflect the zoning that was originally intended for the land under the exhibited new format Planning Scheme. However, the main reason the Panel at the time recommended inclusion of the land in the ERZ was to control use of the land for timber productions (which are a Section 1 use in the RUZ and a Section 2 use in the ERZ). Rezoning of the land, now, to the RUZ would result in the same problem. Further as there is no real difference between the land occupied by the assembly depots and surrounding land, a rezoning to the RUZ would effectively be a spot rezoning. ƒ Inclusion of the land in SUZ would be inconsistent with the relevant Practice Note, which specifically states that the SUZ should only be used in circumstances where an alternative zone cannot achieve a similar outcome. In this instance the RUZ would provide the required outcome for the assembly depots (although not for the restriction of timber production).

The purpose of Clause 52.03 ‘Specific Sites and Exclusions’ of the Glenelg Planning Scheme requires use and development to demonstrate the following: ƒ To recognise specific controls designed to achieve a particular land use and development outcome existing on the approval date. ƒ To provide in extraordinary circumstances specific controls designed to achieve a particular land use and development outcome.

The Panel was advised by Mr Dwyer that: ƒ In relation to the first purpose, Mr Peddie and Mr King’s land use did exist on the approval date of the planning scheme and consequently it is reasonable to use specific controls within the planning scheme to assist to provide greater certainty for that land use.

In relation to the second purpose the Panel was directed by Mr Dwyer to the Panel Report on Amendment C36 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme dated January 2003 where the meaning of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ was considered and stated that: The Panel considers that there are two tests that could be applied in considering the use of the provisions of Clause 52.03. Firstly, what constitutes extraordinary circumstances, and secondly, should there be a general requirement that the proposal support the strategic objectives of the planning scheme, even though such a proposal may not be permitted by the zone, overlay, or other provisions which necessitate its inclusion in Clause 52.03. The Panel considers that the strategic justification for the proposal needs to be very clear in order for the proposal to be approved through the mechanism of Clause 52.03.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 34

The Panel considering C36 also stated that the use of Clause 52.03 is a valid planning tool, but should not be used to circumvent the correct use and intent of the relevant zones of the planning scheme.

In relation to satisfying the extraordinary circumstances purpose of Clause 52.03 Ms Butcher stated: It is considered that the continuing operation of the existing assembly depots, with the proposed change in operating conditions, constitutes ‘extraordinary circumstances’ for the following reasons. ƒ The assembly depots are the only existing operations of their kind in Victoria. ƒ The assembly depots are essential features of the livestock export industry which makes a significant contribution to both the local and Victorian economy. In addition they are located in proximity to the Port of Portland, a key requirement for assembly depot operations. ƒ There are no other appropriate zoning options available that will adequately accommodate the existing assembly depot uses particularly, whilst also addressing Council’s concerns in relation to timber production in coastal areas. ƒ The impacts of the use becoming prohibited, through the application of the ERZ to the subject land, do not appear to have been considered by either the Panel or the Council at the time the new format Planning Scheme was being considered. In my view, the use of Clause 52.03 is the most appropriate VPP tool available to facilitate the continued operation of the assembly depots and will support the identified strategic outcomes of the Scheme.

In contrast to the above, the Panel was advised by Mr Trevor Budge, on behalf of Mr Lyle Taffs and Cape Nelson Landcare Coastcare, that: The proposed method of amendment is at best a poorly conceived planning procedure and at worst a subterfuge to ’bury’ a “defacto permit” in a planning scheme. The proposed amendment and it method of inclusion into the scheme fails to provide for the transparency which should be evident in a scheme and its administration.

Mr Budge also stated that: An examination of the use of Incorporated Documents in planning schemes indicates that the use of an Incorporated Document for a site specific permit for a use so out of context in its zone and overlay provisions has no precedent.

Mr Budge also considered that the use of an incorporated document would make it difficult for the public to access the document because it is not available on the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s planning schemes online website nor would be able to be made easily available at the Council’s counter for viewing.

Conclusion

The proposal to introduce an incorporated document into the Glenelg Planning Scheme, which allows for greater flexibility and certainty for the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots to operate given the changing nature of livestock export markets is an unusual matter for the Panel to consider. The Panel considers that the sequence of events associated with the introduction of the new format VPP Glenelg Planning Scheme and the change between the exhibited Rural Zone to the approved Environmental Rural Zone over the Cape Nelson area is relevant to its considerations. The Panel considers that the zoning change has had the effect

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 35 of creating the need for the amendment. The assembly depots status has changed from one of a permissible to a non-conforming use.

The use of an incorporated document avoids the necessity to seek a rezoning from ERZ to either RUZ or SUZ over the assembly depot properties. The Panel heard that rezoning the assembly depots to RUZ could facilitate the possibilities of other land uses which may not be appropriate and create an island effect with respect to land zoned Rural surrounded by lands zoned Environmental Rural on Cape Nelson.

The Panel also heard that the use of the SUZ would not be appropriate because it would result in the loss of the underlying zone and again introduces a zone for a purpose, which could be facilitated by an alternative zone, which in this case would be the RUZ.

Given the above reasons counter the use of either the RUZ or SUZ, it appears appropriate to look at the use of an incorporated document. The amendment seeks to include an incorporated document, which contains conditions that will control and make arrangements for the management of the existing livestock assembly depots. It is also proposed to not only make reference to the incorporated document under the schedule to Clause 81 of the planning scheme, but also under the schedule to Clause 52.03 ‘Specific Sites and Exclusions’ in the Particular Provisions of the planning scheme.

The Panel considers that the two purposes of Clause 52.03 are met by the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots. The reasons for this conclusion are that firstly, the assembly depots exist and have done so since the 1970’s. Clause 63.11 ‘Proof of continuous use’ provides guidance in relation to existing use prior to the introduction of the current Glenelg Planning Scheme: An existing use right may be established under this clause even if the use did not comply with the scheme immediately prior to or during the 15 year period, unless either: ƒ At any time before or after commencement of the 15 year period the use has been held to be unlawful by a decision of a court or tribunal. ƒ During the 15 year period, the responsible authority has clearly and unambiguously given a written direction for the use to cease by reason of its non-compliance with the scheme.

As far as the Panel is aware, neither of the above circumstances has occurred. Given this situation, the Panel is of the view that the long term existence of the assembly depots satisfies the first purpose of Clause 52.03 in that the incorporated document called ‘Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots, August 2004’ recognises specific controls designed to achieve a particular land use and development outcome existing on the approval date of the Glenelg Planning Scheme.

The Panel also considers that the second purpose of Clause 52.03 is satisfied in that the tests considered by the Panel to C36 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme are met. The Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots are unique in that they are currently the only facilities of their kind in the State. They are also closely linked to the Port of Portland facility, one of only four deep water ports in the State and the only port in Victoria handling livestock exports. Both the status and locational attributes of the livestock assembly depots means that they are an unusual and ‘one off’ land use catering for an economically important market associated with the overseas export of livestock.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 36

The operation of the livestock assembly depots and the controls proposed to be imposed by the conditions contained within the incorporated document also supports the strategic policy outcomes contained within both the State Planning Policy and Local Planning Policy Frameworks. In this respect, Mr Dwyer stated that: In particular, to realise the potential of the deep water port with associated industries (Clause 21.03) and to encourage investment in existing agricultural enterprise and to provide a diversity of locational opportunities for agriculture including appropriately sited intensive animal husbandry (Clause 21.09).

The intention to not increase the total numbers of livestock as part of the amendment supports the strategic intent of the Glenelg Planning Scheme and supports the strategic policies aimed at protecting environmental values and natural resources.

The concerns expressed by Mr Budge and in other submissions concerning the lack of transparency and lack of precedent are not considered by the Panel to be substantiated.

Firstly, the Panel notes the Planning Practice Note for Incorporated and Reference Documents, which states that: Both incorporated and reference documents must be publicly available for inspection with the scheme. Planning authorities should consider posting current revisions of the documents on their web page and maintaining an indexed ‘planning library’ of all incorporated documents and reference documents wherever the public might need to access them.

Accordingly, in terms of public transparency, this should not be an issue and it is considered that the Planning Authority can arrange for any incorporated document to be placed on its web page for public access.

Secondly, the Panel considers that a precedent for the use of incorporated documents acting along the lines of permits with conditions regulating the nature and limits of a use and development has been established through the inclusion under the schedules to Clause 81 and Clause 52.03 of incorporated documents within the Glenelg Planning Scheme for the Portland Windfarm project. The Panel is also aware of other planning schemes where incorporated documents have been used and included under the schedules to Clause 81 and Clause 52.03 to regulate specific land uses and developments such as the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

Many submitters expressed concerns about the failure of self-regulation and the level of discretion available for Council to approve variations to the way the assembly depots may operate, which may impact on the environment. The Panel considers that such concerns will be minimised through the application of the Conditions within the incorporated document.

The incorporated document requires that stock numbers cannot be exceeded except with the approval of not only Council but also the Minister for Planning and only after consideration has been given to the capability of the land to hold the additional stock and land management practices to prevent or manage any possible impact on soil or groundwater conditions caused by additional nutrient or manure loads.

The incorporated document also requires that an Environmental Management Plan be prepared by the operator and approved by Council, DSE and the EPA and be audited by an EPA approved independent auditor. The EMP must address:

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 37

ƒ Soil, surface and groundwater monitoring; ƒ Soil management; ƒ Noise management; ƒ Dust management; ƒ Waste management; ƒ Odour management; ƒ Detail the inspection and monitoring of environmental conditions; ƒ Include trigger levels for soil, surface and groundwater to be determined in conjunction with the EPA accredited auditor and referenced to background and baseline data; and ƒ Specification of management measures if trigger levels are reached for wastes, planting of crops, creation of wetlands, increased monitoring, land resting and decreasing stock levels.

The Panel believes that the above controls will result in transparency in the planning process and regulation of the operation of the assembly depots. The concerns of submitters about the ability of Council to enforce the conditions of operation will be alleviated by the support given to Council by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the EPA accredited auditor in monitoring the conditions of operation of the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots under the requirements of the incorporated document which shall form part of the legal fabric of the Glenelg Planning Scheme.

Overall, the Panel considers that the use and form of the ‘Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots Incorporated Document’ is appropriate for providing a planning framework to control the use of the livestock assembly depots and satisfactory for inclusion as part of the Glenelg Planning Scheme, subject to changes arising from other Panel recommendations. The Panel recommends that: ƒ The ‘Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots Incorporated Document’ is an appropriate form of planning control and subject to changes recommended by the Panel should be approved and included under the schedules to Clause 81 and Clause 52.03 of the Glenelg Planning Scheme.

6.2 DEFINITIONS AND THE VICTORIAN CODE FOR CATTLE FEEDLOTS

Comments were made by submitters in relation to the definitions of a livestock assembly depot and the appropriateness of applying the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots. The Panel considers that it is relevant to give some consideration to this issue and notes that there are a number of definitions under Clause 74 of the Glenelg Planning Scheme that have some relevance to the use of land for the purposes of a livestock assembly depot.

Clause 74 of the planning scheme contains the following definitions: “Cattle feedlot” – means land used to keep and fatten cattle which are restrained by pens or enclosures and intensively fed. “Intensive animal husbandry” – means land used to keep or breed farm animals, including birds, by importing most food from outside the enclosures. It does not include: a) An abattoir or sale yard;

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 38

b) Emergency and supplementary feeding if incidental to the use of land for extensive animal husbandry; or c) The penning and housing of animals, including birds, for brooding, weaning, dipping or other husbandry purposes if incidental to the use of land for extensive animal husbandry. “Extensive animal husbandry” – means land used to keep or breed farm animals, including birds, at an intensity where animals’ main food source is obtained by grazing, browsing or foraging on plants grown on the land. It includes: a) Emergency and supplementary feeding; and b) The incidental penning and housing of animals, including birds, for brooding, weaning, dipping, or other husbandry purposes. “Animal husbandry” – means land used to keep, breed, board, or train animals, including birds. “Agriculture” – means land used to: a) Propagate, cultivate or harvest plants, including cereals, flowers, fruit, seeds, trees, turf, and vegetables; b) Keep, breed, board, or train animals, including livestock, and birds; or c) Propagate, cultivate, rear or harvest living resources of the sea or inland waters. “Saleyard” – means land used to hold, sell, and buy farm animals.

The Panel heard evidence from Ms Butcher that: I have reviewed the relevant land use definitions of the Scheme at Clause 74 . It is my view that the use of land as an assembly depot most appropriately falls within the definition of intensive animal husbandry.

Ms Butcher advised the Panel that: I believe that the use best falls within the above definition given the following: ƒ On arrival at the assembly depot livestock are fed with both pasture and imported food from outside the enclosures. However, due to the density of the animals penned, the pasture is only usually available for the first few days of enclosure with imported food, in the form of hay and commercial pellets, used for the remainder of the enclosure period. ƒ The assembly depots accommodate sheep, cattle and goats, although sheep have always been the animals most commonly held on site. ƒ The animals are kept on site for the sole purpose of preparing them for live export. They are not there to be fattened via intensive feeding but are there to meet the quarantine requirements of the importing country, ranging from blood testing and various veterinary tests, to sorting and tagging of the livestock into appropriate weight categories. Whilst in the assembly depots they are also able to adjust to feeding on hay and pellets.

Ms Butcher went on to advise the Panel in respect to the applicability of the definition of cattle feedlot that: It is my opinion that the use does not fall within the definition of a cattle feedlot for the following reasons: ƒ As noted above, the assembly depots contain a mix of sheep, cattle and goats.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 39

ƒ The livestock is not kept at the assembly depots for the purpose of fattening them but rather in the preparation for export. ƒ The livestock has access to pasture upon arrival, due to the spelling of holding yards between shipments. Feeding is not solely imported. ƒ There is not constant containment of animals on the land. Paddocks are spelled between shipments.

Conclusion

The Panel notes that there is no specific definition for a livestock assembly depot. However, the Panel does accept the evidence of Ms Butcher that the definition for “intensive animal husbandry” is the best fit in terms of describing the nature of the use of a livestock assembly depot.

With respect to the applicability of the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots, the Panel is of the opinion that a livestock assembly depot does not fit the definition of a cattle feedlot under Clause 74 of the planning scheme. Accordingly, the calling up of the Code under Clause 52.26 ‘Cattle Feedlot’ of the Glenelg Planning Scheme is not triggered and therefore is not required to be applied to the consideration of the livestock assembly depot use.

To reinforce this view the Panel was advised by Mr Dwyer that: The purpose of the Code is to provide for cattle feedlots as defined in the Planning and Environment Act….Mr Peddie and Mr King’s operations could not be described as a cattle feedlot not only because the purpose is not to fatten the animals, nor to stock the paddocks at an equivalent intense rate as a cattle feedlot, but because their operations also include sheep and on occasions goats.

Mr Wilder also advised the Panel that: The Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots is not entirely relevant to the subject amendment because that Code envisages greater stocking intensities than is proposed by the proponent.

The Panel was advised that stocking densities for a typical cattle feedlot envisaged under the Code was 1 animal per 25m2, while the stocking density proposed under the amendment was 1 animal per 144m2 for 24,000 cattle, 1 animal per 290m2 for 12,000 cattle and 1 animal per 208m2 for 12,000 cattle plus 120,000 sheep. All of these figures are well above the stocking densities envisaged under the Code.

The Panel accepts that the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots does not have a mandatory application to the operational changes proposed under the amendment, however, the Panel does believe that consideration of the Code would have some benefit, particularly for land management and the preparation of the EMP. This matter is discussed further in the Sustainability Chapter.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 40

7. SUSTAINABILITY

Key issues revolving around Amendment C12 relate to sustainability. Primarily the key sustainability issues are land management and associated effects upon the environmental and amenity values of the Cape Nelson area. The Panel has considered these issues with consideration of submissions and against the strategic planning framework established by the Glenelg Planning Scheme and many other documents related to the livestock assembly depots and the Cape Nelson area.

7.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT

Legislative drivers

DSE in their submission to the Panel expressed serious concern that the proposed amendment does not adequately deal with the management of waste and effluent arising from the facilities, or protects the environment from contamination arising from these facilities. In particular, they are concerned about the potential pollution of the Bridgewater Foundation aquifer that underlies the subject land and the implications for biodiversity value of the wetlands, springs and creek in the area, as well as the provision of water for domestic and stock use.

Both DSE and EPA draw attention to the SEPP – Waters of Victoria, which states (inter alia) that: ƒ Catchment activities should not pose an environmental risk to the beneficial use of groundwater supplies; and ƒ Wastes and wastewaters from intensive animal industries must not be discharged to surface waters.

The EPA acknowledges that livestock assembly depots are not listed in the Environment Protection (Scheduled Premises and Exemptions) Regulations 1996 and therefore are not required to obtain a Works Approvals and Licenses from the EPA. The EPA state they have been involved with the depots, in relation to the management of dead stock and other local environmental protection measures.

The EPA submitted that after discussion with both depot managers in recent years the inappropriate pits have been closed and there has been agreement to the following regime: ƒ Reuse options are to be maximised and disposal minimised (in accordance with waste management principles), this has resulted in most cattle going to local knackeries or renderers for processing. ƒ Other stock are to be taken to the Portland Landfill, under arrangements with Glenelg Shire, or other EPA licensed landfill. ƒ As a last resort dead stock can be buried in a pit in accordance with EPA Publication 660.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 41

These arrangements have resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of dead stock being buried in pits on these properties and recommends these arrangements be formally recognised in the incorporated document and the proposed Dead or Injured Animals Management Plan.

The EPA note that any significant alteration to these arrangements must be discussed with them and may also require works approval and licensing.

Total manure loads

At the Panel Hearing, Mr John Kane appeared as an expert witness for DSE and addressed the area of cattle effluent management. Mr Kane identified a number of important policy and legislative drivers in relation to the issue of effluent management: ƒ The priority in the Glenelg Hopkins Nutrient Management Plan for the need to adopt best practice waste management systems in intensive animal husbandry industries; ƒ The SEPP (Waters of Victoria), which states that catchment activities should not pose an environmental risk to the beneficial uses of groundwater supplies. ƒ The SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria), which states that all practicable means must be undertaken to prevent pollution of groundwater.

Mr Kane then made a series of detailed considerations regarding both the loading / unloading yards and the holding paddocks relating to the management of manure loads. He stated in his evidence that: It is my opinion that the proposed variations in operation of the assembly depots (ie increasing the number of cattle from a maximum of 8,000 to proposed 24,000 and the increase in holding time from 10 days to proposed 30 days) will require significant changes in the way that animal effluent is currently managed. These changes are required in order to achieve industry best practice objectives and protect the beneficial uses of surface and groundwater supplies at this location. It is my opinion that the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots Environmental Management Plan dated July 2004, does not provide adequate information on: ƒ Management and design capacity considerations of the effluent storage ponds associated with the loading / unloading yards, and ƒ Manure production and management of the holding paddocks.

He estimated the amount of manure yield for a 350kg yearling dairy heifer and a 40 kg sheep would be 20 kg and 1.6 kg per day respectively and submitted that given the proposed stock number of 120,000 sheep and 24,000 cattle at any one time for a period up to 30 days of containment that: The Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots EMP, significantly understates the volumes of animal wastes, which will be produced in the holding paddocks. The ability of the land to cope with increased nutrient loadings due to the proposed variations of operation, have not been thoroughly investigated by the proponent.

Mr Steven Laking, Principal Hydrologist ERM, appearing as an expert witness for the proponent provided a table at the Panel Hearing that calculated the existing mass of waste and the projected waste for the proposed amendment. A copy of the table is contained in Appendix D. DSE based their waste level projections on an increase of cattle from 8,000 to 24,000 at any one time for a maximum of 10 X 30 day containment periods per year. The proponent clarified for the Panel that the 24,000 cattle was an absolute maximum figure for

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 42 any one containment period but that the average number for containment periods would be 12,000 cattle, with an annual total limit of 120,000 cattle. Based on the revised figures for sheep and cattle, Mr Laking said that the total combined mass of waste would increase from 88,800,000 to 91,120,000 per year, an increase of 2.7%.

Mr Dwyer, for the proponent, tabled a hand written summary of the combined totals across all sites, which is contained in Appendix D.

Groundwater

Mr Laking, in his presentation reported that the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (now DSE) Water Table Beneficial Use Map Series for South Western Victoria indicate that regional groundwater quality has been categorised as being Segment A2. However Mr Laking reported that groundwater samples obtained from the database and site samples indicates that the groundwater is in Segment B because the samples exceed the upper limit of 1000 mg/L for Segment A2. The SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria) specifies protection of the following beneficial uses for Segment A2: ƒ Maintenance of ecosystems; ƒ Potable drinking water (acceptable); ƒ Potable mineral water supply; ƒ Agriculture, parks and gardens; ƒ Stock watering; ƒ Industrial water use; ƒ Primary contact recreation; and ƒ Buildings and structures.

Under Segment B all of the above beneficial uses, except for potable drinking water, are to be protected.

My Laking said that on and off-site analytical data for groundwater indicated groundwater quality is very similar on the site to that in offsite wells. There is a higher nitrogen reading but the Panel notes that given the high standard deviation it is hard to gauge the significance of the difference. Mr Laking said that the level did not represent a degradation of the beneficial uses.

In a qualitative risk assessment, Mr Laking rated the likelihood of occurrence of degradation of water quality attributes as ‘medium’ due to the presence of manure onsite and the risk being ‘low to medium’. The main mechanisms would be the build up of nutrients on the soils and leaching of nutrients through the soil profile into the groundwater.

Mr Kane raised the issue of the potential for an undetected contamination of the groundwater formation. There was particular concern for: An undetected effluent plume in the Bridgewater Formation Aquifer, originating from the effluent ponds, which extends outward in a thin tongue roughly the same width as the ponds themselves in the direction of the geological tilt. It is understood that the Bridgewater Formation Aquifer would provide the base flow for streams in the area. Therefore any stream or wetland, which intersects with this effluent plume could be contaminated. The effluent plume could also discharge into the ocean via coastal cliffs and dune seeps.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 43

Mr Kane identified two sources of nutrients, one associated with the unloading / loading facilities and the other with manure production in the paddocks.

Mr Laking observed that: The site had been used as an animal storage facility for at least 20 years and the recent monitoring of groundwater indicated that there was no notable difference between the onsite and off site groundwater in terms of beneficial uses, the risk of the site use to the groundwater quality in terms of degrading the beneficial use was not considered such that adverse impact can be demonstrated.

Mr Murrell from the Cape Nelson Landcare /Coastcare (CNLC) group raised the concern about nutrients from the stock washdown areas going into a permanent spring and urged the adoption of the precautionary principle. He also emphasised the need for baseline data and suggested the testing of the bores of local residents as a means of developing a relationship with the community.

Mr Taff, a landowner adjoining the Peddie land, also raised concerns about the washdown areas and effluent discharge into unlined gullies. Mr Taff said that trigger levels for monitoring need to be established and need to have a ‘cushion’ to allow a warning of the need for action before a major problem existed.

The community also raised the issue of the potential for the stockpiles of cattle waste as point sources of nutrient leaching to the groundwater.

Land management

It was evident from the Panel inspection of the three sites that the plant cover is kept at minimal level to acclimatise the livestock to eating dry food in preparation for shipping overseas. The Panel was informed that this practice had been in place for many years and that land degradation was not a problem (Figure 2). Figure 2: View of the D J Peddie land showing cleared paddocks used to currently hold cattle.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 44

The site managers told the Panel that with sheep the waste naturally breaks down and no collection is required. The waste from the cattle, on the other hand, does build up and the surface is scraped, collected and placed in large stockpiles in the paddocks. Advice from the proponent at the Panel Hearing was that it is expected the surface will be scraped 3 times a year to collect and stockpile waste in paddocks.

In the risk assessment for the revised EMP presented to the Panel the risk of soil degradation is rated as low.

On the field inspection it appeared to the Panel that some of the areas where cattle had been kept did appear to be degraded but the day was wet and difficult to tell if this was a potential or emerging land degradation problem. However, it was evident from discussion and observation on the inspection that cattle place greater pressure than sheep on the land.

The Panel did raise concern about the potential impact of the increased frequency of scraping on soil degradation and asked Mr Dwyer to respond. Mr Dwyer said that there is not much, if any, topsoil at the moment and that the area is primarily sand with an organic layer of manure. He also said that in the past the scraping had been done with a bulldozer and that in future it should be done with proper equipment and that, under those circumstances, the loss of soil should be marginal at worst.

A number of submissions raise concern about high stocking rates.

The EPA in their submission to the Panel identified stock numbers and density as an issue and expressed the view that: Stocking rates should be related to a systematic determination of the capability of the land to withstand use by stock without environmental degradation taking place. Use in this context includes both the number of stock and the duration of their stay.

The stock impact, as discussed above, in terms of total waste production per annum, has been projected as marginal with a 2.7% increase in total waste.

DSE also provided additional written advice at the Panel Hearing that: Given the build up of organic thatch on the surface layer of the subject land it is unlikely that erosion of the underlying soil will be an issue. The buffer and shelter belts may ameliorate loss of overlying organic matter in the form of windborn dust. Loss of organic matter and sediment due to overland flows can be monitored at the sites where hay bales were proposed to be placed as outlined in the EMP.

Mr Dwyer reported that the Australian Quarantine Inspection Services (AQIS) require pre- export quarantine (PEQ) paddocks to be established in order to transport live cattle. The PEQ paddocks are required to have double fencing and separation areas between the cattle being exported. The revised EMP (July 2004) says that there will be 10 PEQs across the three properties and that only 6 will be used at any one time, allowing 4 to rest. The EMP also says that when the PEQ cattle holding area is not occupied, sheep may be held in these areas, in addition there are some areas available for sheep only.

AQIS criteria provided to the Panel has the following requirement for stock density: The stocking density for sheep and goats held in paddocks at the premises, calculated on a paddock-by-paddock basis, must be no greater than the total linear length of available feed trough:

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 45

As a minimum this is calculated as “total linear length (metres) of fully sheltered feed troughs divided by 0.05.”

The Panel considers that monitoring of the condition of each PEQ should dictate the annual frequency of their individual use.

Monitoring and evaluation

Mr Laking outlined a water quality monitoring program that would: ƒ Set trigger levels in consultation with DSE; ƒ Appoint a consultant to manage the program; and ƒ Establish ‘what if’ procedures and responses.

The revised incorporated document tabled on the last day of the Panel Hearing specifies a monitoring program as follows: Annual monitoring of soil and groundwater conditions shall be undertaken by independent experts and results audited by an Environment Protection Authority accredited auditor. The monitoring must establish relevant background and baseline data, and include: ƒ Soil monitoring: Nutrients including phosphate , total phosphorous, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia and total nitrogen, cation exchange capacity, trace metals. ƒ Groundwater and surface water monitoring: pH, oxidation reduction potential, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, TDS, TSS, nutrients and trace elements.

In response to a request from the Panel, DSE provided advice on proposed testing and monitoring regimes for soil and groundwater.

For soil, DSE suggested monitoring loss of organic matter and sediment due to overland flows.

For nutrients, DSE suggested a combination of piezometer water sampling and soil core sampling to provide information on nutrient levels in infiltrating water and soil nutrient levels at varying depths.

With piezometers the sampling method suggested for soil nutrients is: ƒ Installation in valleys of 2 or 3 piezometers in farmland adjacent to the assembly depots, on land with the same soil characteristics. ƒ Installation of 5 piezometers on each of three properties at representative locations including upper slope, mid slope and valley.

The soil corer samples to a depth of 2 metres with 300 mm sections analysed for nitrates and phosphorous. The suggested sampling program would be to: ƒ Obtain 2 core samples in valleys from farmland adjacent to the assembly depots and test to a depth of 2 metres. ƒ Obtain 5 soil core samples from each of the 3 properties at representative locations including upper slope, mid slope and valley. Again to a depth of 2 metres.

As discussed above, the Panel considers that all 10 PEQs should be individually monitored for soil condition.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 46

In terms of the issue of potential contamination of the Bridgewater Formation Aquifer, DSE recommended benchmarking using existing data held for the Cape Nelson area and then establishing 3 test bores tapping into the Bridgewater Formation Aquifer, one up gradient of the effluent ponds and 2 down gradient. Data obtained from these bores would provide information on the speed of groundwater flow, the extent of contamination of the plume, the nature of pollutants and the chemical contamination gradient.

Conclusions

The Panel accepts on the basis of the proposed stock figures, as detailed in Mr Laking’s table and the subsequent information tabled by Mr Dwyer, that projected levels of waste do not increase significantly between the existing situation and the composition of the total stock numbers proposed for the amendment.

The concern by DSE about the potential pollution of the Bridgewater Formation Aquifer is acknowledged. The Panel notes that there was no existing evidence presented to show that after more than twenty years of operation that the proposed changes (with the marginal projected increase in the total volume of waste) will lead to a sudden increased risk of groundwater contamination.

The Panel is cognisant of the increase in cattle numbers that has occurred following the issue of planning permits in the 1990’s. This has required a change in waste management practices with scraping of cattle waste and stockpiling on a more regular basis (three times a year).

The Panel notes that while total volumes of waste may be similar for a year the level of waste is much greater for one containment period of 30 continuous days for cattle compared to sheep.

Mr Kane quantified the waste production from one cattle as being in the order of 20 kg and one sheep being 1.6 kg. Based on these figures the total production for maximum numbers that are held for one containment period is shown in Table 3.

The differences in waste quantities are significant and certainly helps to explain to the Panel the need for the change in management of the operation from no scraping of waste for sheep to a regime of scraping three times a year for cattle. Table 3 – Total waste levels comparisons for cattle and sheep per containment period, based on maximum numbers of cattle and sheep proposed at any one time.

Max number at one Containment Waste per animal Total waste (kg) containment period (days) (kg) per day period Cattle 24,000 30 days 20 14,400,000 Sheep 120,000 10 1.6 1,920,000

The impact of this change is unknown and the Panel supports a precautionary approach. The Panel does note that the introduction of an annual ceiling on stocking rates for 120,000 cattle to be held on all three assembly depots represents an increase of 4,000 cattle above the 8,000 cattle permitted under current planning approvals. This equates to the introduction of 4,000 cattle onto the Bramcote land for the first time alongside the 8,000 cattle permitted on both the Overoceans land and D J Peddie land.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 47

The Panel notes that the stock numbers will decrease overall although with a change in the livestock mix with less sheep and more cattle and that the overall annual waste manure loads will increase by 2.7%. The Panel also notes that for those containment periods where up to 24,000 cattle may be held the waste volumes will be high. The consequences of these high stocking rates are that the number of containment periods over a year will be less.

The Panel commends the proposed revision of the incorporated document by the proponent to include a soil, surface water and groundwater monitoring program. The Panel considers the frequency of standard monitoring for soil condition would need to be monthly in line with the maximum 30 day containment period for cattle, with additional provision for monitoring of specific events where complaints need to be tested against trigger levels.

Groundwater and surface water monitoring could reasonably be on a lesser frequency, again with provision for any specific events.

The Panel also acknowledges the potential for containment periods to be approved for up to 60 days, which may also have impacts upon land capability. Accordingly, the Panel considers it appropriate to include a requirement within the incorporated document that for any approval for an extension of containment periods beyond 30 days will be offset by the loss of a 30 day containment period. In the opinion of the Panel, this will provide some mitigation of potential impacts from an increased containment period. The Panel recommends that the incorporated document should be amended to: ƒ Include a requirement that any consent to extend the containment period beyond 30 days should be offset by the loss of a 30 day containment period. ƒ Include reference to the established arrangements between the Environment Protection Authority and the livestock assembly depots regarding the management of dead stock. ƒ Require that surface and groundwater monitoring techniques and sites should be established in accordance with the approval of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. ƒ Require that soil monitoring techniques for each of the 10 Pre Export Quarantine areas should be established and undertaken in accordance with the approval of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. ƒ Require that the standard frequency of monitoring of soil condition should be on a monthly basis in line with the 30 day containment period, with provision for ‘event’ monitoring of trigger levels where complaints are received. ƒ Require that baseline data should be collected for the indicators specified for soil, surface and groundwater monitoring in the revised incorporated document included in Appendix E. ƒ Require ‘trigger levels’ to be set in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment, the Department of Primary Industries and an Environment Protection Authority accredited auditor. ƒ Require that annual monitoring should be undertaken by independent experts and results audited by an Environment Protection Authority accredited auditor. The Panel recommends that: ƒ A reputable and experienced consultant capable of also interpreting data should be appointed to manage the environmental monitoring program.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 48 7.2 AMENITY

Amenity issues were raised by many submitters and related primarily to traffic, noise, dust and odour emissions and flies generated by the existing operations of the livestock assembly depots and the perceived increase of these effects with the operational changes proposed under the amendment.

7.2.1 TRAFFIC

There was considerable concern expressed to the Panel by Cape Nelson landowners on the issue of traffic for stock unloading and loading at the assembly depots. The specific concerns were: ƒ The Cape Nelson Road was not built with the intention of carrying fully loaded B doubles travelling to and from the assembly depots in such great numbers; ƒ Cattle generate far more effluent than sheep and that the Cape Nelson Road is covered with ‘green slime’ that can be dangerously slippery; ƒ There will be many more truck movements with larger trucks needed to transport cattle. ƒ The additional traffic of ‘very large and heavy feedtrucks’; ƒ Adverse impact of traffic on tourist use; ƒ Need for a curfew from 10pm to 6am; ƒ Concentrated periods of truck traffic.

Mr Dwyer tabled hand written figures (included in Appendix D) for truck movements, which are summarised below. Table 4 – Total number of projected truck movements

Total truck B doubles Semi trailers movements (including return journey) SHEEP 300 sheep per truck 200 per truck 1,200,000 sheep Unloading stock 4000 truck 8,000 per year for quarantine movements Loading stock for 6000 truck 12,000 export movements CATTLE 61 cattle per truck 20 per truck 120,000 cattle Unloading stock 1967 truck 3,934 shipment for quarantine movements Loading stock for 6000 truck 12,000 export movements TOTAL 35,934

The Panel has calculated the maximum number of traffic movements under the current situation, assuming the maximum export of cattle of 80,000 allowable under the existing permit conditions (Table 5).

The figures show a considerable decrease in projected traffic movements from the current to the proposed export conditions, assuming maximum export of cattle.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 49

Table 5 – Total number of truck movements under existing maximum levels of cattle and sheep allowed

Total truck B doubles Semi trailers movements (including return journey) SHEEP 300 sheep per truck 200 per truck 2,500,000 sheep Unloading stock 8333 truck 16,666 for quarantine movements per year Loading stock for 12500 truck 25,000 export movements CATTLE 61 cattle per truck 20 per truck 80,000 cattle per Unloading stock 1311 truck 2622 year for quarantine movements Loading stock for 4000 truck 4000 export movements TOTAL 48,288

Mr Dwyer submitted that the actual figure between 1982 and 1990 was over 40,000 traffic movements per year when over 2 million sheep were exported per year.

Under these scenarios, there will be a projected decrease in traffic movements.

Another issue raised was about abuse of the hours of operation with description of truck drivers defeating the purpose of the curfew by lining up outside the properties outside the hours of 6 am to 10 pm. The Panel considers that this problem should not exist once transport contractors are made clearly aware of the restricted operating hours. However, as a safeguard it is possible to impose penalties on those transport contractors who breach these operating hours and attempt to queue through conditions imposed in contractual agreements for moving livestock between the livestock assembly depots and the Port of Portland and for livestock deliveries.

Conclusion

The Panel is mindful of the range of safety issues raised by submitters but on the basis of the evidence presented there is not a detrimental change in traffic conditions in the amendment as compared to the existing situation. The Panel therefore considers these issues are ones that should most appropriately be referred to the Glenelg Shire Council for consideration and response in terms of the ongoing management of the Shire’s road system. The Panel recommends that: ƒ The Incorporated Document should be amended to impose penalties through transport agreements with contractors if queuing or transport operations occur outside the restricted operating hours for livestock transportation.

7.2.2 NOISE, ODOUR, DUST AND FLIES

It was evident during discussion at the Panel Hearing that the increase in complaints to the Council with regard to the operation of the assembly depots can be reasonably correlated with the increase in cattle numbers.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 50

Cape Nelson landowners raised concerns about dramatic increases in noise, odour, dust and flies associated with an increase in cattle numbers.

As discussed earlier, the level of waste is potentially much greater for one containment period for cattle as detailed in Table 3. It is reasonable to consider that the need for stockpiling of waste also raises the risk of odour, flies and air borne material if appropriate waste management procedures are not in place.

The EMP assesses the risk of noise and odour conditions as low and specifies the following management measures: ƒ For animal noise - Restriction of delivery and pick up hours - Extra area will give flexibility to relocate animals - Appropriate distribution of holding pens ƒ For odour emissions - Regular washing of stockyards - Planting of shelterbelts - Regular clearing of wastewater ponds of 75% capacity - Appropriate disposal of dead animals - Regular collection and management of animal manure from holding pens - Appropriate disposal of animal wastes.

It was suggested during the Panel Hearing by Mr Murrell that the confidence in the process could be much improved if local landholders were involved in the monitoring process.

Conclusions

During the Panel the issue of conformity with appropriate codes of practice was discussed and although there is no code of practice specifically related to the operation of the assembly depots, the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots (August 1995) was suggested as a guide for managing intensive animal enterprises.

This Code provides a useful example of objectives, standards and measures for odour and noise.

In addition, the proposed monitoring program in the incorporated document should be extended to include benchmarks, triggers and response measures for odour and noise.

The Panel considers that a good opportunity exists for the formal involvement of the CNLC in the monitoring process for these amenity issues. This would be a similar concept as already widely adopted in community based programs such as Waterwatch Victoria. The Panel recommends that the incorporated document should be amended to: ƒ Extend the monitoring program to include odour and noise. ƒ Require the development of objectives, standards and response measures for noise and odour as part of the Environmental Management Plan. The Panel recommends that: ƒ The Cape Nelson Landcare Coastcare Group should be invited to participate in the monitoring program.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 51 7.3 FLORA AND FAUNA

Indigenous vegetation

Mr Paul Kelly, Principal Ecologist for ERM, presented for the proponent as an expert witness on native vegetation.

ERM was commissioned by the proponents to provide a Native Vegetation Management Plan for the depots, incorporating revegetation and weed management recommendations. This was in response to a request by DSE for the preparation of a revegetation plan and weed management plan to be incorporated into a redrafted Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the depots.

The Plan states that the major impacts of current land use on native vegetation are: ƒ Decreases in the quality of indigenous vegetation adjoining the subject site due to an increase in the density of weeds. ƒ Potential further degradation of indigenous vegetation within the subject site.

The Plan states the primary management objectives for vegetation management on the depots are: ƒ To control existing weeds on the site; ƒ To minimise the impacts of weeds on adjoining vegetation, particularly where the subject site adjoins public parks and reserves; ƒ To establish and restore the health of shelterbelts on the subject site; and ƒ To extend existing buffers between the existing Livestock Assembly Depots and adjoining parks and reserves.

The Plan identifies that the subject site is within the Glenelg Plain Bioregion of Victoria and Table 6 describes the indigenous vegetation characteristics for the three assembly depot sites. Table 6 – Native vegetation status for the three assembly depot sites

Vegetation Current status Overoceans Ecological Vegetation Community The majority of this remnant vegetation has (EVC): been removed. Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodland Shelterbelts. Native and exotic vegetation of various ages and heights Buffers Contain remnant vegetation and present along the western boundary adjoining Discovery Bay Coastal Park. DJ Peddie EVC: Coastal Mallee Scrub – Large patches of this EVC have been Conservation status – endangered. retained. Shelterbelts Internal isolated patches of remnant vegetation deliberately retained as shelterbelts.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 52

Vegetation Current status Buffers The majority of the Coastal Mallee Scrub is located is along the western boundary and provides a buffer to the Discovery Bay Coastal Park. Indigenous vegetation also present along the southern boundary adjoining Cape Nelson State Park. Bramcote Shelterbelts Majority of remnant vegetation occurs in small isolated patches retained for use as shelterbelts Buffers Indigenous vegetation buffers are present along the southern boundary adjoining Cape Nelson State Park and the eastern boundary adjoining Discovery Bay Coastal Park.

The EMP states that there will be no further clearing of native vegetation. This was reiterated at the Panel Hearing. It also says that all areas of native vegetation will be fenced.

The Draft Glenelg Hopkins Native Vegetation Plan 2000 has as its key objectives for native vegetation management the use of best management practice and improving decision making by all stakeholders in the management of native vegetation. Best management practices aim to: ƒ Achieve protection of valuable fragments of native vegetation; ƒ Manage and enhance remnant vegetation so as to achieve natural regeneration, increasing its viability; ƒ Revegetate priority areas which achieve the best outcomes for biodiversity and land management; and ƒ Be realistic, reasonable and viable for the land manager.

The revised incorporated document, August 2004, stipulates in Point 13 that: Unless otherwise consented to in writing by the Responsible Authority, all existing native vegetation to be retained on site and fenced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Weeds

DSE is concerned about the threat of pest plants and animals to the natural values of the Discovery Bay Coastal Park and Cape Nelson Park. The Department particularly identifies the issue of weed encroachment, which they assert is not adequately addressed in the amendment.

The Bramcote land abuts the Cape Nelson State Park and the D J Peddie land has a 3.5 km border with the Discovery Bay Coastal Park. Both these Parks form part of the Discovery Bay Parks Management Plan released in 2004.

The Discovery Bay Parks Management Plan released in 2004 identifies feral and straying animals as a continuing problem for the Park and specifically:

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 53

ƒ The removal of goats and sheep that have escaped from farms and feedlots on Cape Nelson, and ƒ An ongoing rabbit control program, implemented in co-operation with adjacent landholders.

The management strategies are to continue co-operative pest plant and animal control programs and control illegal stock entry, in co-operation with neighbouring landholders. Stock will be impounded as a last resort.

According to the Native Vegetation Management Plan double fences have been constructed along all property boundaries. Double fencing is a requirement for the ten PEQ’s. It is the view of the Panel that this should adequately address the issue of stock escaping onto adjoining public land.

In terms of weeds, the Native Vegetation Management Plan identified: ƒ No species declared as State Prohibited or Regionally Prohibited under the Catchment and Land Protection (CALP) Act 1994 ; ƒ Five Regionally Controlled species and 25 species considered to be ‘environmental weeds’ as classified by Carr et al. (1992). 1

The Plan states that: Overall, the density of weeds within the subject site is low. Introduced species are generally confined to the interface between the subject site boundary and adjoining land, within shelterbelts, stockyards and other areas where livestock are excluded such as feed preparation areas.

The Plan identifies the likely sources of weeds to include: ƒ Imported fodder ƒ Livestock ƒ Weeds already existing on the site and vicinity

It also says that: During periods of low or nil stocking densities, weeds become more apparent and problematic within paddocks. In the absence of intervention, weeds may rapidly colonise this disturbed, frequently high nutrient environment. It is at these times that weeds have the potential to invade adjoining vegetation and thereby reduce the quality of indigenous vegetation present on the adjoining land, some of which is of very high conservation value.

The Plan states the objectives for weed management as: ƒ To control existing weeds present on the site by containing the distribution of weeds on the site; ƒ To control existing weeds present on site by reducing the cover of those weeds on site; ƒ To minimise the potential for the importation of additional weeds to the site; and

1 Environmental weeds are defined as introduced plants that have the potential to invade indigenous vegetation and usually affect the survival of the indigenous flora.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 54

ƒ To minimise the impacts of weeds on adjoining vegetation, particularly where the subject site adjoins public parks and reserves.

In terms of management prescriptions: ƒ The principle form of weed management is to provide large / wide buffers of planted or indigenous vegetation adjoining Crown Land to discourage the migration of weeds from the subject site to the indigenous vegetation of the surrounding Crown Land. ƒ Regular targeted herbicide will also be used to minimise the detrimental impact on the adjoining vegetation. This will generally be aimed at shelterbelts and in other areas where stock have been excluded.

The Plan also identifies that there are many environmental weeds and some are so widespread as to be practically uncontrollable with common techniques. Accordingly the strategy adopted has been to target those weeds that can be effectively controlled and where control will not create large areas of bare ground and substrate for weeds to colonise.

In response to a question from the Panel, Mr Kelly said that there had not been any contact with Parks Victoria, the managers of the coastal parks, or DSE about weed control.

The revised incorporated document, August 2004, stipulates in Point 14 that: Within three months of the approval date, the operator must commence implementation of a weed control program in accordance with a Weed Control Management Plan to be audited to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Revegetation

The objectives for revegetation are stated as: ƒ To establish and restore the health of shelterbelts on the subject site; and ƒ To extend existing buffers between the existing livestock assembly depots and adjoining parks and reserves.

Management prescriptions state that preference will be given to establishment of vegetation by encouraging natural regeneration. This will be supplemented as required by direct seeding and planting of tube stock.

Mr Kelly said that the priority was for the buffers and the protection of the biodiversity values of adjoining public lands as discussed above. He said shelterbelts were more an issue of animal welfare.

There was discussion at the Panel Hearing about species selection.

The Native Vegetation Management Plan specifies that the use of indigenous species in shelterbelts and buffers is preferred but that where indigenous species may fail it is recommended exotic species such as Monterey Pine (Cupressus macrocarpa) be used.

It was also reported that Blue Gums (Eucalyptus globulus) had been trialed in the Cape Nelson area but were not recommended because the species is known to free-seed and there-by potentially invade surrounding public land. The Plan contains a recommended species list, which are all indigenous, except for the Monterey Pine. DSE asserts that Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) is one of the worst emerging weeds on the Glenelg Plain in native bushland and does not support its use as a shelter species.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 55

Mr Murrell, for the Cape Nelson Landcare/Coastcare group (CNLC), in his submission outlined work done by the group. The submission describes that: In 1997 CNLC commenced its Corridors of Green project which culminated in a roadside linkage from Cape Nelson State Park to the town boundary and inland, linking to the Wattle Creek Landcare area. By 1998 CNLC was negotiating with the Shire of Glenelg and Trust for Nature to manage, with a Convenant, Picnic Hill Reserve. By 2002 CNLC had obtained the necessary funding to commence fencing, weeding and planting out the Reserve.

There was discussion of the appropriate width of the buffer planting with Condition 1 (e) and 1 (f) in the revision of the incorporated document plantation width being changed from 30m to 20m. If revegetation management is to put priority on natural regeneration, as stated earlier, it is the Panel’s view that the optimum width should be determined by the conditions required to support natural regeneration.

Mr Dwyer in final summation for the Panel said the proponents ‘favoured a cooperative approach between the depots and the CNLC, particularly for the selection of plant species.

Conclusions

The proponents have clearly stated that no clearing of remnant vegetation is proposed. In the event of any clearing being sought in the future it would be subject to the requirements of the State Government’s Native Vegetation Management Framework.

With the major concern for weed management being the impact on the adjoining public land of the Cape Nelson State Park and Discovery Bay Coastal Park, the Panel considers that the weed plan, in particular, should be discussed with Parks Victoria. In that way the priority weed species for management can be best identified and a joint program, as specified in the Discovery Bay Parks Management Plan 2004 instituted.

The Panel considers that the Monterey Pine should be removed from the recommended species list.

The Draft Glenelg Hopkins Native Vegetation Plan 2000 highlights the need to adopt best practice that manages and enhances remnant vegetation so as to achieve natural regeneration, increasing its viability.

DSE provided considerable detail on aspects of the Native Vegetation Management Plan in its submissions and these need to be addressed in the finalisation of the Plan. The Panel recommends that the Native Vegetation Plan should: ƒ Be supported by a site plan clearly showing existing remnant vegetation, shelterbelts and buffers and proposed vegetation works; ƒ Be developed to accord with the Draft Glenelg Hopkins Native Vegetation Plan; ƒ Determine optimal plantation widths for buffer planting to provide the conditions for natural regeneration; ƒ Establish a consultative process with the Cape Nelson Landcare Coastcare Group; ƒ Address priorities for weed management with Parks Victoria as the manager of Cape Nelson State Park and Discovery Bay Coastal Park, the natural asset most at risk from weed invasion of the surrounding public land; ƒ Delete Monterey Pine from the recommended species list; and

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 56

ƒ Review best management practices with DSE in relation to species selection and management prescriptions.

7.4 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

One of the environmental issues addressed in the Environmental Rural Zone is: The impact on the character and appearance of the area or features of architectural, historic or scientific significance or of natural scenic beauty or importance.

The Schedule to the ERZ specifies for the area of interest that the environmental outcome is to: Conserve the environment, landscape and vegetation qualities of the area by encouraging sound management practices and landscape principles which recognise the environmental sensitivity and biodiversity of the locality.

The depot areas are also covered by an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1) which recognises the Shire’s coastline as a significant environmental resource and long term public asset which should not be compromised by inappropriate development.

The National Trust (Portland Branch) has submitted that the proposed increase in cattle would place further pressures on the environment reducing the landscape values and amenity of the area and compromising tourist visitations to the area. Other submissions also raise concerns about the potential impact on the tourism industry.

It was evident to the Panel from an inspection of the area that the depots are significant components of the visual landscape that are experienced by visitors to the Cape Nelson coastal landscape. The applies to those both driving to the Cape Nelson Lighthouse and walking along the Great South West Walk, two major tourism features of the South West Victoria (Figure 3). Figure 3: View of the Livestock Assembly Depots looking south towards the Cape Nelson Lighthouse.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 57

In terms of landscape issues, ‘Sheep feedlots’ along the Cape Nelson are identified in the Discovery Bay Parks Management Plan 2004, along with the pine forests and associated logging behind Discovery Bay, as the two principle intrusions along access roads. The Plan states: There is limited scope to influence these intrusions, and the operations are promoted as interesting local industries in the local tourist handbook (Portland Tourist Association 1995).

The Management Plan includes the landscape aim to ‘ameliorate undesirable visual intrusions in the planning area’ and a strategy to: Liaise with other agencies, industries and the Glenelg Shire Council, to avoid and mitigate visual impacts on the planning area of developments on adjoining properties and adjacent industries, including overhead powerlines and wind farms.

The Glenelg Shire Coastal Action Plan 2002 in regard to landscape values the development of: Siting and Design Guidelines to be referenced with the Glenelg Shire Planning Scheme to guide future development and ensure it is consistent with the future vision for the coastal settlements.

The Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots August 1995 includes landscaping as one of its 8 elements. An objective of the landscaping is: A visual screen to the major buildings, handling area and pens from surrounding properties and roads.

Approved measures for landscaping in the Code include, landscape strips of 30 m in width, screening of buildings, planting along access roads, an approved landscape plan and maintenance and replacement of dead or diseased plants.

The Panel was advised that the use of the land as a livestock assembly depot albeit with an increase in cattle numbers will not be out of place for a rural setting where typically livestock grazing occurs.

The Panel had identified concerns about the potential for land degradation caused by an increasing number of cattle, particularly the build up of waste over 30 days and the need for scraping and stockpiling the solid waste. From evidence to the Panel, problems with issues of amenity seem to have coincided with the increase in cattle export numbers. Whether the increased cattle numbers, and more regular soil scraping, will cause a significant decline in the rural landscape character is an unknown. In the view of the Panel this could be a significant issue because of the extent of the area of Cape Nelson covered by the assembly depots. However it is essentially a land management issue.

Conclusion

There does appear to be the potential for a detrimental change in the rural landscape character of the area, especially with the increasing number of cattle. As discussed above, this is essentially a land management issue. The Panel does not believe that the basis for the National Trust Landscape classification will be undermined by the amendment given the geological and vegetation basis of the classification. The Panel’s view in this regard is reinforced by the understanding that no vegetation is to be removed under the amendment.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 58

The Panel, in line with the Glenelg Shire Coastal Action Plan, supports the development and application of siting and design guidelines for man-made structures in the ERZ.

The Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots August 1995 is also considered to provide some good pointers on the development of a landscape plan to improve the visual amenity by screening buildings and softening the visual impact of infrastructure such as access roads. The Panel considers it would useful for a landscaping plan to be prepared, which clearly depicts areas to be vegetated for biodiversity purposes, landscape protection and visual screening. The landscaping plan can be required under the incorporated document to be prepared and approved by both the Glenelg Shire Council with input from both the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Cape Nelson Landcare Coastcare Group. The Panel recommends that: ƒ The Glenelg Shire Council considers the development of landscaping plans for the assembly depots and siting and design guidelines for man-made structures, including buildings and roads, in the ERZ. ƒ The Incorporated Document should be amended to require the preparation of a landscape plan, which must be approved by the Glenelg Shire Council with input from both the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Cape Nelson Landcare Coastcare Group.

7.5 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (EMP)

DSE in their submission to the Panel raised concern about the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots EMP (July 2004). DSE was of the opinion that: The Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots EMP as currently drafted is not of a suitable standard to establish clear and adequate management practices to ensure that the proposal does not adversely impact on the environment or surrounding land.

DSE were concerned about a wide range of issues including, management of dead stock, soil management, flora and fauna impacts, wandering stock, weed management and impact on surrounding land uses. These and other issues raised by submitters are discussed above.

The Panel agrees that the current EMP is not a document that adequately addresses the issues and recognises that the focus of the Panel has been to address the incorporated document.

The Incorporated Document

A revised version of the incorporated document for the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots was tabled by Mr Dwyer on the final day of the Panel Hearing. In Condition 16 it states: An Environmental Management Plan must be prepared by the operator and audited to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning (or an officer of the Department of Sustainability and Environment nominated by the Minister) and the Responsible Authority and must; (a) require soil surface and groundwater monitoring in accordance with condition 15; (b) describe any noise management procedures; (c) describe any dust management procedures;

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 59

(d) describe any waste management procedures; (e) describe any odour management required; (f) detail the process require for inspection of the site and monitoring of environmental conditions; (g) include trigger levels for soil, surface water and groundwater to be determined in conjunction with an EPA accredited auditor, and by reference to background and baseline data; (h) include a variety of management measures in the event that trigger levels are reached. Such management measures may include: ƒ Increase waste collection with removal or composting for reuse on the land; ƒ Planting of forage crops or other suitable crops to utilise available nutrients; ƒ Increase monitoring; ƒ Resting land; and ƒ Decrease in stock levels.

Conclusion

It is the view of the Panel that the incorporated document provides the framework for the EMP, which needs to be revised in agreement with the Glenelg Shire Council, the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Environment Protection Authority before being approved under the incorporated document.

In the view of the Panel the sustainability of carrying higher cattle numbers for a given containment period is unknown.

The Panel commends the proponent for the establishment of a comprehensive monitoring program and clearly being prepared to acknowledge potential for decrease in stock levels if required to meet environmental benchmarks.

The Panel believes that to overcome the lack of confidence that the local community has about the ability of the livestock assembly depots to comply with the requirements of the EMP, an independent EPA accredited auditor should undertake an annual performance review to ensure that the implementation and compliance with the EMP are being satisfactorily met by the operators of the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots.

The Panel recognises that EMPs take many forms but considers that out of the discussion at this Panel Hearing, the EMP must establish clear objectives, benchmarks, triggers and responses for each environmental and amenity issue. The Panel considers that the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots August 1995 also provides a useful and relevant example of a structured process with each key environmental or amenity issue being dealt with in terms of objectives, accepted standards, and approved measures. The Panel recommends that: ƒ The incorporated document should be amended to require the operation and implementation of the EMP to be audited by an EPA accredited independent auditor on an annual basis. ƒ The incorporated document as amended by the recommendations of the Panel and included in Appendix E should be adopted.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 60

ƒ The Environmental Management Plan should be developed in accordance with the requirements of the revised incorporated document included in Appendix E. ƒ The Environmental Management Plan should clearly establish objectives, benchmarks, triggers and responses for the monitoring program. ƒ The finalisation of the Environmental Management Plan should be subject to the approval of the Responsible Authority, the Department of Sustainability and the Environment Protection Authority.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 61

8. GOOLAGAR LAND

The Panel’s attention was specifically drawn to the issue of considering the value of adjoining land referred to as the ‘Goolagar Land’, which is owned by Mr Phillip King (owner of the existing Overoceans Pty Ltd Livestock Assembly Depot). Goolagar is situated on the eastern side of Cape Nelson Lighthouse Road north of the Bramcote land (refer to Figure 3). It comprises approximately 166 hectares of cleared farming land, which is currently used for extensive animal husbandry under existing use rights.

The Panel understands that the Goolagar land was initially included in an earlier request for an amendment to the Glenelg Planning Scheme, which was not supported by Council. Accordingly, when Amendment C12 was formally exhibited the Goolagar land did not form part of the amendment.

The Panel heard a submission from Mr King, which described the geographical and physical attributes of the Goolagar land that would it suitable for use as a livestock assembly depot and benefit the operational aspects of the existing livestock assembly depots at Cape Nelson. In particular he advised the Panel that if the Goolagar land was included as part of the operation of the existing livestock assembly depots, the number of animals would not be increased and would have the outcome of assisting in reducing the density of stocking rates over all of the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots by approximately 33% together with a consequential decrease in the amount of manure production per hectare.

In conclusion, Mr King requested that the Panel specifically recognise and acknowledge that the Goolagar land is available to achieve stocking rate reductions as part of the operation of the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots.

The Panel also heard submissions from Mr Bernie Wilder from the Planning Authority, who advised that the Council did not support the inclusion of the Goolagar land in the earlier request to amend the Glenelg Planning Scheme and reiterated the Council’s lack of support for the Goolagar land to be used as a livestock assembly depot.

When questioned by the Panel, Mr Wilder advised that the Council considered that Amendment C12 was an opportunity to improve the management of the existing Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots. The inclusion of the Goolagar land was viewed by Council as an extension of the assembly depot use, which is prohibited under the current ERZ and should be considered as a separate amendment matter.

Conclusion

The Panel’s consideration of the Goolagar land is restricted on the basis that the land does not form part of Amendment C12. It must accept that the Planning Authority has not supported the inclusion of the Goolagar land as part of Amendment C12 and therefore does form part of the Panel’s specific consideration of the amendment. The Panel has heard no expert evidence in relation to the merits or otherwise of the Goolagar land and therefore does not make any comment as to the appropriateness or otherwise of the use of the Goolagar land for the purposes of a livestock assembly depot or its relationship to the operational changes to

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 62 the existing Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots proposed under Amendment C12. This issue is a matter for consideration between the landowner, the Planning Authority and the Department of Sustainability and Environment as part of a possible future amendment process.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 63

9. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

As part of its assessment of the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots the Panel is required to assess the amendment against the Strategic Assessment Guidelines contained in the General Practice Note on Strategic Assessment Guidelines for Planning Scheme Amendments. A copy of the General Practice Note is included in Appendix F.

The matters to be considered and the Panel’s response are as follows:

9.1 IS AN AMENDMENT REQUIRED?

Mr Dwyer submitted that although the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots operators believe that changes to their current existing use rights through a clear planning control document would enable them to more efficiently run their businesses, meet the current market demand to export cattle with greater certainty, meet current quarantine and export requirements, an provide for clearer environmental management to be independently audited.

The Panel was advised by Ms Butcher that: An amendment is required because the existing assembly depot operations are prohibited under the provisions of the ERZ. The existing assembly depots operate either as a result of existing planning permits that preceded inclusion of the properties in the ERZ or in the case of the Bramcote land on the basis of existing use rights. It is my view that the changes proposed by the amendment are not able to meet the requirements of Clause 63.05 of the Scheme, which outlines the circumstances where Section 2 and 3 uses with established existing use rights are able to change their operating conditions. Accordingly a planning scheme amendment is required to facilitate the proposed changes to the operating conditions, the inclusion of a small area of additional land and the imposition of more stringent controls over potential environmental and amenity impacts.

In relation to Clause 63.05 ‘’Section 2 and 3 uses’ under the ‘Existing Uses’ provisions of the Glenelg Planning Scheme, the Panel notes the comments from Mr Dwyer that: Clause 63.05 of the planning scheme provides that the use in section 2 or 3 of a zone for which an existing use right is established may continue provided: ƒ No building or works are constructed without a permit; ƒ Any condition or restriction to which the use was subject continues to be met; and ƒ The amenity of the area is not damaged or further damaged by a change in the activity. Consequently, pursuant to that Clause, a new amended permit could only be issued for new buildings and works on land, not in relation to the use of the land. Without an amendment, the scheme required the existing restrictions on use to remain.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 64

Clause 63.08 provides that if land is used for a use in section 3 of the zone for which an existing use right is established, a permit may be granted to use the land for an alternative use, which does not comply with the scheme. Whilst Mr Peddie and Mr King would have liked to have been able to rely upon this clause to obtain new permits that provided greater certainty, their use is clearly not an alternative use. The use has always been an assembly depot and Mr Peddie and Mr King’s proposal is to continue to use the land as an assembly depot, although to obtain greater certainty for stock rates, holding periods and operating conditions.

This view was also supported by Council and is accepted by the Panel as an appropriate response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines. The Panel considers that the amendment will provide for a greater certainty, clarity and integration of control over the existing and future use and operation of the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots comprising the D J Peddie land, Overoceans land and for the first time the Bramcote land.

The Panel considers that there is no other alternative planning tool to implement the outcome of Amendment C12.

9.2 STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION

The strategic basis for the amendment is discussed in some detail at Sections 9.4 and 9.5 of this report where the proposal is assessed against relevant state and local planning policies and other relevant policy documents.

However, the Panel considers that the amendment has strategic justification through Clause 18.05, which provides that the land resources adjacent to ports should be protected to preserve their value for uses, which depend upon or gain significant economic advantages from proximity to the ports, particularly shipping operations.

The Panel also believes that the amendment is consistent with Clauses in the planning scheme which aim to protect the coastal landscape quality of Cape Nelson as the proposed changes to the use with an increased presence of cattle and a reduction is sheep numbers will not result in an increased visual impact because the land will continue to contain large numbers of livestock which is essentially what already occurs and has occurred for many years. A significant outcome of the amendment will be the implementation of weed management and revegetation works which will reduce the impact on the Cape Nelson State Park and the Discovery Bay Coastal Park of any pest plants and improve the visual appearance of the subject lands.

9.3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT

Every amendment must meet the requirements of the Act including any Ministerial Directions under Section 7 and Section 12 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The following questions are relevant.

Does the amendment adequately address environmental effects?

The effects on the environment resulting from the amendment have been considered earlier in this report by the Panel. It is important to note that the effects on the environment of

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 65 increasing the stocking density of cattle and increasing the containment times to 30 days for quarantine purposes while reducing the stocking density of sheep is proposed to be addressed through an EMP called up under the conditions imposed through the incorporated document.

A key objective supporting the amendment is that it will introduce an environmental management regime over all three livestock assembly depots. The amendment will, for the first time provide for an integrated management regime that will have the capability to monitor the environmental condition of soil, surface water, groundwater and noise, odour and dust so that any environmentally damaging effects can be identified and managed through a risk assessment program. Mitigating actions can then be specified, which can be used to prevent such identified environmentally damaging effects from causing ongoing and long term damage to the environment from the operation of the assembly depots.

The means of implementing the integrated environmental management regime is through the EMP. The incorporated document requires the development of an EMP and also specifies requirements for weed management and revegetation works to protect the adjoining coastal park values of Cape Nelson and amenity issues with adjoining properties and requirements for management of dead stock, manure management and livestock transportation.

Overall, the Panel considers that the amendment has appropriately considered and adequately addressed the environmental effects of the proposed changes to the use of the subject lands for livestock assembly depots.

Does the amendment adequately address the relevant social and economic effects?

The proposed amendment will result in significant positive economic and social impacts for both Portland and the wider regional area. The Panel, was advised by Mr Dwyer, that in the Portland and Hamilton area, the livestock export industry generated: ƒ $15.2 million in gross revenue with a multiple impact of $24.3 million; ƒ Value added, direct and indirect of $13.2 million (this represents the value chain which the livestock export industry has with numerous other business types which each generates value and employ people). The value added per head for live cattle in the value chain is estimated at $35 per head; and ƒ Total employment of 320 jobs.

The Panel notes that the existing assembly depots provide a third income stream for sheep and cattle producers, in addition to the traditional income streams from wool and meat and are the only such depots in Victoria, which is considered important if Victoria is to continue to play a role in the live export market.

The Panel also heard from the Port of Portland Authority that the assembly depot maximises use of the Port facilities. Mr Peter Klein, Marketing Manager from the Port of Portland advised the Panel that the close proximity of the existing assembly depots to the port is important for live export because of the need to keep operating costs of shipping to a minimum. He advised that ship charter costs are between $15,000 to $30,000 per day, so it becomes critical to be able to move stock quickly.

The Panel was also advised that the location of the assembly depots close to Portland and the port was important for meeting the market demand for export of dairy cattle because of the

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 66

location of both the assembly depots and the port close to the strong dairying industry in south west Victoria and south east South Australia.

The need for such close linkages between the sheep grazing and dairying industries with the assembly depots and the Port of Portland remains critical for employment and economic stability in the region. The amendment is seen as a tool to ensure that the existing assembly depots operate in a manner, which capitalises on these locational attributes and remains an important use, which supports local employment.

The Panel accordingly, considers that social and economic matters have been appropriately considered by the amendment.

Does the amendment comply with the requirements of the Ministerial Direction on the form and content of Planning Schemes?

The amendment is consistent with this Ministerial Direction.

Do any other Minister’s Directions apply to the Amendment? If so, have they been complied with?

There are no other Minister’s Direction that apply to the amendment.

9.4 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

To ensure planning schemes further the objectives of planning in Victoria, planning authorities must take into account and give effect to the general principles and specific policies contained in the SPPF.

What aspects, if any, of the SPPF are relevant?

The relevant State Planning Policies applicable to this amendment are outlined in Chapter 5.2.

It was pointed out by Mr Dwyer and is noted by the Panel that in considering the relevant policies, it needs to be kept in mind that this is not a new use that is proposed for the site but an existing use, with a small expansion of the land area, a proposed change in operating conditions and imposition of additional environmental and amenity safeguards being the key outcomes of the amendment.

As a result, the Panel is mindful that its considerations relate to the changes to the existing operations of the use and development of the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots and does not extend to assessing whether or not the existing use of the subject lands for livestock assembly depots based on their existing planning permits and existing use rights are appropriate or reasonable.

Does the amendment or proposal support or give effect to the SPPF?

The Panel considers that the on balance and in consideration of the key tests of net community benefit and sustainable development, approval of the proposed amendment will assist in the achievement of these identified State policies, as discussed below.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 67

Clause 15.01 – Catchments, waterways and groundwater

In terms of catchment planning and management, and water quality protection, the Panel notes the evidence of Ms Butcher: The existing assembly depots have the potential to impact on surface water and groundwater if the uses are not appropriately managed in terms of waste disposal and control of run-off. These issues have been addressed in the EMP that has been prepared as part of the Amendment, via the requirement for a baseline study to be undertaken to establish soil, surface water and groundwater quality prior to the commencement of expanded operations on the site and requirement for an on-going monitoring program (following establishment of baseline conditions). In addition, preliminary groundwater testing was undertaken by ERM, which demonstrated that the groundwater quality on the D J Peddie and Bramcote land is currently of similar quality to the groundwater quality in surrounding areas, suggesting that the long-standing use of the land for assembly depots has had minimal impact on the groundwater quality of the site. There are no natural permanent water bodies located on the site. The nearest permanent water body is the ocean.

The Panel considers that the proposal responds appropriately to the policies outlined at Clause 15.01 and seeks to adequately address potential impacts on water quality.

Clause 15.04 – Air Emissions

The potential impacts of the proposal as a result of air emissions has also been addressed in the incorporated document and the requirement for an EMP to address dust and odour emissions and which demonstrate that a variety of measures are available to minimise any adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties as a result of odour and dust including: ƒ The planting of shelterbelts; ƒ Pavement of high use areas with limestone; ƒ The requirement for regular clearing of waste water ponds; and ƒ The requirement for a dead animal management plan.

The Panel notes that the nearest residential dwelling is located approximately 180 metres to the north of the north boundary of the assembly depot on the Overoceans land, while for the Bramcote and D J Peddie land, the nearest residential dwelling is located approximately 50 metres to the north of the north boundary of the D J Peddie assembly depot.

The Panel considers that, based on the requirements of the incorporated document and the mitigating measures in the EMP the proposal will assist in the achievement of this policy and will minimise any impact as a result of odour or dust on the nearest residential properties.

Clause 15.05 – Noise Abatement

This Clause identifies the need to control noise effects on sensitive land uses.

The principal noise issues associated with the assembly depots is noise from the delivery and pick up of livestock. The EMP identifies measures to address these issues including:

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 68

ƒ Restrict the hours of stock transport and control truck movements to avoid congestion and overtaking; ƒ The location of equipment such as generators and pumps to be located to avoid noise impacts on neighbouring properties; ƒ The implementation of shelterbelts between holding yards and neighbouring rural dwellings to assist in filtering noise.

The Panel considers that based on the above measures being implemented the proposal adequately addresses the objective of this policy.

Clause 15.08 – Coastal Areas

The Panel considers that the purpose of this Clause will be achieved and that the continued operations of the assembly depots use will not impact on the natural ecosystems and landscape of the coastline. The amendment supports the hierarchy of coastal planning and management principles of the Victorian Coastal Strategy by seeking operational changes to the existing use of the livestock assembly depots at Cape Nelson. No vegetation removal is proposed directly as a result of the amendment. Some submitters were concerned about vegetation removal and impacts on the existing Coastal Mallee vegetation remnants. However, it appear that such concerns come more from the development works proposed as part of the Portland Windfarm project than that compared to what is proposed under Amendment C12. It is clear to the Panel that the amendment will not impact on the vegetation of the Cape and will contribute towards protecting the existing remnant vegetation through revegetation and weed management works.

There will be no additional buildings as a result of the amendment. The amendment will result in additional cattle being accommodated on the land (with a subsequent reduction in sheep), and, an increased frequency in the presence of cattle on the land. The visual impact as a result of the amendment will be additional cattle on the site (in place of sheep) and the presence of cattle over a longer period of time (30 days versus 10 days). Keeping in mind the rural setting of the site and the existing use of land for livestock assembly depots, the proposed changes will not result in any significant increased visual impact on the coastline unless cattle pressures trigger land degradation.

The EMP requires that livestock held at the assembly depots are contained in paddocks with stock proof fencing. This will minimise any impacts on adjoining properties or the adjoining coastal park as a result of straying livestock.

Other potential impacts, in terms of surface water and groundwater have been discussed earlier in this section.

Clause 15.09 – Flora and Fauna

This policy is addressed through the requirements within the incorporated document for an EMP and through the risk assessment and actions to undertake weed management and revegetation works to protect and support the biodiversity of the existing remnant native vegetation EVC’s located on both the subject lands and the surrounding area and in particular the Cape Nelson State Park and Discovery Bay Coastal Park.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 69

Clause 17.05 – Agriculture

This policy is considered by the Panel to be adequately addressed by providing for the continued operation of a long standing, viable agricultural use which requires greater flexibility in its operations to respond to market change and demands.

Clause 17.06 – Intensive Animal Industries

The Panel considers that the proposed amendment is consistent with the recommendations of this policy and will result in the continuing operation of an existing use but in a more controlled manner, which appropriately addresses potential environmental impacts via the EMP.

Clause 18.01 - Declared Highways, Railways and Tramways.

The Clause identifies the need for transport routes to be located to minimise disruption of residential communities and their amenity. The Panel considers that this policy has been appropriately addressed by requiring the use of a truck route identified by the operators for all deliveries and pick-ups (which prohibits the use of the Cape Nelson Tourist Road for access) and traffic management conditions specified in the incorporated document.

Clause 18.05 - Ports

The policy identifies the importance of ensuring land resources in proximity to Port areas are preserved for uses that depend upon or gain economic advantage as a result of their proximity.

The Panel considers that the location of the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots in proximity to the Port is both a significant animal welfare and economic advantage in terms of the short distance that livestock has to be transported. This is a critical consideration, which underpins the viability of he live export trade.

9.5 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The Panel notes that the amendment does not propose any changes to the LPPF. The review of the amendment against these policies leads the Panel to the conclusion that the proposed amendment will support the achievement of key strategic directions of the MSS and local policies.

9.5.1 MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT

How does the Amendment seek to implement and or support the MSS?

The Panel considers that the amendment implements and supports the MSS through the following:

Clause 21.03, which identifies a vision statement for the Shire, part of which includes supporting its economic base whilst ensuring sustainable management of natural resources. The Panel considers that the continued operation of the assembly depots, with more flexible operating conditions and better controls over potential environmental and amenity impacts, is consistent with this vision.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 70

Clause 21.09, which identifies the importance of encouraging investment in agricultural uses, including appropriately sited intensive animal husbandry uses. Interestingly, the Panel notes that under ‘Agriculture’, the planning scheme states that strategies will be implemented by: Applying the Rural Zone to areas of the Shire currently in agricultural production except for areas suitable for intensive agriculture, which shall be included in an Environmental Rural Zone.

Many submitters expressed concerns that the livestock assembly depots were inconsistent with the purpose of the Environmental Rural Zone in that intensive keeping of livestock (admittedly in preparation for live export overseas) would not comply with the need to protect the natural resources and environmental values of Cape Nelson. The Panel finds that in this regard the planning scheme confusing because on the one hand intensive animal husbandry is a prohibited use under the ERZ and on the other the MSS is seeking to facilitate intensive agriculture through the ERZ.

In this regard the Panel agrees with the conclusion of Ms Butcher in that the continued operation of the livestock assembly depots is considered appropriate in the context of the policy direction for agriculture, given: ƒ The long-standing presence of the use at Cape Nelson; ƒ The important role of the use in the live export industry ƒ The proximity of the depots to the Port; ƒ The minimal visual impact that results from the use; ƒ The environmental monitoring and management, which is now proposed.

Clause 21.09 also relates to the environment and highlights the need for the protection and appropriate management of groundwater resources, biodiversity, native vegetation and the coastal environment. The Panel believes that the amendment is consistent with the environmental strategies outlined in the MSS, on the basis that the EMP is prepared and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the incorporated document and the Panel’s recommendations.

Tourism is also identified at Clause 21.09, including the need to promote the coastline in the region and promote the Great South West Walk. The Great South West Walk extends along the eastern boundary of the Bramcote land. The current use and development of the Great South West Walk and its tourism potential will not be impacted by the amendment. The Panel believes that through the incorporated document and EMP, an appropriate emphasis on revegetation works and protection of existing remnant areas of native vegetation is provided to ensure that environmental values of the Cape are maintained. Opportunities to enhance native vegetation values will also become available through the revegetation and weed management requirements, which can be undertaken in conjunction with the Cape Nelson Landcare Group.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 71

9.5.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY

What local planning policies will the amendment affect or be affected by?

The amendment is affected by the following local planning policies:

Clause 22.02-1 relating to land management and protection and identifies the need to consider the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Plan. Land management issues have been considered in detail under Chapters 7 of the report. The Panel considers that through the requirements of the incorporated document and required EMP, land management issues can be adequately addressed.

Clause 22.02-4 relates specifically to coastal areas and once again identifies the need to protect the coast and ensure use and development along the coastline occurs in a sustainable manner. The Panel considers that the amendment will not impact negatively on the natural and cultural values of the coast, subject to the appropriate implementation of the incorporated document and EMP and its associated requirements.

Clause 22.03 relates to economic development, and discusses the need to encourage opportunities for the expansion of agricultural uses where compatible with adjoining uses. It is considered that the amendment will assist in supporting this policy direction by resulting in a change in the operational conditions of the assembly depots that will enable the operations to continue to meet the requirements of the live export markets in terms of holding times.

The Panel believes that the use of land as livestock assembly depots is a rural use that is appropriate in a rural setting, albeit the use results in a greater number of livestock being located in one paddock than would be the case under normal grazing conditions. However, the continued operation of the use is appropriate in the rural setting and in the context of adjoining land uses. Potential impacts on amenity and landscape value can be mitigated by careful development of the Native Vegetation Management Plan, Landscape Plan and Weed control Management Plan required under the incorporated document. These plans provide an opportunity to mitigate impacts on amenity and improve the biodiversity of the Cape Nelson area. The Panel considers that the amendment presents an important opportunity for the local community through the Cape Nelson Landcare Coastcare Group to be become involved with the management of the environmental values of the area in conjunction with the livestock assembly depot operators.

Finally, the Panel considers that there is appropriate road access is available to the sites in accordance with the infrastructure policy at Clause 22.04-2 of the LPPF.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 72

9.6 ZONES, OVERLAYS, PARTICULAR PROVISIONS AND SCHEDULES

The amendment does not propose to alter the zoning or application of overlays over the subject lands. The amendment does however, propose to alter the schedule to Clause 52.03 ‘Specific Sites and Exclusions’ of the Particular Provisions to permit the use of the Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots to change in accordance with controls included under the “Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots Incorporated Document”.

Does the Amendment use the most appropriate VPP tools?

The Panel has considered this question under Chapter 6 and considers that the use of the incorporated document is the most appropriate planning tool to implement the outcome of the amendment.

To what extent do local provisions adopt a performance-based approach?

The amendment contains a range of performance-based provisions related primarily to controlling operational aspects of the livestock assembly depots, but also with respect to environmental and land management issues. The Panel believes that these provisions are appropriate for the circumstances of the assembly depots and the outcome of the amendment.

What Planning Practice Notes are relevant?

The Incorporated and Reference Documents Planning Practice Note, August 2000 is relevant to Amendment C12.

Is the amendment in accordance with any relevant Planning Practice Notes?

The Panel considers that the amendment is consistent with the relevant planning practice note.

9.7 REFERRAL AUTHORITIES

Does the Amendment contain new formal or informal referral requirements?

The proposed amendment does not create any additional referral authority requirement under the planning scheme. However, the incorporated document does introduce the Minister for Planning or delegate officer from the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Environment Protection Authority as a co-approval authority alongside the Glenelg Shire Council as the responsible authority for operational changes to the livestock assembly depots that require consent.

The above arrangements for these changes were suggested by the proponent during the Panel Hearing in an attempt to provide submitters who were expressing concern over the ability of Council to adequately enforce the conditions contained within the incorporated document a level of surety that the livestock assembly depots will operate in accordance with the incorporated document and EMP.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 73

The Panel is not aware of any level of agreement of the Minister for Planning however, the Panel was provided with a written submission from the Department of Sustainability and Environment in response to the opportunity to make comment on the revised incorporated document whereby comments encouraging the Department’s role in providing consent for the Environmental Management Plan and land management conditions of the incorporated document were made. The Panel considers that concurrent consent from the Department of Sustainability and Environment would be beneficial on the basis that Council will not be in a position to interpret and respond to monitoring results that may potentially exceed environmental trigger levels for initiating mitigating actions to address any impacts arising from the operation of the livestock assembly depots.

Can this purpose be served by other means?

The changed operation of the livestock assembly depots is proposed to be approved under conditions included within an incorporated document. Alternative forms of consent from the Department of Sustainability and Environment are not available either under other legislation nor through any planning permit processes. The level of consent provided for in the incorporated document relates to: ƒ Increasing stock numbers with any consent to be based upon consideration of the capability of the land to hold additional stock; ƒ Land management practices to prevent or manage any possible impact on the soil or groundwater conditions caused by additional nutrient or manure loads; and ƒ For the Environmental Management Plan, required under the incorporated document.

Accordingly, it is considered that the form of consent created under the incorporated document is appropriate and reasonable due to the need to ensure that land capability is protected through monitoring of soil, surface and groundwater condition compared to established background levels, which are also proposed to be audited by an EPA approved independent auditor.

9.8 OUTCOME OF THE AMENDMENT

What is the cumulative effect of this amendment on the strategic directions of the planning scheme?

The outcome of the Amendment is that the existing livestock assembly depot uses on Cape Nelson will be able to continue to operate with conditions that allow them to meet the changing demands of the live export industry. The amendment will allow a greater number of cattle with a reduction in sheep numbers to be contained on the D J Peddie land, Overoceans land and the Bramcote land with the containment time increasing from 10 days to 30 days for cattle only with the potential for up to 60 days for exporting to countries such as the USA.

The continued operation of the livestock assembly depots in Portland will provide certainly for the existing employees of the assembly depots and the various associated businesses (including the Port) that service the depots.

In addition, the Amendment will result in far more stringent environmental and auditing requirements being placed on the existing operations, as detailed in the incorporated document. In the case of the Bramcote land in particular, the requirements will be significantly

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 74 greater, as at the moment there is no requirement for any monitoring given the existing use rights.

The amendment will be implemented through the use of an incorporated document listed under the schedules to Clause 52.03 ‘Specific Sites and Exclusions’ and Clause 81 of the Glenelg Planning Scheme. The use of the incorporated document provides for planning control through a set of conditions linked to: ƒ General operations; ƒ Disposal of dead or injured animals; ƒ Stock numbers and density; ƒ Containment; ƒ Land Management; ƒ Land access and transport; ƒ Native Vegetation; ƒ Landscape; and ƒ An Environmental Management Plan.

These conditions are considered by the Panel to be adequate to regulate the changes to the use of the livestock assembly depots. The use of the incorporated document is appropriate and does provide for adequate transparency of the planning process as it will form part of the Glenelg Planning Scheme.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 75

10. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 CONCLUSIONS

The Panel has considered all the submissions referred to it and all the material presented at the hearings and has reached the following conclusions.

Appropriateness of the Incorporated Document

The Panel considers that the use of the incorporated document as a form of planning control over the operational changes to the use of the existing livestock assembly depots proposed under the amendment is appropriate because it avoids rezoning the land from Environmental Rural to Rural or to Special Use. Rezoning the subject lands may create opportunities for other inappropriate uses to occur and avoids the spot zoning of the area.

The use of an incorporated document under the schedule to Clause 52.03 is considered by the Panel to be appropriate in that it supports the purposes of the Clause by recognising a use that existed at the time the new format Glenelg Planning Scheme came into operation and supporting a unique land use which represents the only type of its kind in the State and its strong economic value for the local, regional and statewide rural economy.

Panel considers that the use and form of the ‘Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots Incorporated Document’ is appropriate for providing a planning framework to control the use of the livestock assembly depots and satisfactory for inclusion as part of the Glenelg Planning Scheme, subject to changes arising from other Panel recommendations.

Definitions and the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots

The Panel notes that there is no specific definition for a livestock assembly depot. However, the Panel does accept that the definition for “intensive animal husbandry” is the best fit in terms of describing the nature of the use of a livestock assembly depot.

With respect to the applicability of the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots, the Panel is of the opinion that a livestock assembly depot does not fit the definition of a cattle feedlot under Clause 74 of the planning scheme. Accordingly, the calling up of the Code under Clause 52.26 ‘Cattle Feedlot’ of the Glenelg Planning Scheme is not triggered and therefore is not required to be applied to the consideration of the livestock assembly depot use.

The Panel does believe however, that consideration of the Code would have some benefit, particularly for land management and the preparation of the Environment Management Plan.

Waste management

The Panel accepts on the basis of the proposed stock figures that projected levels of waste do not increase significantly between the existing situation and the composition of the total stock numbers proposed for the amendment.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 76

The Panel notes that while total volumes of waste may be similar for a year the level of waste is much greater for one containment period of 30 continuous days for cattle compared to sheep.

The Panel supports a precautionary approach as the impact of increased cattle waste per containment period is unknown and accordingly strongly endorses the need for a comprehensive monitoring program.

Amenity

The Panel supports the need to address traffic problems caused by operating outside the hours of 6am and 10pm.

It is the view of the Panel that the proposed monitoring program in the incorporated document should be extended to include benchmarks, triggers and response measures for odour and noise.

The Panel considers that a good opportunity exists for the formal involvement of the CNLC in the monitoring process for these amenity issues. This would be a similar concept as already widely adopted in community based programs such as Waterwatch Victoria.

Flora and fauna

With the major concern for weeds being the impact on the adjoining public land of the Cape Nelson State Park and Discovery Bay Coastal Park, the Panel considers that the weed plan, in particular, should be discussed with Parks Victoria. In that way the priority weed species for management can be best identified and a joint program, as specified in the Discovery Bay Parks Management Plan 2004 instituted.

There is a need to ensure the Vegetation Management Plan incorporates best practice that manages and enhances remnant vegetation so as to achieve natural regeneration.

Involvement of the local community should be encouraged.

Landscape character

The Panel recognises a potential for a detrimental change in the rural landscape character of the area with the increasing number of cattle and supports the need for the monitoring program to address the potential for soil degradation.

Development and application of siting and design guidelines for man-made structures is supported.

The Panel also considers it would useful for a landscaping plan to be prepared, which clearly depicts areas to be vegetated for biodiversity purposes, landscape protection and visual screening.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 77

Environment management plan (EMP)

It is the view of the Panel that the incorporated document provides the framework for the EMP.

The Panel commends the proponent for the establishment of a comprehensive monitoring program and clearly being prepared to acknowledge potential for decrease in stock levels if required to meet environmental benchmarks.

The Panel considers the EMP must establish clear objectives, benchmarks, triggers and responses for each environmental and amenity issue.

Goolagar Land

The Panel’s consideration of the Goolagar land is restricted on the basis that the land does not form part of Amendment C12. The Panel has heard no evidence in relation to the merits or otherwise of the Goolagar land and therefore does not make any comment as to the appropriateness or otherwise of the use of the Goolagar land for the purposes of a livestock assembly depot or its relationship to the operational changes to the existing Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots proposed under Amendment C12.

The Panel believes that this is a matter for separate consideration between the landowner, the Planning Authority and the Department of Sustainability and Environment as part of a possible future amendment process.

10.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the reasons set out in this report, the Panel makes the following recommendations to the planning authority:

Amendment C12 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme should be adopted subject to the following recommendations.

Appropriateness of the Incorporated Document Recommendation 1 The Panel recommends that: ƒ The ‘Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots Incorporated Document’ is an appropriate form of planning control and subject to changes recommended by the Panel should be approved and included under the schedules to Clause 81 and Clause 52.03 of the Glenelg Planning Scheme.

Waste Management Recommendation 2 The Panel recommends that the incorporated document should be amended to: ƒ Include a requirement that any consent to extend the containment period beyond 30 days should be offset by the loss of a 30 day containment period. ƒ Include reference to the established arrangements between the Environment Protection Authority and the livestock assembly depots regarding the management of dead stock.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 78

ƒ Require that surface and groundwater monitoring techniques and sites should be established in accordance with the approval of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. ƒ Require that soil monitoring techniques for each of the 10 Pre Export Quarantine areas should be established and undertaken in accordance with the approval of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. ƒ Require that the standard frequency of monitoring of soil condition should be on a monthly basis in line with the 30 day containment period, with provision for ‘event’ monitoring of trigger levels where complaints are received. ƒ Require that baseline data should be collected for the indicators specified for soil, surface and groundwater monitoring in the revised incorporated document included in Appendix E. ƒ Require ‘trigger levels’ to be set in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment, the Department of Primary Industries and an Environment Protection Authority accredited auditor. ƒ Require that annual monitoring should be undertaken by independent experts and results audited by an Environment Protection Authority accredited auditor. Recommendation 3 The Panel recommends that: ƒ A reputable and experienced consultant capable of also interpreting data should be appointed to manage the environmental monitoring program.

Amenity Recommendation 4 The Panel recommends that: ƒ The Incorporated Document should be amended to impose penalties through transport agreements with contractors if queuing or transport operations occur outside the restricted operating hours for livestock transportation.

Noise, Odour, Dust and Flies Recommendation 5 The Panel recommends that the incorporated document should be amended to: ƒ Extend the monitoring program to include odour and noise. ƒ Require the development of objectives, standards and response measures for noise and odour as part of the Environmental Management Plan. Recommendation 6 The Panel recommends that: ƒ The Cape Nelson Landcare Coastcare Group should be invited to participate in the monitoring program.

Flora and Fauna Recommendation 7 The Panel recommends that the Native Vegetation Plan should: ƒ Be supported by a site plan clearly showing existing remnant vegetation, shelterbelts and buffers and proposed vegetation works; ƒ Be developed to accord with the Draft Glenelg Hopkins Native Vegetation Plan; ƒ Determine optimal plantation widths for buffer planting to provide the conditions for natural regeneration; ƒ Establish a consultative process with the Cape Nelson Landcare Coastcare Group;

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 79

ƒ Address priorities for weed management with Parks Victoria as the manager of Cape Nelson State Park and Discovery Bay Coastal Park, the natural asset most at risk from weed invasion of the surrounding public land; ƒ Delete Monterey Pine from the recommended species list; and ƒ Review best management practices with DSE in relation to species selection and management prescriptions.

Landscape Character Recommendation 8 The Panel recommends that: ƒ The Glenelg Shire Council considers the development of landscaping plans for the assembly depots and siting and design guidelines for man-made structures, including buildings and roads, in the ERZ. ƒ The Incorporated Document should be amended to require the preparation of a landscape plan, which must be approved by the Glenelg Shire Council with input from both the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Cape Nelson Landcare Coastcare Group.

Environmental Management Plan (Incorporated Document) Recommendation 9 The Panel recommends that: ƒ The incorporated document should be amended to require the operation and implementation of the EMP to be audited by an EPA accredited independent auditor on an annual basis. ƒ The incorporated document as amended by the recommendations of the Panel and included in Appendix E should be adopted. ƒ The Environmental Management Plan should be developed in accordance with the requirements of the revised incorporated document included in Appendix E. ƒ The Environmental Management Plan should clearly establish objectives, benchmarks, triggers and responses for the monitoring program. ƒ The finalisation of the Environmental Management Plan should be subject to the approval of the Responsible Authority, the Department of Sustainability and the Environment Protection Authority.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 80

A. LIST OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Louise Byrne

Warren Mars

Hilda Egan

Mimi Murrell Secretary – Cape Nelson Landcare Coastcare Inc.

Lindsay J. Hill

Gareth Gunn & Lisa Jenkins

Brampton & Jacqueline Le Page

Lyle Taffs

Hilary Turner

Gordon Stokes – National Trust of Australia (Victoria) (Portland Branch)

Phillip King

Colin Dunkley Chief Executive Officer – Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority

Ian Voight Regional Manager, South West – Department of Sustainability and Environment

William.G.C. Maling

John Stark Fire Safety Officer CFA South West Area – Country Fire Authority

Greg Creek South West Region – Environment Protection Authority

Peter Klein Marketing Manager – Port of Portland

E. Hallewas

Simon Ramsey President VFF Livestock – Victorian Farmers Federation

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 81

B. EXHIBITED AMENDMENT

The original version of the exhibited Amendment is included comprising the Explanatory report, amended Schedule to Clause 52.03, amended Schedule to Clause 81 and a copy of the exhibited version of the “Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots Incorporated Document, December 2003”.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 82

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 83

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 84

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 85

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 86

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 87

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 88

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 89

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 90

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 91

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 92

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 93

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 94

C. REVISED INCORPORATED DOCUMENT

A revised “Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots Incorporated Document, August 2004”, which was submitted to the Panel during the hearing and is included in this Appendix because it forms part of the revised documentation considered by the Panel in the preparation of this report.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots

Incorporated Document Glenelg Planning Scheme August 2004

This document is an incorporated document in the Glenelg Planning Scheme pursuant to Section 6(2)(j) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Glenelg Planning Scheme Cape Nelson Assembly Depot

INTRODUCTION This document is an incorporated document pursuant to clause 52.03 of the Glenelg Planning Scheme. The land identified in the document may be developed and used in accordance with the specific controls contained in this document. The specific controls may exclude other controls in the Scheme. If there is any inconsistency between the specific controls and the general provisions of the Scheme, the specific controls will prevail. ADDRESS OF THE LAND It includes Crown Allotment 1, section 5, Parish of Trewalla (DJ Peddie Land) and Crown Allotment 1A of section 5, Parish of Trewalla (Bramcote Pty Ltd Land) and Crown Allotments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of section 4, Parish of Trewalla (Overoceans Pty Ltd Land). [Subject Land]. The Subject Land is shown on the plan attached and marked “A”. THIS DOCUMENT ALLOWS Use and development of the Subject Land as a livestock assembly depot for cattle, sheep and goats. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS DOCUMENT: LAYOUT 1. Plans must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within two months of the approval of this document which show: (a) the dimensions of the Subject Land; (b) the layout of the Subject Land; (c) the location of access ways to and from the Subject Land; (d) a 20m wide (minimum) plantation area along the boundary of the Subject Land to Cape Nelson [Lighthouse] Road, but excluding areas where there are existing gateways, accessways and parking areas; (e) in respect of the DJ Peddie Land a 100 metres wide (minimum) buffer area along the northern boundary of the land where it abuts the residence of L Taffs (being Parish of Trewalla section 2 pt 2, Cape Nelson [Lighthouse] Road), including a 20m wide plantation area; (f) in respect of the Overoceans Pty Ltd Land, a 20m wide (minimum) plantation area along the southern boundary, not including the boundary with the D J Peddie Land. 2. Except with the consent of the responsible authority, planting of the plantation areas, must commence within two weeks of the responsible authority approving the plans in condition 1 and all planting must be completed within 6 weeks of commencement. Consent will only be given to vary this required timing where it can be demonstrated that soil/weather conditions are inappropriate for planting at that time. GENERAL OPERATIONS 3. At all times, one paddock shall be set aside as a hospital paddock, separate from the assembly depot paddocks, on the DJ Peddie Land, Bramcote Pty Ltd Land, and Overoceans Pty Ltd Land. 4. The operator of an assembly depot must comply with the Australian Livestock Export Standards March 2001 (as amended in November 2002), the Accreditation Rules for the Livestock Export Accreditation Program (LEAP) as relevant to the operations and

January 2003 Appendix C Incorporated Doc.doc Page 2 of 4 Glenelg Planning Scheme Cape Nelson Assembly Depot

as amended from time to time and any other standards or codes of practise introduced for the management of pre-export assembly depots. 5. Adequate water shall be supplied to each paddock to provide drinking water for the livestock. 6. The livestock may only be unloaded or loaded onto or from the Subject Land between the hours of 6.00am and 10.00pm. DISPOSAL OF DEAD OR INJURED ANIMALS 7. Dead and injured animals shall be disposed of in accordance with a Dead or Injured Animals Management Plan approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 8. The Dead or Injured Animals Management Plan referred to in Condition 7 above, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority within three months of the approval of this document and shall at a minimum provide: (a) a reporting system for recording the number of injured or deceased animals that are disposed of on site or removed from the site. (b) where dead animals are to be disposed of within an on site pit: (i) a management system for containing odour and dust within the site boundaries. (ii) a management system for ensuring that surface water and ground water is not contaminated by the operation of the pit. STOCK NUMBERS AND DENSITY 9. In respect of the DJ Peddie Land and the Bramcote Pty Ltd Land and Overoceans Pty Ltd Land (combined), the total number of sheep and goats to be assembled shall not exceed 120,000 at any one time and shall not exceed 1.2 million sheep and goats in total per year, save that the maximum number of sheep to be assembled can be increased by 5 for every head of cattle not kept on the land. 10. For the DJ Peddie Land, Bramcote Pty Ltd Land and Overoceans Pty Ltd Land and (combined), the total number of cattle to be assembled shall not exceed 24,000 at any one time and shall not exceed 120,000 cattle in total per year. 11. The stock numbers in conditions 9 and 10 cannot be exceeded except with the approval of the Responsible Authority and the Minister for Planning. In considering whether to grant such approval, the Responsible Authority and the Minister must consider the capability of the land to hold the additional stock, and in particular the land management practises to prevent or manage any possible impact on soil or groundwater conditions caused by additional nutrient or manure loads. CONTAINMENT 12. Animals shall not be contained on the Subject Land for longer than: (i) in the cast of cattle 30 days; or (ii) in the case of sheep or goats 10 days; or (iii) with the consent of the Responsible Authority the maximum period required to ensure compliance with the import trade requirements of the country to which the relevant animals are to be exported. LAND MANAGEMENT 13. Unless otherwise consented to in writing by the Responsible Authority, all existing native vegetation to be retained on site and fenced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

January 2003 Appendix C Incorporated Doc.doc Page 3 of 4 Glenelg Planning Scheme Cape Nelson Assembly Depot

14. Within three months of the approval date, the operator must commence implementation of a weed control program in accordance with a Weed Control Management Plan to be audited to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; 15. Annual monitoring of the soil and groundwater conditions shall be undertaken by independent experts and results audited by an Environment Protection Authority accredited auditor. The monitoring must establish relevant background and baseline data, and include; (i) Soil monitoring:Nutrients including phosphate, total phosphorous, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia and total nitrogen, Cation Exchange Capacity, trace metals (ii) Groundwater and surface water monitoring: pH, oxidation reduction potential, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, TDS, TSS, nutrients and trace metals. 16. An Environmental Management Plan must be prepared by the operator and audited to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning (or an officer of the Department of Sustainability and Environment nominated by the Minister) and the Responsible Authority and must; (a) require soil, surface and groundwater monitoring in accordance with condition 15; (b) describe any noise management procedures; (c) describe any dust management procedures; (d) describe any waste management procedures; (e) describe any odour management required; (f) detail the process required for inspection of the site and monitoring of environmental conditions; (g) include trigger levels for soil, surface water and groundwater to be determined in conjunction with an EPA accredited auditor, and by reference to background and baseline data;(h) include a variety of management measures in the event that trigger levels are reached. Such management measures may include: (i) increase waste collection with removal or compositing for reuse on the land; (ii) planting of forage crops or other suitable crops to utilise available nutrients; (iii) creation of wetlands to utilise available nutrients; (iv) increase monitoring; (v) resting land; and (vi) decrease in stock levels. LAND ACCESS AND STOCK TRANSPORT 17. Stock transport to and from the Subject Land, shall gain access to and from Cape Nelson via the West Boundary Road, unless authorised by the Responsible Authority. 18. The unloading and loading of vehicles in association with the use of an assembly depot shall be carried out within the boundaries of the site and behind the buffer areas where possible. 19. The operator of an assembly depot shall at all times exercise care when driving sheep or cattle across Cape Nelson Road. 20. Adequate provision shall be made on site for the parking of all vehicles used in association with the operation of the assembly depot.

January 2003 Appendix C Incorporated Doc.doc Page 4 of 4 Page 99

D. TABLED DOCUMENTS WITH LAND AREAS, REVISED STOCK NUMBERS, WASTE LOADS AND TRAFFIC DATA

During the course of the Panel Hearing a number of hand written notes and a typed table were produced and tabled by the proponent relating to a more accurate calculation of land areas used for livestock assembly, revised stock numbers based on maximum numbers and numbers averaged over a year, traffic movements and a typed table on waste loads.

These tabled documents are included directly in this Appendix because they represent the revisions proposed by the proponent during the hearing and considered by the Panel in the preparation of this report.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 100

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 101

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 102

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 103

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 104

E. PANEL RECOMMENDED INCORPORATED DOCUMENT

This Appendix contains the Panel’s recommended version of the “Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots Incorporated Document Glenelg Planning Scheme, September 2004”, developed from the Panel’s consideration of Amendment C12 and referred to within the report.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 105

Cape Nelson Livestock Assembly Depots

Incorporated Document Glenelg Planning Scheme September 2004

This document is an incorporated document in the Glenelg Planning Scheme pursuant to Section 6(2)(j) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 106

INTRODUCTION This document is an incorporated document pursuant to clause 52.03 of the Glenelg Planning Scheme. The land identified in the document may be developed and used in accordance with the specific controls contained in this document. The specific controls may exclude other controls in the Scheme. If there is any inconsistency between the specific controls and the general provisions of the Scheme, the specific controls will prevail. ADDRESS OF THE LAND It includes Crown Allotment 1, section 5, Parish of Trewalla (D J Peddie Land) and Crown Allotment 1A of section 5, Parish of Trewalla (Bramcote Pty Ltd Land) and Crown Allotments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of section 4, Parish of Trewalla (Overoceans Pty Ltd Land) [Subject Land]. The Subject Land is shown on the plan attached and marked “A”. THIS DOCUMENT ALLOWS Use and development of the Subject Land as a livestock assembly depot for cattle, sheep and goats. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS DOCUMENT: LAYOUT 1. Plans must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within two months of the approval of this document which show: (a) the dimensions of the Subject Land; (b) the layout of the Subject Land; (c) the location of access ways to and from the Subject Land; (d) a 20m wide (minimum) or larger plantation area in accordance with the outcomes of the Native Vegetation Plan to encourage natural regeneration along the boundary of the Subject Land to Cape Nelson [Lighthouse] Road, but excluding areas where there are existing gateways, accessways and parking areas; (f) in respect of the D J Peddie Land a 100 metres wide (minimum) buffer area along the northern boundary of the land where it abuts the residence of L Taffs (being Parish of Trewalla section 2 pt 2, Cape Nelson [Lighthouse] Road), including a 20m wide (minimum) or larger plantation area in accordance with the outcomes of the Native Vegetation Plan to encourage natural regeneration; (g) in respect of the Overoceans Pty Ltd Land, a 20m wide (minimum) or larger plantation area in accordance with the outcomes of the Native Vegetation Plan to encourage natural regeneration along the southern boundary, not including the boundary with the DJ Peddie Land; (h) the location and delineation of all Pre Export Quarantine paddocks (PEQ’s) on the Subject Land; (i) the location of hospital paddocks; (j) a Native Vegetation Plan (See Conditions 21 – 25); and (k) a Landscape Plan (See Condition 26). 2. Planting of the plantation areas, must be in accord with the approved Native Vegetation Plan and Landscape Plan and scheduling of works (See Conditions 21 –26).

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 107

GENERAL OPERATIONS 3. At all times, one paddock shall be set aside as a hospital paddock, separate from the assembly depot paddocks, on the D J Peddie Land, Bramcote Pty Ltd Land, and Overoceans Pty Ltd Land. 4. The operator of an assembly depot must comply with the Australian Livestock Export Standards March 2001 (as amended in November 2002), the Accreditation Rules for the Livestock Export Accreditation Program (LEAP) as relevant to the operations and as amended from time to time and any other standards or codes of practise introduced for the management of pre-export assembly depots. 5. Adequate water shall be supplied to each paddock to provide drinking water for the livestock. 6. The livestock may only be unloaded or loaded onto or from the Subject Land between the hours of 6.00am and 10.00pm. DISPOSAL OF DEAD OR INJURED ANIMALS 7. Dead and injured animals shall be disposed of in accordance with a Dead or Injured Animals Management Plan approved to the satisfaction of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and the Responsible Authority. 8. The Dead or Injured Animals Management Plan referred to in Condition 7 above, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority within three months of the approval of this document and shall at a minimum provide: (a) a reporting system for recording the number of injured or deceased animals that are disposed of on site or removed from the site. (b) where dead animals are to be disposed of within an on site pit: (i) a management system for containing odour and dust within the site boundaries. (ii) a management system for ensuring that surface water and ground water is not contaminated by the operation of the pit. STOCK NUMBERS AND DENSITY 9. In respect of the DJ Peddie Land and the Bramcote Pty Ltd Land and Overoceans Pty Ltd Land (combined), the total number of sheep and goats to be assembled shall not exceed 120,000 at any one time and shall not exceed 1.2 million sheep and goats in total per year, save that the maximum number of sheep to be assembled can be increased by 5 for every head of cattle not kept on the land. 10. For the D J Peddie Land, Bramcote Pty Ltd Land and Overoceans Pty Ltd Land and (combined), the total number of cattle to be assembled shall not exceed 24,000 at any one time and shall not exceed 120,000 cattle in total per year. 11. The stock numbers in conditions 9 and 10 cannot be exceeded except with the approval of the Responsible Authority and the Minister for Planning. In considering whether to grant such approval, the Responsible Authority and the Minister must consider the capability of the land to hold the additional stock, and in particular the land management practises to prevent or manage any possible impact on soil or groundwater conditions caused by additional nutrient or manure loads. CONTAINMENT 12. Animals shall not be contained on the Subject Land for longer than: (i) in the cast of cattle 30 days; or (ii) in the case of sheep or goats 10 days; or (iii) with the consent of the Responsible Authority the maximum period required to ensure compliance with the import trade requirements of the country to which the relevant animals are to be exported. Such consent may require the

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 108

loss of a 30 day containment period to offset the increased period of containment. LAND MANAGEMENT 13. Unless otherwise consented to in writing by the Responsible Authority and the Department of Sustainability and Environment, all existing native vegetation to be retained on site and fenced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 14. Within three months of the approval date, the operator must commence implementation of a weed control program in accordance with a Weed Control Management Plan to be audited to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 15. Monitoring of the soil, surface water, groundwater, noise, odour and air quality (dust) conditions shall be undertaken by independent experts and results audited by an Environment Protection Authority accredited auditor. The monitoring must establish relevant background and baseline data, and include. (i) Soil monitoring for loss of nutrients and sediment due to overland flows: Nutrients including phosphate, total phosphorous, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia and total nitrogen, Cation Exchange Capacity, trace metals (ii) Groundwater and surface water monitoring: pH, oxidation reduction potential, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, TDS, TSS, nutrients and trace metals (iii) Noise, odour and air quality measures to be developed in consultation with the Environment Protection Authority Soil monitoring shall be done for each Pre Export Quarantine area. The standard frequency of monitoring soil condition be on a monthly basis in line with the 30 day containment period for cattle, with provision for ‘event’ monitoring of trigger levels where complaints are received. The exact location of soil groundwater monitoring sites is to mapped and included in the Environmental Management Plan and endorsed by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Environment Protection Authority. The Cape Nelson Landcare Coastcare (CNLC) Group shall be invited to participate in the monitoring program. LAND ACCESS AND STOCK TRANSPORT 16. Stock transport to and from the Subject Land, shall gain access to and from Cape Nelson via the West Boundary Road, unless authorised by the Responsible Authority. 17. The unloading and loading of vehicles in association with the use of an assembly depot shall be carried out within the boundaries of the site and behind the buffer areas where possible. 18. The operator of an assembly depot shall at all times exercise care when driving sheep or cattle across Cape Nelson Road. 19. Adequate provision shall be made on site for the parking of all vehicles used in association with the operation of the assembly depot. 20. Provision shall be made for imposing penalties through transport agreements with contractors if queuing or transport operations occur outside the restricted operating hours for livestock transportation. NATIVE VEGETATION 21. The Native Vegetation Plan will be supported by a site plan clearly showing existing remnant vegetation, buffers and shelterbelts and proposed vegetation works. 22. The Plan will be developed in accordance with the Draft Glenelg Hopkins Native Vegetation Plan and review of best management practices with the Department of Sustainability and Environment and Department of Primary Industries in relation to

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 109

species selection and management prescriptions, including optimal buffer widths for encouraging natural regeneration. 23. Priorities for weed management will be done in conjunction with Parks Victoria as the manager of the adjoining public land of Cape Nelson State Park and Discovery Bay Coastal Park. 24. A consultative process will be established with the Cape Nelson Landcare Coastcare Group for input into the development and implementation of the Native Vegetation Plan. 25. The Vegetation Management Plan shall be approved by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Responsible Authority. LANDSCAPE 26. In conjunction with the native vegetation plan, a landscape plan is to be prepared that will address the future function of the buffers and shelterbelts to improve the visual amenity by screening and reducing the visual impact of buildings, the livestock assembly paddocks and infrastructure such as access roads. The landscape plan will be approved by the Responsible Authority in conjunction with the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Cape Nelson Landcare Coastcare Group. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 27. An Environmental Management Plan must be prepared by the operator and must clearly establish objectives and benchmarks for; (a) noise management; (b) dust management; (c) waste management; (d) odour management; (e) soil management; (f) require soil, surface and groundwater monitoring in accordance with condition 15; (g) detail the process required for inspection of the site and monitoring of environmental conditions; (h) include trigger levels for soil, surface water, groundwater, noise, odour and air quality to be determined in conjunction with the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Department of Primary Industries and an Environment Protection Authority accredited auditor, and by reference to background and baseline data; (i) detail a variety of management responses in the event that trigger levels are reached. Such management measures may include: (i) increase waste collection with removal or composting for reuse on the land; (ii) planting of forage crops or other suitable crops to utilise available nutrients; (iii) creation of wetlands to utilise available nutrients; (iv) increase monitoring; (v) resting land; and (vi) decrease in stock levels. (j) detail implementation programs for vegetation and landscaping works approved under both the Native Vegetation Plan and Landscape Plan. 28. The finalisation of the EMP is subject to approval of the Responsibility Authority, the Department of Sustainability and Environment, and the Environment Protection Authority.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 110

29. The operation and implementation of the EMP shall be audited by an independent Environment Protection Authority accredited auditor on an annual basis.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 111

F. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

The purpose of the Strategic Assessment Guidelines is to provide a consistent framework for the evaluation of a proposed planning scheme amendment and the outcomes it produces.

This Practice Note outlines the key strategic considerations that must be evaluated by planning authorities to comply with the requirements of Minister’s Direction No. 11.

The Strategic Assessment Guidelines should be used in all stages of the amendment process, from the time a planning authority is considering a possible amendment to the planning scheme through to the decision to approve the amendment.

The Strategic Assessment Guidelines should be used by: ƒ proponents (including councils) when formulating a proposal ƒ the planning authority when preparing an amendment (in accordance with Minister’s Direction No. 11) considering a request to prepare an amendment ƒ any planning panel and advisory committee when considering an amendment ƒ the planning authority when considering the final construction and adoption of an amendment ƒ the Department when considering an amendment submitted to the Minister for approval.

The detail to which the Strategic Assessment Guidelines are addressed will depend upon the amendment’s impact on the planning scheme and the level of strategic justification required to support the amendment.

PRINCIPLES APPLYING TO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS

Key objectives for Victoria’s planning scheme are to: ƒ make planning more strategic and policy based ƒ make the reasons for planning policies and requirements and planning decisions more transparent ƒ ensure planning schemes are clear and useable.

These objectives equally apply to planning schemes amendments.

Make planning more strategic and policy based

The strategic foundation of each scheme is made up of two components – the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF).

If the strategic focus of new schemes is to be maintained, it is essential that subsequent amendments do not undermine or ignore the planning policy framework in the scheme.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 112

For this reason, an amendment should seek to implement the SPPF and the LPPF of the planning scheme. Any specific proposal should support the policy framework.

Make the reasons for planning policies and requirements and planning decisions more transparent

The strategic directions that have been developed for the State or a municipality should guide the application of appropriate planning tools from the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP). Section 12A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires controls on the use and development of land in a planning scheme to relate to the objectives and strategies set out in the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) for the municipality. It is therefore important when preparing an amendment to a planning scheme to ensure that there are clear linkages between the MSS and the application of zones, overlays, schedules and policies, and that links to the council’s Corporate Plan are apparent.

Ensure planning schemes are clear and useable

The VPP provide clarity and consistency for users of planning schemes through the use of standard planning provisions, which ensure that consistent provisions for various matters are maintained across Victoria.

To ensure planning schemes are clear and useable, a series of Planning Practice Notes has been prepared on the use of the VPP. Planning Practice Notes provide best practice guidance about the use and application of many VPP tools, explanation and guidance about statutory processes and recommended structure and wording of statutory documents.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED

The broad issues to be considered in preparing and assessing an amendment or proposal are: ƒ Why is an amendment required? ƒ How does the amendment implement the objectives of planning in Victoria? ƒ How does the amendment address any environmental effects? ƒ How does the amendment address any relevant social and economic effects? ƒ Does the amendment comply with the requirements of any other Minister’s Direction applicable to the amendment? ƒ Does the amendment support or implement the SPPF? ƒ Does the amendment support or implement the LPPF? If not, how is the LPPF proposed to change? ƒ Does the amendment make proper use of the VPP? ƒ What impact will the new Planning provisions have on the resource and administrative costs of the responsible authority?

Planning Panels and Advisory Committees will report on these matters when considering an amendment or proposal. The Department will also address these matters when considering any amendment submitted to the Minister for approval.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 113

In the context of evaluating these matters, the following issues should be addressed. The questions under each strategic consideration are prompts to assist proponents and councils in their response to each strategic consideration. A response to each question is not necessarily warranted, but some level of consideration of the matter is required. If any strategic consideration is not relevant, this should be stated giving the reason why.

1. Why is an amendment required?

Before starting to prepare an amendment, consider whether an amendment is necessary. ƒ Is an amendment necessary? Are there other ways of achieving the desired outcome? (For example, can the matter be dealt with by other available council mechanisms such as a local law or as a planning permit application?) If so, why is an amendment to the scheme the preferred approach? ƒ Does the amendment repeat provisions already in the scheme? If so, what additional value will the amendment to the scheme provide?

If the amendment is necessary, explain: ƒ Why is the amendment required? ƒ What does the amendment intend to do and what is the desired outcome? ƒ How does it intend to do it? ƒ Is it supported by or a result of any strategic study or report?

2. Does the amendment comply with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act?

Every amendment must meet the requirements of the Act including any Ministerial Directions under Section 7 and Section 12 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. ƒ Does the amendment implement the objectives of planning in Victoria? ƒ Does the amendment adequately address environmental effects? ƒ Does the amendment adequately address the relevant social and economic effects? The normal way of assessing the social and economic effects is to consider whether or not the amendment results in a net community. ƒ Does the amendment comply with the requirements of the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes? ƒ Do any other Minister’s Directions apply to the amendment? If so, have they been complied with? ƒ Is the amendment accompanied by all of the information required by a Direction?

3. Does the amendment support or implement the State Planning Policy Framework?

To ensure planning schemes further the objectives of planning in Victoria, planning authorities must take into account and give effect to the general principles and specific policies contained in the SPPF. ƒ What aspects, if any, of the SPPF are relevant? ƒ Does the amendment or proposal support or give effect to the SPPF?

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 114

ƒ Does the amendment or proposal support or give effect to the relevant adopted State policy?

4. How does the amendment support or implement the Local Planning Policy Framework, and specifically the MSS?

The LPPF sets a local and regional strategic policy context for a municipality. It comprises the MSS and specific local planning policies.

If an amendment or proposal is at odds with the existing policy framework of the planning scheme, then the policy framework itself may require re-assessment. If this leads to the conclusion that the LPPF itself needs amendment, then the implications of the change for the rest of the planning scheme will need to be considered.

It is not necessary to include references to specific proposals in the LPPF. The LPPF does not need to identify every project, but rather sets the policies and strategic objectives against which individual projects will be addressed.

Municipal Strategic Statement

The MSS contains the strategic planning objectives of the council and the strategies employed to achieve them. As such, there should be a clear link between the objectives and outcomes sought by the MSS and the requirements applied in the scheme. When preparing an amendment to the planning scheme, the planning authority must take the MSS into account. ƒ How does the amendment or proposal seek to implement, support or change the MSS? ƒ What effect will any change to the MSS have on the rest of the MSS: - Is the amendment consistent/inconsistent with strategic directions elsewhere in the MSS? - What is the cumulative effect of this amendment and other amendments/proposals on the strategic directions in the MSS?

ƒ Does the change to the MSS address the format, content and language guidance in the VPP Practice Note Format of Municipal Strategic Statements?

Local Planning Policy

A Local Planning Policy is one of the tools available for implementing objectives and strategies in the MSS. A local planning policy is a tool for day-to-day decision making in relation to a specific discretion in the planning scheme. It helps the responsible authority and other users of the scheme to understand how a particular discretion is likely to be exercised. When preparing amendments to the scheme, a planning authority must take the content of relevant local planning policies into account.

ƒ What local planning policies affect the amendment or proposal?

ƒ If the amendment introduces or changes a local planning policy, is this necessary? Or is the issue adequately covered by another planning tool or decision guideline?

ƒ If the amendment introduces or changes a local planning policy, has the VPP Practice Note Writing a Local Planning Policy been followed? In particular does the local planning policy:

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 115

- respond to a demonstrated need?

- implement an objective or strategy in the MSS?

- relate to a specific discretion or group of discretions in the scheme?

- assist the responsible authority to make a decision?

- assist any other person to understand whether a proposal is likely to be supported or not?

- add to the other planning tools in the scheme, especially the relevant zone or overlay?

- address the format, content and language guidance this Practice Note?

5. Does the amendment make proper use of the Victoria Planning Provisions?

Zones and overlays are used to implement the State and local strategic directions identified in the SPPF and LPPF and the application of requirements such as zones, overlays and local provisions must have a readily discernible basis in the SPPF or LPPF.

In deciding the most appropriate VPP tool to best implement the strategic outcomes of an amendment, consideration should be given to the series of Planning Practice Notes that have been prepared on the use of the VPP. Practice Notes should be used where relevant to ensure consistency and best practice methodology in every amendment.

ƒ Does the amendment use the most appropriate VPP tool to achieve the strategic objective of the scheme? (For example, is the right zone or overlay used?)

ƒ To what extent do local provisions adopt a performance-based approach?

ƒ What Planning Practice Notes are relevant and is the amendment in accordance with any relevant Planning Practice Notes?

6. How does the amendment address the views of relevant agencies?

The creation of a new referral authority must be justified and consideration should be given to the need for new formal or informal referrals of planning applications.

ƒ How have the views of any relevant agency been addressed?

ƒ Does the amendment contain new formal or informal referral requirements?

ƒ If so, does the referral authority support these requirements?

ƒ What is the purpose of the referral?

ƒ Are the referral arrangements performance based?

ƒ Can this purpose be served by other means, for example mandatory notice under Section 52(1)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or a mandatory condition on every permit under Section 62(1)(a)?

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004 Page 116

7. What impact will the new planning provisions have on the resource and administrative costs of the responsible authority?

The introduction of new or amended planning scheme requirements can often have significant resource implications for a council. The quantification of the resource implications of an amendment upon councils is a relevant operational consideration.

Councils are required to inform themselves of the likely resource cost of implementing and administering a proposed change to their planning schemes.

ƒ What are the cost implications for a responsible authority in implementing and administering the new planning provisions including:

- Estimate increase in number of planning permit applications.

- Planning staff resources

- Other miscellaneous costs including legal or other professional advice eg heritage advises.

Councils should also take the opportunity to minimise permit requirements within their planning schemes where the requirements do not deliver an overall planning benefit or where the matter is relatively straight forward and does not involve discretion in decision making.

An up-to-date list of Planning Practice Notes and Ministerial Directions can be found at www.dse.vic.gov.au/planning

This is a text version of the current approved Practice Note, correct as of the date of issue of this report.

GLENELG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C12 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2004