VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1279/2022
Permit Application no. PLA0075/21 	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic); Review of refusal to grant a permit; Baw Baw Planning Scheme; Farming Zone; airfield; agriculture; rural amenity; noise; safety and land use compatibility	

Applicant	Terrence Albert Williamson	

Responsible Authority	Baw Baw Shire Council	
RespondentS	David Willis	
	Jane Moss	
	Janice Diston	
	Jenifer Clough	
	Yasmin O’Donnell	
	Joan and Ashley Allan	

SUBJECT LAND	85 Yuulong Road
DROUIN SOUTH VIC 3818	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARINGs	12, 13 and 14 September 2023 and 17 November 2023	

date of interim order	20 September 2023	
DATE OF ORDER	16 January 2024	

CITATION	Williamson v Baw Baw SC [2024] VCAT 46	

Order
Amended application
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended to include development approval for the toilet (Building 7), office (Building 4) and Hangar 6 (Building 6) shown on Site Plan 1 and 2 prepared by Noz Tech Drafting and both dated 15/9/21.
Permit granted
2	In application P1279/2022 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application PLA0075/21 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 85 Yuulong Road Drouin South VIC 3818 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Use of the land for an ‘Airfield’ under clause 35.07-1 of the Farming Zone.
•	Construct or carry out works for use of an airfield under clause 35.07-4.
•	Construct a building and construct or carry out works for a hangar (Hangar 6), toilet and office under Clause 35.07-4.

Christopher Harty
Presiding Member		Nick Wimbush
Member	

Appearances
For Terence Albert Williamson	Mr Ragu Appudurai of Counsel instructed by Russell Kennedy Lawyers.  He called the following witnesses:
•	Dr David Hooke, Pilot and lay witness
•	Mr Svetimir Ristic, Acoustic Engineer from Audiometric and Acoustic Services	
For Baw Baw Shire Council	Ms Jane Sharp of Counsel instructed by Marcus Lane Group Lawyers.  She called the following witnesses: 
•	Mr David Lindsey, Acoustic Engineer from SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd
•	Mr Marco Negri, Town Planner from Contour Consultants Aust. Pty Ltd	
For Joan and Ashley Allan	Mr David Song, Town Planner from SongBowden Planning Pty Ltd.	
For Jane Moss	In person 	
For Yasmin O’Donnell	In person	
For Jenifer Clough	No appearance	
For David Willis	No appearance	
For Janice Diston	No appearance	

Information
Description of proposal	Use and development of an airfield and construction of an office, toilet, and hangar.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)– to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Baw Baw Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Farming Zone (‘FZ’)
Bushfire Management Overlay (‘BMO’) in part
Development Contribution Plan Overlay Schedule 1 – ‘Baw Baw Shire Development Contributions Plan’ (‘DCPO1’)	
Permit requirements	Clause 35.07-1 to use land for an airfield.
Clause 35.07-4 to construct a building or carry out works for a section 2 permit required use.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 02.01, 02.02, 02.03, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 35.07, 52.06, 65 and 71.02   	
Land description	The subject land is irregular in shape with a total area approximately 64.7 hectares.  It accommodates a grass landing strip approximately 1,300 metres long varying between 53 and 55 metres wide that runs in an east-west direction.  There are three temporary structures and three enclosed buildings used for storing aircraft.  The airstrip and associated aircraft buildings are fenced off from the balance of the land.  The subject land is also used for agricultural purposes associated with cattle and horse grazing.  An 8 hectare area of vegetation is in the north-west corner.  Access is provided via Yuulong Road which is a gated unsealed public road adjacent to the northern boundary of the subject land.
The surrounding area is used for agriculture with scattered rural dwellings that are both attached to working farms and some rural lifestyle allotments.  Drouin is located 8.2 kilometres to the north and Warragul approximately 10 kilometres to the north-east.	
Tribunal inspection	Accompanied inspection on 16 November 2023 of the subject land, airfield, and surrounding land including around the property of Mr & Mrs Allan, and on the properties of Ms Moss and Ms O’Donnell.   	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Terence Albert Williamson ('applicant') lodged a permit application with Baw Baw Shire Council ('Council') for the use and development of an airfield (refer to Figures 1 to 3) at 85 Yuulong Road, Drouin South ('site').

Figure 1: Site plan.

Figure 2: Site plan details showing existing and originally proposed buildings.

Figure 3: Aerial view of the airfield looking west.
2	Council determined to refuse the grant of a permit.  The applicant has lodged an application with the Tribunal to review Council's decision.  
3	Joan and Ashley Allan, Jane Moss, Yasmin O'Donnell, Jenifer Clough, David Willis and Janice Diston ('respondents') were objectors to the granting of any permit and have lodged statements of grounds against the proposal.
4	Council’s grounds of refusal are that:
•	The proposal does not respond appropriately to the Planning Policy Framework or the Municipal Planning Strategy.
•	The proposal fails to protect the State’s agricultural base by preserving productive farmland as required by Clause 14.01-1S (Protection of agricultural land).
•	The proposal fails to address the management of noise effects on sensitive land uses as required by Clause 13.05-1S (Noise Management).
•	The proposal fails to adequately protect community amenity in accordance with Clause 13.07-1S (Land use compatibility).
•	The proposal fails to address the purpose and decision guidelines within the Farming Zone under Clause 35.07.
5	The respondents generally agree with Council including impacts on agricultural activity both from unplanned loss of agricultural land, impacts on neighbouring agricultural activity and detrimental impacts on amenity due to noise from aircraft.
6	The applicant’s grounds of review were amended by our order dated 20 September 2023 and are:
•	The proposal appropriately responds to the Planning Policy Framework and the Municipal Planning Strategy.
•	The proposal has no material detrimental impact on productive farmland relevant to clause 14.01-1S.
•	The proposal is consistent with the management of noise effects on sensitive land uses in terms of clause 13.05-1S.
•	The proposal has no material detrimental impact on amenity, human health and safety relevant to clause 13.07-1S.
•	The proposal is consistent with the purpose and decision guidelines of clause 35.07.
•	Since 1982, the subject land has been used for the purpose of a private airstrip (“airfield”), primarily for recreational purposes including for the taking-off, landing, taxiing of light private aircraft (not more than 5700kg MTOW) and, from time to time, for non-recreational aviation activities such as charter operations and use by emergency service agencies.  Since September 2002, the subject land has also been used for the storage of light private aircraft.
•	The existing buildings/structures for which planning permission is sought (portable office/shelter building, toilet building and hangar/farm shed) will have no material detrimental impact in relation to relevant planning considerations.  
7	The applicant considers the airfield is a valuable community asset in providing a useful facility for recreational flying, for flight training and for use by emergency services, if required.  The applicant considers the extent of land lost to agricultural production is minimal with land around the airfield and airstrip still able to be used for grazing.  Aircraft flight paths can be managed to avoid extensive time flying over sensitive agricultural or residential areas.
8	The applicant considers the airfield a small operation which is consistent with the provisions and policies of the Baw Baw Planning Scheme (‘planning scheme’) and represents an acceptable outcome with no unreasonable impacts on agriculture or amenity of the surrounding area.  
What is proposed?
9	The proposal is for the retrospective use and development of an airfield.
10	The airfield comprises an airstrip and several buildings used in association with the airfield and for storage of up to 15 aircraft.
11	The airfield is a grassed airstrip approximately 1,300 metres long and 53-55 metres wide that runs in an east-west direction.  Its perimeter is marked with white markers as can be seen in Figure 3 with a windsock near the eastern end.
12	There are five existing buildings depicted on the plans submitted with the permit application (refer to Figures 1 and 2) used as aircraft hangars, together with an existing maintenance/storage shed, an existing office and toilet building.  We understand that Hangar 6 and the office and toilet buildings require retrospective approval.  The plans also show an additional Hangar 3 and a future farm shed as included in the permissions sought under the permit application.
13	The airfield is fenced off from the balance of the site and we were advised by the applicant that this comprises approximately 9 hectares out of an area of 64.7 hectares.  
14	The airfield is to be used predominantly for recreational flying purposes but also may be used for flight training primarily associated with touch and go landings and take offs and by emergency services if required.
15	The airfield will only be used in daylight hours due to the airfield not meeting the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (‘CASA’) regulations requiring lighting for night operations and only when the runway is not too wet, which the applicant says it often is during winter months.
16	Use of the airfield may be sporadic and can occur any day of the week.  The applicant says, that based on the number of aircraft stored on-site and in operation all together at once, a maximum number of people using the site is estimated at around 50.  The applicant considers this scenario highly unlikely and is more akin to around 5 people using the airfield at any one time.
17	The applicant estimates that over a single busy month there would be no more than approximately 60 aircraft movements, noting that one aircraft taking off and landing is counted as separate movements.  There could be up to 8 movements on a typically busy day and up to 18 movements during a busy week with a total number of aircraft movements over a year at around 500.
18	Regarding development, the permit application initially sought approval for:
•	Aircraft Hangar 3 to be located between Existing Hangars 2 and 4 with dimensions 12.7 metres by 16.1 metres with a total area of 20.25 square metres and maximum height of 4.8 metres setback 10 metres from the northern boundary.
•	A farm shed located 32 metres west of Hangar 4 20 metres by 30 metres with a total area of 600 square metres setback 20 metres from the northern boundary.
•	Retrospective approval for an office on the eastern side of the vehicle accessway setback 32 metres from the northern boundary.  It has dimensions of 5.4 metres by 7.2 metres with a total area of 38 square metres and height of 4.2 metres and clad in steel with red and cream colours.
•	A toilet near the north-eastern corner of Hangar 1, 2.8 metres by 3 metres with a total area of 8.4 metres and height of 2.7 metres.
•	Provision of 10 car parking spaces on the western side of the existing vehicle accessway and associated landscaping.         
19	During the hearing, we amended the application to reflect that approval for Hangar 3 and the farm shed were no longer being sought and that approval was now sought retrospectively for the office, toilet, and Hangar 6 buildings only.  Hangar 6 is an existing building located in the far south-eastern corner of the site. 
20	We were also advised by the applicant that no permanent fuel storage is proposed apart from a 1,000-litre tank on a portable trailer which is required as mandatory fuel reserves prescribed under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. 
The surrounding context
21	The site is in a rural context in Drouin South that is a productive agricultural area.  Properties neighbouring the site are used for agricultural production, mainly associated with dairy farming, and including dwellings (refer to Figure 4).  
22	Immediate properties include:
•	To the east, 1020 Main Road South which has an area of approximately 20 hectares and is used for agricultural production.  It contains a dwelling and outbuildings addressing Main South Road.
•	To the north are:
o	994 Main Road South which is to the north-east and approximately 60 hectares and used for agriculture with a dwelling that faces Main South Road.
o	12 Yuulong Road which is to the north of that part of the site that accommodates most of the buildings.  It has an area of approximately 42 hectares, is used for agricultural production and does not contain a dwelling.
o	80 McClure Road which is an irregular parcel to the north and west of the site with an area of approximately 94 hectares, used for agricultural production and contains a dwelling that addresses McClure Road.
•	To the south of the site are:
o	1050 Main Road South which is an irregular shaped parcel of approximately 52 hectares, used for rural purposes and contains a dwelling and outbuildings that addresses Main Road South.
o	60 Brewer Road which is an irregular shaped parcel with an area of approximately 186 hectares, used for agricultural production and containing a dwelling and numerous buildings and dams.

Figure 4:  Nearby farm dwellings surrounding the airfield (marked with red arrow)
23	The airfield is close to some larger farming operations including a large dairy farming operation to the north, west and south which comprises a series of paddocks culminating in a farming operation over 650 hectares that milks around 1,200 head of cattle.  These large-scale forms of agricultural production highlight sensitive issues around effects on livestock and worker safety associated with livestock management from aircraft activity associated with the airfield.  
History, background and retrospectivity
24	The site was developed with an airstrip in 1982 generally in the current location.  As it exists, this proceeding is about a retrospective approval for the airfield.  
25	The site and the airstrip have some history which has been documented in Appendix A of Williamson v Baw Baw SC [2023] VCAT 627 which is dated 6 June 2023.  We do not propose to go into the historical detail other than to acknowledge that the earlier Tribunal matter was a declaration proceeding pursuant to s.149A(1)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) (‘PE Act’) brought by the applicant concerning whether the site enjoys an existing use right for a private airstrip/private airfield, which includes the storage of light aircraft, the recreational use of light aircraft, aerial work, use by charter operators and use by emergency service agencies.
26	Member Perlstein determined to refuse to make the declaration sought on the grounds that within the relevant 15-year period the Council had given written direction for the use to cease by reason of its non-compliance with the planning scheme.
27	Of relevance to this matter, Member Perlstein states at paragraphs 14 and 15 that:
14	A separate application for review of a decision of the council to refuse to grant a planning permit for use and development of the Land as an airfield is listed for hearing at the Tribunal later this year. The council and interested persons requested that, even if the Tribunal did not make a declaration, some comment be made on the use of the Land over time. Given my findings that existing use rights cannot be established pursuant to clause 63.11 of the Scheme, any comments made with respect to what may otherwise have comprised an existing use of the Land would not be helpful.
15	As there has been no declaration made, the Tribunal hearing the application for review will be required to assess that application on its merits, without regard to existing use rights pertaining to the Land.
28	We know the airstrip was constructed by the Gippsland Field Days Committee in partnership with Buln Buln Shire Council (as it was then known) for the primary purpose of a landing strip associated with annual Farm World events at Lardner Park (a regional function and event centre) which is approximately 2.5 kilometres to the north-east of the site.  The airstrip was used for that purpose from the early 1980s to the late 1990s and that since the early 2000s, it has been used for private aircraft.
29	During the 2010-2020 period, there have been various formal and informal attempts to categorise the existing use.  There have also been various proposals to potentially expand the use including a proposal to amend the planning scheme to rezone the site to formally recognise the airfield.
30	In more recent times, the use of the airfield for recreational flying has increased and been the cause of concerns to surrounding neighbours relating to amenity and farming impacts. 
31	We note that Council accepts the presence of the airfield.  However, we also acknowledge that the scope of our considerations in this matter relate to the merits of an airfield that now seeks retrospective approval for its use (the airfield is and has been used for recreational flying) and development (some buildings have been constructed without approval).
32	We note that with regards to retrospective approvals, the Tribunal, and the Supreme Court, have taken the view that an applicant should neither be punished or rewarded for undertaking work before a permit was obtained, and that it is to be judged on the planning merits.
33	A relevant factor is also that we can view the airfield and its operation firsthand to inform ourselves of its effects which we have done through an accompanied inspection.  
34	We also agree with the approach taken by the Tribunal in Malone v Bass Coast SC [2008] VCAT 1442 that the permit application is prospective.  We are not considering past use of the airfield but, rather, our focus is how the site may be used as an airfield in the future and under the control of a planning permit if one is to issue.  In respect to use and development in the future and any impacts, what will be relevant is the nature of the use and how this might impact on the surrounding land use and to the extent relevant, the amenity of residents, with attention to the impact of noise from aircraft activity. 
What are the key issues?
35	The issues raised within the context of this review relate to the airfield’s response to policy, impact on agricultural land use and land use compatibility with surrounding agricultural activity and amenity impacts on dwellings in the area.
36	Having heard the submissions and evidence and inspected the site and surrounds, the key issues arising from this proposal are:
•	Whether the airfield appropriately responds to policy?
•	Whether the airfield adversely impacts agricultural land?
•	Whether the airfield has unreasonable impacts on land use compatibility with surrounding agricultural activity?
•	Whether impacts on amenity are unreasonable?
37	We must decide whether the proposal will produce an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the planning scheme.  
38	Net community benefit and sustainable development is central in reaching a conclusion.  Clause 71.02-3 - 'Integrated Decision Making' of the planning scheme requires the decision-maker to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.  Also, for bushfire affected areas, such as the site being partly within the Bushfire Management Overlay (‘BMO’), planning and responsible authorities must prioritise the protection of human life over all other policy considerations.  
39	With this proposed development we must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  
40	Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regards to the applicable policies and provisions of the planning scheme, assisted by our inspection, we find the proposal achieves an acceptable outcome. 
41	We find the proposal achieves a net community benefit regarding supporting continued agricultural use of the land and will not significantly undermine the continued agricultural activity on adjoining land.  We also find the proposal will not have unreasonable adverse impacts on amenity due to noise from aircraft. 
42	We have decided to set aside the decision of Council and direct that a permit be granted subject to conditions.  Our reasons follow.
Whether the airfield appropriately responds to policy?
43	Protection of agricultural land and agricultural productivity is a key direction in policy in Clause 02.03-4 – ‘Natural Resource Management’ in the Municipal Planning Strategy (‘MPS’).  There is no specific policy support for an airfield in this location in the MPS, although Clause 02.03-5 – ‘Economic development’ and Clause 02.03-6 – ‘Transport and infrastructure’ provide general support for tourism and transport initiatives. 
44	Clause 13 – ‘Environmental risks and amenity’ of the Planning Policy Framework (‘PPF’) seeks to strengthen the resilience and safety of the community through best practice environmental management and risk management approaches.  Specifically relevant to the application are Clauses 13.05-1S – ‘Noise management’ and Clause 13.07-1S – ‘Land use compatibility’.  These clauses seek to ensure that sensitive uses are not adversely affected by noise and other amenity impacts through land use planning (separation) and siting, building design and operational measures.
45	Cause 14.01-1S – ‘Agriculture’ of the PPF has strategies to protect productive farmland and other policy within Clause 14 of the PPF encourages sustainable agriculture development.
46	There are a range of policies in Clause 17 – ‘Economic development’ that seek to encourage development in Baw Baw based on its natural values, urban and town centre development, and agricultural production.  No specific policy exists to support the application from an economic development perspective.
47	Clause 18.02-7S specifically address ‘Airports and airfields’ with the objective ‘To strengthen the role of Victoria’s airports and airfields within the state’s economic and transport infrastructure, guide their siting and expansion, and safeguard their ongoing, safe and efficient operation’.  As a retrospective application, this is effectively a new airfield proposal so the principle of ‘reverse amenity’ comes into play, that is, will the airfield have an adverse effect on existing sensitive uses.  Relevant strategies include:
Protect airports and airfields from incompatible land use and development.
Prevent land use or development that poses risks to the safety or efficiency of an airport or airfield, including any of the following risks:
•	Building-generated windshear and turbulence.
…
•	Increased risk to public safety at the end of runways.
Minimise the detrimental effects of aircraft noise when planning for areas around airports and airfields.
…
Ensure land use and development at airports and airfields contributes to the aviation needs of the state and the efficient and functional operation of the airport or airfield.
…
Plan for areas around airports and airfields so that land use or development does not prejudice future airport or airfield operations or expansions in accordance with an approved strategy or master plan for that airport or airfield.
…
Avoid the location of new airports and airfields in areas that have greater long-term value to the community for other purposes. [Tribunal emphasis]
Ensure that in the planning of airports and airfields, land use decisions are integrated, appropriate land use buffers are in place and provision is made for associated businesses that service airports.
Plan the location of airports and airfields, nearby existing and potential development, and the land-based transport system required to serve them, as an integrated operation. 
…
48	There is no specific State imperative or identified strategic need for the airfield, and it is proposed to have limited use by a small number of recreational operators so it will have limited broader economic or tourism benefits.  Policy in this area of Baw Baw is clearly focused on the protection of productive agricultural land and limiting out of centre urban development.  Ensuring there are not unacceptable amenity impacts is also important, and particularly in this application in relation to aircraft noise.
49	Nevertheless, airfields and airports are legitimate land uses in the right circumstances.  While the airfield does not enjoy existing use rights, it has been operating at a low level for decades, with little or no apparent impact on the surrounding high value agricultural land sought to be protected in policy, and only a relatively small area of direct production affected.  On balance, we consider the airfield use at the scale proposed in this location is an acceptable planning outcome when considering the proposal against policy and the use should be permitted.
50	A number of the policies above are explored in more detail in issue sections of these reasons that follow.
Whether the airfield adversely impacts agricultural land?
51	The area within which the site is located has been described by the parties as productive agricultural land; we consider there was common ground on this point.  Policy under Clause 02.01 describes Baw Baw Shire as having highly productive agricultural land comprising some of Australia’s most fertile and productive rural land.  This sentiment is reinforced under policy at Clause 02.03-3 which identifies the suitability for farming because of fertile soils, high rainfall, temperate climate, varied topography, and proximity to markets.
52	The site forms part of a wider agricultural area that includes land used predominantly for livestock grazing that includes dairy farming and dryland grazing of cattle and sheep and some horse husbandry.  
53	It is also described as a picturesque rural landscape with rolling hills, open green paddocks, boundary vegetation and pockets of both planted and remnant vegetation with a scattering of dwellings and other farms related buildings.  Overall, the physical context is one of a broad rural farming landscape.
54	The site is in the Farming Zone (‘FZ’) and a permit requirement is triggered under Clause 35.07-1 for the use of land for an airfield (innominate use).  A permit is also triggered under Clause 35.07-4 for buildings and works associated with an aircraft hangar, office and toilet buildings that have been erected on the site without permits.
55	Relevant to the proposal, the FZ includes the following purposes:
•	Providing for the use of land for agriculture.
•	Encouraging and retaining productive agricultural land.
•	Ensuring non-agricultural uses do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture.
56	The FZ includes decision guidelines under Clause 35.07-6 relating to general issues, agricultural issues and the impacts from non-agricultural uses, environmental issues and design and siting issues.  These broad topics include considerations relating to land use compatibility, sustainable land management, support and enhancement of agricultural production, limitations on the operation and expansion of adjoining and nearby agricultural uses, impacts on the environment and development that avoids adverse impacts and minimises the loss of productive agricultural land.
57	Protection of productive farmland is reinforced under policy at Clause 14.01-1S – ‘Protection of agricultural land’ which seeks to avoid permanent removal, including unplanned loss, of productive agricultural land including from permanent changes in land use.  The policy also identifies the need to consider land use compatibility and biosecurity issues with the spread of plant and animal pests.
58	In considering the physical and policy contexts relating to agricultural land, our view is that the key consideration of the proposal relates to the impacts the proposal has on the loss of agricultural land.  We will also address later in our reasons the other key issue of what impact the proposal has on the operation of agricultural activity in the area.  
59	Regarding the retrospective approval of buildings and works, we note that Council and the respondents have no concerns regarding the hangar, office, and toilet facility.  We find the extent of development is limited and the actual area taken up by the buildings could readily reflect similar built form found across many agricultural settings.  We agree there is no substantive detrimental effect from the development being proposed under this application. 
60	In terms of the airfield’s adverse impacts on agricultural land, the Council and the respondents say the airfield benefits only a small group of aircraft enthusiasts who use the airfield for recreational flying and the proposal utilises productive agricultural land for a non-agricultural use.
61	We note the airfield has been in existence since the early 1980s when we understand it was closely associated with the agricultural field days conducted in nearby Lardner Park.  It would have had an agricultural connection through the support the airfield provided for the agricultural field days.  However, we understand that this connection is no longer present.
62	Council relies on the planning evidence of Mr Negri who suggests that support for the airfield, in addition to amenity, should only be on the basis of there being no impact on agriculture.  The airfield should have benign impacts and be a subservient use to the surrounding area and supportive of agricultural production.
63	Council says the fact that the proposal has attracted objections from surrounding neighbours is evidence that the airfield is not a benign use.
64	Council and the respondents say the airfield results in not only the loss of agricultural land, but an unplanned loss which is at odds with the policy framework around protecting agricultural land.
65	Mr Song submitted that the airfield is a non-productive land use that results in a loss of productive agricultural land, undermines surrounding productive agricultural land and is at odds with agriculture policy.
66	The applicant says the airfield is a small and modest airfield that caters fundamentally for recreational aviation activity.  It says it may also be used for flight training with ‘touch and go’ movements and for pilots to maintain flying hours and for emergency use if required.  
67	It says the airfield is not like other airfields such as Lilydale or Tyabb, which are much larger operations.  The applicant says the airfield is proposed:
•	To store no more than 15 aircraft.
•	To use small aircraft up to around 3,000 kilograms maximum take-off weight (‘MTOW’).
•	To operate only during daylight hours.
•	To not conduct activities that require an Air Operations Certificate (e.g. training operations, commercial flying and charter flights, regular transport etc…).
•	To have no more than 500 flight movements a year, which we were advised is a low intensity of annual use.  
68	The applicant noted it is a grassed airstrip that has limited use in the wetter months as it becomes too wet to use.  We note, however, that, on suitable flying days, when the weather is fine and the airstrip can be used, activity may be intense with numerous movements.
69	We were advised that the airfield, with a length of 1,300 metres, and the small number of structures for housing aircraft, takes up around 9 to 11 hectares of land out of a larger farm of around 68 hectares.  There was varying opinion as to whether this amount of land lost to agricultural production was significant or not.
70	The applicant says the presence of the airfield does not disadvantage the ability of the applicant, as owner of surrounding land, to continue to farm.  The applicant uses the areas around the airfield to access paddocks for farming purposes and benefits from drainage infrastructure installed for the airfield in terms of production.
71	Mr Negi’s evidence was that, although the airfield does remove an area of land from agricultural production, he noted that there continues to be an opportunity for agricultural activities to the south of the airstrip.  He observed during his inspection of the site cattle grazing on this part of the site.  He concludes in his evidence that in relation to the impacts from non-agricultural uses such as an airfield:
•	The proposed use will not support and enhance agricultural production.
•	The use will not adversely affect soil quality and will not permanently remove land from agricultural production.
•	There will continue to be opportunity on part of the property for agricultural uses.
72	We find the extent of land lost to agricultural production an acceptable outcome, and that around 9 to 11 hectares of land out of a much larger farm holding is not a significant adverse agricultural impact.  Part of the airfield remains opportunistically available for agricultural production from time to time and this is recognised in the evidence of Mr Negri.  We do not consider this extent of land lost or removed from agricultural production inconsistent with policy.  Of note, we accept that if the airfield were to cease there are no constraints from the land occupied by the airfield from being returned to agricultural production.
73	Overall, we find the airfield does not directly have adverse impacts on agricultural land on the site.
Whether the airfield has unreasonable impacts on land use compatibility with surrounding agricultural activity?
74	We have earlier referred to what impacts the proposal has on the operation of agricultural activity in the area beyond the airfield site itself.  This is an issue that relates to land compatibility.  Clause 13 of the planning scheme encourages adopting a risk management approach that includes land use and development compatibility and controls that effectively prevent or mitigate significant impacts.  This would include ensuring that the airfield and its use does not undermine surrounding agricultural production and activity.
75	More specifically policy under Clause 13.07-1S seeks compatibility between land uses.  The policy seeks to avoid incompatible land uses from locating close to one another where adverse off-site impacts may occur.  It seeks to protect commercial, and employment uses from land uses that may compromise their safe and effective function and to minimise off-site impacts through separation, siting, building design and operational measures.
76	We note that Council considers the airfield, used for recreational purposes, and set in the middle of farming land, is not consistent with agricultural land use, particularly the surrounding farming properties that farm dairy cattle, beef cattle and horses.  It says that receiving 67 objections to the permit application and the Tribunal receiving 16 statements of grounds suggests a significant level of local community concern regarding not only amenity impacts, but adverse impacts on surrounding agricultural activity.
77	Council says that, whilst no evidence was called demonstrating that the use of the airfield will affect surrounding agricultural land use or livestock, the experience of the local landowners should be given great weight.
78	We note that from the western end of the airstrip, the closest farm paddocks are associated with Ms O’Donnell’s dairy farm at around 120 metres.  The airfield is also 50 metres from her southern boundary and 150 metres from her northern boundary.  We also note that from the eastern end of the airstrip, the closest farm paddock not associated with the applicant is approximately 680 metres associated with Mr and Mrs Allan’s farm.  We understand that both these farms are large operations with Ms O’Donnell’s farm stocking around 1,200 cows on a 650-hectare dairy farm while Mr and Mrs Allan stock around 300 beef cattle.
79	Similarly, we understand the farm property of Ms Moss is approximately 900 metres to the north-east from the eastern end of the airstrip.
80	Ms O’Donnell expressed concern that a majority of aircraft take-off in a westerly direction and regularly fly over her farm at low altitude estimated at around 100 feet (30.48 metres) to 200 feet (60.96 metres) and also land in a westerly direction flying below 500 feet (152.4 metres) on approach.  
81	The respondents say that aircraft flying over surrounding rural properties, particularly at low level can spook or disturb livestock.  We heard from Ms O’Donnell who expressed concern that low flying aircraft cause significant disturbance to grazing livestock through both movement and noise.  Livestock can panic and stampede which risks injury (such as running through fences) and stress to the animals and for a dairy farm can reduce milk production.  She says that when cattle are packed into the dairy, it could pose a workplace safety risk if they are spooked by an aircraft operating from the airfield.  It could also become an annoying distraction to farm workers when operating machinery with consequent safety risks.
82	Mr Song expressed concern that the presence of the airfield may pose constraints on future expansion and development of agricultural activity including the erection of sheds and future dwellings whether for farmers or their workers.  Mr Negri’s evidence also raised this issue which, to some extent, was associated with windshear effects, if buildings that do not require a planning permit are erected near the ends of the airstrip in terms of both safety to aircraft landing or taking off and to the amenity and safety of the occupants of those buildings.
83	The respondents say there is little regulation of flying aircraft operating from the airfield making enforcement of any ‘fly neighbourly plan’ or conditions on a permit if granted to mitigate impacts challenging.
84	The applicant refutes these concerns saying the likelihood of any risks from the airfield and on any future buildings erected near the ends of the airstrip would not likely cause any significant issues given the small size of aircraft utilising the airfield and the low level of use that is proposed.
85	The permit application included a fly neighbourly plan (refer to Figure 5) which seeks to avoid sensitive uses, control altitude, and require permission for all visiting aircraft seeking to use the airfield.
86	The applicant also relies on the lay evidence of Dr Hooke who is a flyer with 33 years of experience and who regularly uses the airfield to fly both a single engine Aviat Husky and a Pitts Special which is an aerobatic plane.  His evidence was that he uses the airfield for both a single departure or arrival and multiple take offs and landings when conducting circuits.
87	His evidence was that when taking off, full power is used with the Husky requiring around 200 metres for take-off and the Pitts Special requiring around 500 metres for take-off.  He said that by the time he reaches the end of the airstrip he is between 800 feet (243.84 metres) and 1,000 feet (304.80 metres) above ground level (‘AGL’) and that at around 3 minutes into the flight he is out of earshot at the airfield. 

Figure 5: Fly neighbourly plan sourced from Tribunal Book 1.
88	Dr Hooke’s evidence was that flying at low levels such as 200 feet would only occur at take off and landing approaches and is otherwise dangerous.  He says minimum flying heights are around 1,000 feet for circuit work.  He considered no more than two planes would be conducting circuit work at the same time.  He also considered two or three aircraft movements a day, a busy period.  For flight training purposes, he says circuit work with touch and go landing and take offs would be conducted generally using the fly neighbourly plan.  He noted that for safety and operational reasons pilots may depart from the fly neighbourly plan when necessary.
89	Dr Hooke also advised that take offs and landings were generally 50:50 in terms of easterly or westerly airfield operations.  He also says that he does not conduct aerobatic training over the airfield site, but rather conducts this activity over an area south of the Pakenham Racecourse.
90	We find there is little evidence of the effects of the airfield or aircraft noise on livestock.  No substantive or persuasive evidence of a risk of adverse impacts to agricultural use and impacts on livestock on surrounding land was presented to us.  Information provided to us was primarily in the form of assertions and opinion.
91	We are aware that some livestock may be flighty or react to noise, particularly sharp or impulsive noise.  We are also aware that livestock can habituate to noise if it is regular and with a consistent tonality.  We note Mr Song’s submission that livestock is regularly turned over and new animals may not be used to the operations of aircraft from the airfield.
92	We accept that the starting of an aircraft and initial acceleration for take-off may result in a sharp noise above background levels.  However, the location of the airfield within the property owned by the applicant means starting of the aircraft and initial take-off acceleration and landing will occur well inside the site and so noise levels beyond the boundary will be reduced to some extent by distance. 
93	The nature of how the airfield is used is important.  We understand some aircraft take-off and depart to another destination distant from the area, but many use the airfield to undertake circuits (as shown in Figure 5) and thus do not leave the area.  The result of this form of activity is that aircraft will persist in flying in the area with consequent potential for adverse impacts on agricultural activity and on livestock.  However, we are of the view that use of the fly neighbourly plan to ensure aircraft operating from the airfield will generally be flying at 1,000 feet in the circuit by the time they reach airspace outside the subject land will mitigate this risk to a large extent.  We say this whilst acknowledging that pilots may not comply with the fly neighbourly plan at times in the interests of aircraft safety dependent on the flying conditions on any given day.
94	We note the views of some respondents that there is persistent low flying and sometimes aerobatic practice in the vicinity of the airfield.  We note the requirement for all pilots to comply with CASA regulations, whether there is an airfield here or not.  There may be low flying on approach and departure from the airfield, however this should be limited given the small-scale operation of the airfield.  We also note Dr Hooke's evidence that he has a licence endorsement that includes conducting aerobatic flying to 1,500 feet above ground level, which means he would be in breach of his licence if flying below that level when conducting aerobatic training.  We also do not have any specific evidence of illegal low flying or other manoeuvres.  Such allegations should be taken up with CASA.
95	We accept that if there were instances of low flying or other unsafe behaviour, particularly over the residences and more intensely farmed areas of surrounding properties, this may contribute to adverse impacts on agricultural production and make for incompatible uses.  However, we must make the decision before us on the application materials; any such unsafe flying would be unacceptable regardless of the consideration of this application.
96	Regarding safety risks, we find the combination of the airfield’s length, the lightweight nature of the aircraft proposed to use it and the ability to land and take-off from the airfield over relatively short distances, poses little if any risk to safety to farm buildings, dwellings, livestock and to aircraft users.  We have no evidence to confirm otherwise.
97	Regarding buildings constructed at the ends of the airstrip and offering potential windshear risks, as well biosecurity risks associated with material dropping from the tyres of aircraft operating from the airfield, we are not convinced that these risks are significant.  The distances between the ends of the airfield and nearby farm paddocks appear to offer an appropriate level of risk mitigation.  
98	We note that the surrounding area is currently farmed with few apparent constraints.  Agricultural production occurs now and has done so for over 40 years while the airfield has been in use.  Overall, we consider the airfield should be able to operate successfully without unreasonably impinging on the surrounding agricultural use.
Whether impacts on amenity are unreasonable?
99	The impact on residences in the area from aircraft noise is a consideration under the planning scheme.  Noise broadly is called up in Clause 13.05-1S – ‘Noise management’ with the objective ‘To assist the management of noise effects on sensitive land uses’.  Strategies to avoid noise effects include building siting and design, urban design, and land use separation. The clause calls up consideration of the Environment Protection Regulations and the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic) (‘EP Act’).
100	As discussed earlier in these reasons, Clause 18.02-7S focuses on protecting airports and airfields and allowing for their expansion.  There are a number of noise related strategies in the clause which are relevant to planning scheme amendments such as zoning and overlay changes.  A relevant noise strategy for this application is:
Minimise the detrimental effects of aircraft noise when planning for areas around airports and airfields.
101	As this is an application for an airfield, rather than an application near an existing airfield, the concept of reverse amenity is relevant; that is, will the airfield proposal have a detrimental impact from aircraft noise on surrounding areas.  Residences in the area are shown in Figure 4 of these reasons. 
102	Expert evidence in aircraft noise was called from two experts, Mr Svetimir Ristic for the applicant and Mr David Lindsey for Council.  The two experts took quite different approaches to modelling and prediction of aircraft noise.
103	Mr Ristic, in summary:
•	Measured the full power sound pressure level of the Pitts Special as 131dB  at 1 metre from the propellor (measured at the end of the wing for safety and then the figure calculated for 1 metre).
•	Measured the sound pressure levels for the Pitts Special at a take-off point mid way along the runway (MP1, where the aircraft first leaves the ground) and at the end of the runway (MP2, where the plane reaches 1,000 feet AGL).
•	Input the measured sound pressure level from MP1 into a model to predict the highest noise level at the nearest residence at take-off for the Pitts Special.
•	Input the measured sound pressure level from MP2 into the model and modelled a series of stationary points along the southern circuit (take-off to the west) and northern circuit (take-off to the east) for the Pitts Special.
104	His evidence was that the modelled results showed that the maximum sound pressure level from the Pitts Special received at take-off to the west was 39 dB LAmax S at the residence at 1096 Main South Road, 800 metres to the southeast, although the table of results and Figure 7 in his evidence indicate the level at 99 McClure Road was 42 dB LAmax S.  For an aircraft undertaking the southern circuit (westerly wind) the modelled outputs at sensitive receivers were in the range 40 dB LAmax S to 65 dB LAmax S.  Similar outputs from the model were achieved for aircraft undertaking the northern circuit (easterly wind).
105	Mr Ristic organised a flyover of the Pitts Special on 28 August 2023 which he said demonstrated that the model predictions at the nearest noise sensitive receivers were consistent with the measured sound pressure levels.  His evidence was that he did not rely on the modelling, but it was provided for information to support his view on noise predictions for sensitive receivers.
106	Mr Lindsey undertook noise measurements at the airfield for the Pitts Special and Aviat Husky 23 metres off the runway centre and 310 metres from the start of departure, and undertook background noise measurements away from the airfield.
107	Mr Lindsey noted in his evidence that measured values are not necessarily a reliable indicator of aircraft noise as they are a one off and do not consider factors such as distance between noise source and receivers and weather conditions.  He observed ‘Consequently, my assessment in this Statement is based on calculated values, as is the case for all airport assessments’.
108	Mr Lindsey out outlined his view of the relevant documents for assessing airport noise including:
o	AS2021:2015 Acoustics – Aircraft noise intrusion – Building siting and construction.
o	Australian handbook AS HB 149 (2016).
o	National Airports Safeguarding Framework.
109	He identified AS2021:2015 as the most relevant guidance, and particularly Appendix E, ‘Method for Determining Building Site Acceptability for Light General Aviation Aerodromes with ANEF Charts’.  From Table E1 in Appendix E and the anticipated flight movements, he identified for 15-30 flights per day that a maximum of 80 dBA is an acceptable daytime level of noise.   He adopted 60 dBA as an acceptable level of outdoor night time noise, being the 50 dBA indoor level in AS2021 with an allowance of 10 dBA attenuation for the building itself.  ‘Night time’ in AS2021 is defined as 7.00pm to 7.00am.
110	Mr Lindsey modelled aircraft noise for the airfield using what he submitted is the only aircraft noise prediction tool recognised by the Australian aviation authorities, the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (‘AEDT’).  His evidence was that AS2021 recognises that long term average noise level inputs are more important than a few short terms measurements, and this longer term approach is accounted for in the AEDT model. 
111	Mr Lindsey’s evidence was that the approach taken by Mr Ristic is not correct in that it uses a model that is identified as not being recognised or suitable for aircraft noise prediction, and that he does not apply the appropriate method using AS2021.  His view in answer to questions was that the MAS model can only model static points which is not applicable for modelling a moving aircraft.
112	His conclusion was that the model shows the night-time maximum noise level of 60 dBA are likely to be exceeded at multiple residences by a range of different light aircraft including the Aviat Husky and Pitts Special flying from the airfield.
113	For daytime modelled noise predictions, Mr Lindsey’s evidence was that the Pitts Special and Piper PA42 on arrival or departure would or may exceed the 80 dBA daytime maximum at three residences.  These residences are:
•	385 Drouin – Korumburra Road
•	1020 Main Road South
•	989 Main Road South
114	An example plot from Mr Lindsey’s evidence is shown in Figure 6 for the Pitts Special departing to the west and east.  The 60 dBA night-time contour is in blue and the 80 dBA daytime contour is in orange with yellow dots being residences.

Figure 6:  Pitts Special, departure track movements
115	Mr Lindsey also argued in his evidence that the General Environmental Duty (‘GED’) in the EP Act is relevant, and that elimination of the risks of harm to human health should be considered in relation to aircraft noise.
116	His evidence was that the airfield operator could undertake measures to address mitigation under the GED such as optimising arrival and departure tracks, restricting operating hours to daytime as defined in AS2021, that is 7.00am to 7.00pm and restricting circuit training.
117	We consider Mr Ristic’s approach is overly simplistic and does not follow the accepted technique for aircraft noise prediction including use of the AEDT.  We also consider that Mr Lindsey has many decades of specific aircraft noise assessment expertise relative to Mr Ristic’s knowledge of aircraft noise, and thus we prefer the methodology and results in Mr Lindsey’s evidence over Mr Ristic’s.
118	From Mr Lindsey’s evidence we are left with his AEDT output which suggests that there is marginal exceedance of the 80 dBA maximum noise level at three residences.  We note Mr Lindsey’s evidence that the contour lines are not ‘hard’ lines and there may be exceedances beyond the 80 dBA contour, just as there may be aircraft movements within the 80 dBA contour that do not reach that level.
119	On balance, on its own we do not consider these modelled exceedances to be such that they would warrant refusal of a permit.  The exceedances identified are right on the contour and limited to three properties.  It is not a clear case of a significant number of residences being exposed to noise above the maximum level of 80 dBA.  
120	We also acknowledge that the site is in a farming area in the FZ.  It is a working area where impacts on amenity can occur.  Expectations for protection of amenity associated with dwellings in a rural setting or work areas are tempered and, although we note that there is some amenity associated with dwellings in these areas, we accept that there are limitations on the level of amenity to be expected to be protected in such areas.  Coupled with the relatively low level of flight activity and farming character of the area, we consider this an acceptable outcome.
121	As identified by Council, consideration of amenity is not limited to whether there is ‘compliance’ with AS2021.  There are broader contextual amenity considerations.  In addition, as discussed earlier in this decision, the amenity impacts on nearby residents is not just from planes taking off and landing but from circuits.  There are many residences on both the southern circuit and the northern circuit who do not receive aircraft noise in a linear fashion; that is aircraft do not approach from one direction and then recede in another.  Rather residences under the circuits will receive aircraft noise in a semi-circular pattern as an aircraft circles to land after a circuit, or commencing a circuit after take-off.  Examples of this include residences 925, 977, 983 ad 989 Main South Road (northern circuit) and 1050, 1096, 1103 Main South Road and 12 and 16 Conway Road (southern circuit).
122	This type of circling behaviour was noted by some respondents including the suggestion that some aircraft are lower in the circuit and approaches than they should be for safety reasons.  We were not provided with any evidence of such low flying but were shown a number of videos shot on mobile phones of planes circling in the vicinity of the airfield and residences.  We have addressed concerns relating to unsafe flying earlier in these reasons.
123	We were also provided by respondent’s mobile phone videos of the Pitt Special undertaking aerobatic manoeuvres above the airfield.  Dr Hooke made clear that it was not him in the videos and flight logs confirmed that it was likely to be the Pitt Special he flies, but piloted by one of the other co-owners.  There was no suggestion that the manoeuvres were illegal or unsafe, but the particular engine sound as the plane climbed and dived is distinctive and at some volume and we consider would give rise to some amenity impact. The noise from such activities we understand is not picked up in the AEDT modelling undertaken by Mr Lindsey.
124	We note the submissions that there are already a number of flyovers of the airfield from transiting aircraft, an activity that will continue and is outside the control of the applicant.  However, we are satisfied on the material before us that most of the amenity concerns from respondents relate to operations at the airfield, including take-offs, landing, circuits and other activities.
125	The limited number of aircraft movements and small number of airfield users is said by the applicant to be a benefit of the application and we accept that limited movements should result in consequent fewer or lesser amenity impacts.  However, we consider that flying operations from the airfield do present some level of amenity impact, said by some resident objectors to be significant.  We also note the density of residences in the area as can be seen in Figure 4 in these reasons, in our view relatively high for an agricultural area and perhaps reflective of the highly productive agricultural environment.  We are not suggesting a density such as that around the Tyabb Airfield; that is a much more highly used facility in a more densely settled context.  
126	The question is whether in our view the acknowledged amenity impacts and annoyance to some nearby residents are at a level that should warrant refusal of the permit application.  Our view is that on balance we consider that the small-scale nature of the airfield operation, the proposed limit on flight movements, and other restrictions that can be imposed via permit condition will result in an acceptable planning outcome on amenity grounds when considered against policy.  The planning scheme does not require there be no amenity impact.  In this case overall we think the amenity impact will be reasonable in the circumstances.
127	From Dr Lindsey’s results, it is clear that there would be numerous exceedances of the night-time noise limit of 60 dBA at multiple properties from a range of aircraft if the night-time definition in AS2021 is used.  While flying in darkness is not proposed, the applicant indicated that flying before 7.00am and after 7.00pm on the longer days (summer) of the year is desirable and safe.  We have not been provided with any evidence as to why the night-time period as defined in AS2021 should be departed from.  In summer we consider there is the possibility if not likelihood of sleep disturbance of nearby residents in the dawn to 7.00am period.  In summer between 7.00pm and darkness we consider there is also the potential for sleep disturbance of, for example, children who have been put to bed.  We have included a permit condition requiring the airfield operating hours be limited to 7.00am to 7.00pm at all times of the year.
What conditions are appropriate?
128	We have had the benefit of a 'without prejudice' discussion of draft permit conditions circulated by Council and the applicant.  
129	There was some discussion between parties as to what conditions should be imposed.  We have discussed some of them within our reasons.
130	Although we have supported the proposal and the grant of a permit, we have included conditions to ensure that the operation of the airfield is managed to minimise impacts on surrounding land use including sensitive use such as dwellings and intensive agricultural operations.  
131	The permit conditions to be applied are included in Appendix A.
Conclusion
132	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Christopher Harty
Presiding Member		Nick Wimbush
Member	

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PLA0075/21	
Land	85 Yuulong Road
DROUIN SOUTH VIC 3818	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Use of the land for an 'Airfield' under clause 35.07-1 of the Farming Zone.
•	Construct or carry out works for use of an airfield under clause 35.07-4.
•	Construct a building and construct or carry out works for a hangar (Hangar 6), toilet and office under Clause 35.07-4.	

Conditions
Amended plans
1	Before the use starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided.  The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (Noz Tech Drafting - 15 September 2021 - 4pp) but modified to show:
(a)	all existing buildings and works (including all temporary and incomplete structures);
(b)	identification of all buildings and works that are sought to be approved under this permit;
(c)	all car parking including the location, marking, surface and drainage of the car parking;
(d)	the proposed surface treatment of Yuulong Road (gravel); and 
(e)	location of signage required in accordance with condition 29;
Layout not altered
2	The layout of the use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.	
Fly neighbourly plan
3	Within one month of the date of issue of this permit, or another time agreed to in writing by the responsible authority, a detailed Fly Neighbourly Plan must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority.  When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must detail:
(a)	fly neighbourly principles including (but not limited to):
i	awareness of, and avoidance of, noise-sensitive land-uses where possible;
ii	maintain published flight paths after take-off and when conducting a final approach; 
iii	avoid low flying where possible, especially over farmland and noise- sensitive land uses including dwellings and intensive agricultural operations;
iv	avoid prolonged engine runs or high engine power; and
v	avoid aerobatics above farmland and noise-sensitive land uses including dwellings and intensive agricultural operations.
(b)	aircraft routes which apply the fly neighbourly principles above; and
(c)	aircraft and operation procedures which apply the fly neighbourly principles above.	 
4	Other than in emergency situations, the operation of the airfield and all flights to and from the airfield must be conducted in accordance with the Fly Neighbourly Plan.
En route supplement Australia
5	Within one month of the date of issue of this permit, or another time agreed to in writing by the responsible authority, a copy of the amended entry for the airfield (submitted to Airservices Australia) for publication in the En Route Supplement Australia (ERSA) must be provided to the responsible authority.  
6	That amended entry in ERSA must include a reminder to pilots, except when operationally necessary: 
(a)	to comply with the Fly Neighbourly Plan (endorsed under condition 3);
(b)	to avoid overflight of noise sensitive locations (including dwellings and intensive agricultural operations) including but not limited to the following properties:
i	99 McClure Road, Drouin South (farmhouse and horse stud buildings);  
ii	60 Brewer Road Drouin South (farmhouse and dairy buildings); 
iii	70 Burnt Store Road (farmhouse and beef cattle operation); and
iv	925 Main South Road (farmhouse and machinery buildings) 
7	Use of the airfield is limited to operation of aircraft with an all-up weight not exceeding 2,500lbs (1,140 kilograms).	
Operation of the airfield	
8	Other than in emergency situations, no helicopters can use the airfield at any time.
9	No rocket launching or use of rockets can occur on the land at any time.
10	Other than in emergency situations, unless otherwise approved in writing to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, all operations associated with the airfield (including maintenance of aircraft and pre-flight warm up of aircraft engines), must only occur:
(a)	during the daylight hours of 7 am and 7 pm on Mondays to Saturdays; and
(b)	during the daylight hours of 9 am and 7 pm on Sundays and on public holidays.
11	No more than 11 aircrafts may be stored on the land at any one time, unless otherwise approved in writing to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.	
12	No more than 20 persons may be present on the land associated with the airfield at any one time unless otherwise approved in writing to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
13	Except for mandatory fuel reserves prescribed under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 (CASR), no fuel must be permanently stored on the land unless otherwise approved in writing to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.	
14	The use of the airfield must not include activities that require an "Air Operators Certificate" including commercial flying activities including (but not limited to):
(a)	training flights;
(b)	freight activities;
(c)	aerial survey and advertising;
(d)	search and rescue;
(e)	trade operations;
(f)	ambulance functions;
(g)	unscheduled carriage of goods;
(h)	charter flights; and
(i)	regular transport of members of the public (RPT operations).	Commercial flying activities, which require an "Air Operators Certificate" (issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority) must not be based at the airfield.
15	The use of the airfield must not include any public shows or public events. 
16	Other than in emergency situations, any aircraft taking off and landing at the land must be no more than 2,500lbs (1,140 kilograms) in weight unless with the prior written consent of the responsible authority.	
17	Other than in emergency situations, no more than 60 aircraft movements (an aircraft movement is a take-off, a landing or "touch-and-go") are permitted in any one month from/on the land unless with the prior written consent of the responsible authority. 	
18	Other than in emergency situations, no more than 500 aircraft movements (an aircraft movement is a take-off, a landing or a "touch-and-go") are permitted in any one year from/on the land unless with the prior written consent of the responsible authority.	
19	No accommodation including temporary accommodation (such as camping) associated with the operation of the airfield may occur on the land. 
20	The amenity of the surrounding land must not be detrimentally affected by the use or development, through the:
(a)	transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;
(b)	appearance of any buildings, works or materials; and
(c)	emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, oil or spray materials.	
Aircraft noise
21	Aircraft noise levels associated with the use must at all times comply with Appendix E of AS2021:2015 Acoustics- Aircraft noise intrusion - Building siting and construction, as amended from time to time, namely aircraft noise must not to exceed 80dB(A) at a noise-sensitive use. 	
22	Within 12 months from the date of this permit, the owner and/or occupier of the land must submit an Acoustic Report prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the responsible authority which demonstrates compliance, or which outlines any measures considered necessary to achieve compliance, with the aircraft noise limit specified in Condition 21. 
23	If the Acoustic Report reveals the use does not meet the specified maximum noise level limits, the use must be modified to make the use compliant with those noise level limits.  After any modifications have been made, further acoustic testing must be carried out to ascertain whether the use complies with the noise limits.  All acoustic testing is to be carried out during a busy period at the land.  The results of testing must be provided to the responsible authority and made available to the public.
Formal complaints procedure	
24	Within three months of the date of issue of this permit, or another time agreed to in writing by the responsible authority, a Formal Complaints Procedure, containing designated point(s) of contact, resolution procedures and keeping of records, must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority.  The Formal Complaints Procedure must be endorsed by the responsible authority and will then form part of the Permit.
25	A record of complaints and any responses to complaints must be maintained at all times and made available on request for examination by the responsible authority. 	
Flight register
26	A Flight Register must be prepared by the owner and/or occupier of the land and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.  The Flight Register must include:
(a)	records of all flights arriving and departing the site (including destination on a particular date) on each day of operation; and
(b)	details of landing, take-off and usual flight paths including the limitation of take-offs.
27	The Flight Register must be made available for examination by the responsible authority at all times. 	
General	
28	Stormwater discharge from the airfield must not cause damage to the land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.	
29	Except for a sign at the entry to the car park (at the location shown on plans to be endorsed), with words which generally state that the Subject Land is "Private Property - Authorised Personnel Only", no other signage associated with the airfield may be displayed or put up on the Subject Land at any time.
30	Runway lighting, sufficient to facilitate movements after sunset and before sunrise, must not be installed.  
31	Wastewater arising from the development must be treated and retained within the lot boundary by a septic tank system (or other approved system) in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection Act 2017, EPA Publication 891.4: Code of Practice - Onsite wastewater management (or as amended) and the responsible authority.
32	A report prepared by a suitably qualified wastewater professional must be provided to the responsible authority demonstrating that the existing wastewater treatment system is installed and operating in accordance with the Environment Protection Act 2017, EPA Publication 891.4: Code of Practice - Onsite wastewater management (or as amended).  If rectification works are required, they must be undertaken as soon as reasonably practicable to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Expiry of permit for use & development
33	This permit as it relates to use will expire if the use does not commence within two (2) years after the issue date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the period referred to in this condition.
34	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within two years of the issue date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within four years of the issue date of this permit.
(c)	The use is discontinued for a period of more than two years
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

– End of conditions –