VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P2258/2019
Permit Application no. PP-689-2019	
CATCHWORDS	

APPLICANT	Adrian Probert & Others	
responsible authority	Greater Geelong City Council	
Referral Authority	Environment Protection Authority	
RESPONDENT	Wilbury Property Holdings Pty Ltd	
SUBJECT LAND	72 - 80 Buckley Grove
MOOLAP  VIC  3221	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Laurie Hewet, Presiding Senior Member
Greg Sharpley, Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	3 June 2020	
DATE OF interim ORDER	10 June 2020 	
date of order	10 August 2020	
CITATION	Probert v Greater Geelong CC [2020] VCAT 837	
Order
1	The decision of the Responsible Authority is varied.
2	In permit application PP-689-2019 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 72-80 Buckley Grove, Moolap in accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Use of the land for a transfer station and associated advertising signage.  

Laurie Hewet 
Presiding Senior Member

Greg Sharpley 
Member	
Appearances
For applicant	Mr D Epstein of counsel appeared by direct brief.  Mr Epstein called lay evidence from Mr A Probert	
For responsible authority	Mr L Page, town planner	
For referral authority	No appearance.	
For respondent	Mr David King, solicitor of Kings Lawyers.	

Information
Description of proposal	The applicant seeks to use an existing warehouse in an industrial zone as a transfer station for waste collected by waste compactors undertaking kerbside collections, for transfer to landfill by semi-trailers. The application also seeks approval for the erection of directional signs at the facility.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the decision to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Greater Geelong Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Clause 33.01:  Industrial 1 Zone 
Clause 43.02: Design and Development Overlay (DDO20).
Clause 53.10- Uses and activities with potential adverse impacts applies:  A transfer station has a threshold distance of 200m unless it is a transfer station accepting organic wastes which has a threshold distance of 500m.  A threshold distance is the shortest distance from any part of the land to: 
•	land (not a road) in an Activity Centre Zone, Capital City Zone, Commercial 1 Zone, Docklands Zone, residential zone or Rural Living Zone; 
•	or land used for a hospital, an education centre or a corrective institution; 
•	or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital, an education centre or a corrective institution. 
Clause 53.14- Resource Recovery:  Applies to all land used and developed for a transfer station and materials recycling facility.  The Clause contains application requirements and decision guidelines.  	
Permit requirements	Clause 33.01-1:  A permit is required to use land for a transfer station  provided the land is at least 30 metres from land (not a road) which is in an Activity Centre Zone, Capital City Zone, Commercial 1 Zone, Docklands Zone, residential zone or Rural Living Zone or Transfer Station land used for a hospital, an education centre a corrective institution or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital, an education centre or a corrective institution.  
An application must be accompanied by the information contained in Clauses 33.01-2 and 53.14-2.  Decision guidelines are at Clauses 33.01-2 and 53.14-3.  	
Land description	The site is situated in an industrial estate at 72-80 Buckley Grove, Moolap.  It is roughly rectangular in shape and covers an area of approximately 2.1 hectares.  The site is flat with a large industrial shed situated in the middle of the lot. There are similar industrial developments in the area and the land to the rear is open farmland.   
A green waste facility operates from part of the site.  
The nearest sensitive uses to the review site are dwellings which are about 800m to the south.   	

reasons
1	This is an application to review the decision of the responsible authority to grant a permit to use 72-80 Buckley Grove, Moolap as a waste transfer station.  
2	The application is brought on the following grounds:
•	The issue of the permit is premature as no qualitative analysis of off-site impacts have been undertaken (including odour, dust and noise) and thus is contrary to orderly planning and an evidence based operation.
•	The application at present could cause adverse amenity impacts and be contrary to Clause 65.
•	The application does not reflect the requirements of the of clause 53.14 and 17.03-2S of the planning scheme.
•	The cumulative impacts of multiple transfer stations are not known and could cause adverse off-site amenity impacts to existing businesses and further afield residences. 
3	Several other businesses in the area have objected to the proposal, but they are not parties to this proceeding.  The objections related to potential amenity impacts from dust, odour, noise and contaminated runoff.  They raised concerns about the potential cumulative impacts of other existing and proposed transfer stations in the industrial estate. In addition, they raised concerns in relation to the potential traffic impacts of trucks associated with the transfer station impacting both on the nearby premises and the Portarlington Road intersection.
4	During the hearing it emerged that notwithstanding the application being presented to the Council and the Tribunal as a facility dealing with ‘non-organic’ wastes, about 34% of the wastes are in fact organic.  This was established following questioning by the Tribunal of the Council about the percentage of organic waste typically contained in its ‘red lid bins’, the source of the waste to be handled at the proposed transfer station.  The Council advised that audits of the red lid bins shows 34% of the waste collected is organic material.  
5	We regard the proportion of organic waste handled at the transfer station as a significant consideration.  The application has been assessed by the Council and the EPA to whom the application was referred, on the basis that it did not accept organic waste.  An application that does accept organic waste has a different threshold distance under Clause 53.10 of the planning scheme and, necessitates a different management regime to that applicable to a facility that does not accept organic waste.     
6	We have proceeded in our assessment on the basis that the proposal is appropriately categorised as a transfer station accepting organic waste and must be assessed accordingly.  
7	Having considered the submissions presented to us, we have concluded that the primary issues in this case can be categorised as follows:
•	Is the proposal acceptable having regard to the relevant provisions of the planning scheme?
•	Will the transfer station cause unacceptable amenity impacts?
•	Will there be unacceptable cumulative impacts due to the presence of other transfer stations in the area?
•	Will there be unacceptable traffic issues?
8	We have concluded that the review site is appropriately located and zoned to operate as a transfer station accepting organic waste.  We are satisfied that if appropriately managed, the proposal will not contribute to unacceptable impacts.  
9	We are not satisfied however that acceptable management arrangements have been formulated for this proposal, primarily because of the failure of the applicant to address issues associated with the receipt of organic wastes.  
10	The failure of the Council and the EPA to assess the application correctly is concerning to us, especially in the light of the opportunity we gave both authorities to do so.  
11	We have therefore decided to impose a permit condition that requires the permit applicant to prepare a site management plan which must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority prior to the commencement of the use.    The site management plan must address specifically the handling of the organic waste.  
12	Our reasons are set out below.  
what is proposed?
13	The applicant proposes to utilise a portion of a large existing industrial warehouse and associated weighbridge, office and staff facilities as a transfer station for kerbside wastes collected by the Greater Geelong City Council.  The wastes collected by kerbside compactors are to be emptied onto the concrete floor of the shed and then loaded onto semi-trailers by a front-end loader for transfer to a landfill.  The applicant previously operated a similar facility in the same industrial estate but for commercial reasons now seeks to operate from this premises. 
14	The Greater Geelong City Council (GGCC) has let a contract to the applicant to operate the transfer station and has granted a permit for the use, subject to conditions. 
15	GGCC referred the matter to the EPA, which advised that it considered the transfer station did not require referral to the EPA as the GGCC had advised that the transfer station will not be accepting organic waste.  The EPA did provide some recommendations for the GGCC to include in the permit conditions. 
16	We were advised that the source of the waste to be handled on site is the Council’s kerbside ‘red lid bins’.  On that basis the application was described by the applicant and assessed by the Council and the EPA to whom the application was referred, as a transfer station not accepting organic waste.  
17	During the hearing we sought clarification from the Council about the waste that is legitimately disposed of in the red lid bins.  We sought clarification on this issue because our investigation of the Council’s website indicated that the red lid bins can be used for all household rubbish including nappies, ceramics, meat etc.  Other items listed include window glass, mirrors and light globes (wrapped).  There is then a list of the following excluded rubbish:
•	 asbestos
•	excavation material or building rubble
•	trade waste of any kind syringes
•	hazardous items, such as gas bottles or batteries
•	household chemicals, oils, paints or solvents
•	dirt, dust, ashes, hair or other similar material unless it has been securely wrapped or contained
•	glass or other sharp objects unless they are securely wrapped
•	slops, liquid waste or offensive material
•	anything that can be recycled of deposited in the garden bin.  
18	We commented that the information on the Council’s website did not appear to exclude organic waste from being disposed of in the red lid bins.  We sought advice from the Council about the results of any audits it had undertaken relating to the composition of the wastes in those bins.  
19	The Council advised during the hearing that audits of the red lid bins undertaken by its waste management division, shows that typically 34% of the waste collected is organic material.  
20	We indicated to the parties that we regarded the proportion of organic waste as a significant consideration that has implications for our assessment of the application.  The handling of organic waste necessitates a different management regime to that applicable to a facility that does not accept organic waste.  We also note that an application that does accept organic waste has a threshold distance under Clause 53.10 of the planning scheme of 500 m while a facility that does not accept organic waste has a threshold distance of 200 m.  
21	We provided all the parties with the opportunity to comment on the implications of the Council’s audit results and we advised that we would be seeking the advice of the EPA given that it had previously commented on the application on the understanding that the transfer station would not be accepting organic waste.   
22	In response to our Order inviting the EPA to review its assessment of the application, the EPA unhelpfully replied that it had no further comment.  The respondent permit applicant advised that it did not wish to provide a further submission.  Neither the Council nor the applicant for review provided further submissions.  
23	We have proceeded in our assessment of the proposal on the basis that the use is appropriately categorised as a transfer station accepting organic waste.    
Is the proposal acceptable having regard to the relevant provisions of the planning scheme?
24	The review site and surrounding area is zoned Industrial 1.  The purpose of the zone is to implement the policy framework and to provide for manufacturing industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated uses in a manner which does not affect the safety and amenity of local communities.
25	A transfer station is a permit required use in the zone.  Decision guidelines in the zone require that before deciding on an application consideration must be given to a range of matters relevantly including:  
•	The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
•	The effect that the use may have on nearby existing or proposed residential areas or other uses which are sensitive to industrial off-site effects, having regard to any comments or directions of the referral authorities.
•	The effect that nearby industries may have on the proposed use.
•	The effect of traffic to be generated on roads.
26	In broad terms the planning scheme encourages waste reduction and the maximisation of resource recovery so as to reduce reliance on landfills and minimise environmental, community amenity and public health impacts. The establishment and expansion of transfer stations is encouraged in appropriate locations with minimal impact on the environment and amenity of the area.  
27	The application requirements of the Industrial 1 zone and Clause 53.14 require detailed information to be submitted with applications for the establishment of a transfer station to enable an assessment of the proposal’s impact on the environment and amenity of the area to be carried out.  
28	Clause 53.10 is also relevant.  A transfer station is one of the uses included in the table to the clause.  A transfer station has a threshold distance of 200m unless it is a transfer station accepting organic wastes which has a threshold distance of 500m.  The figure below demonstrates that the threshold distance for a transfer station accepting organic waste on the review site is met.  We accept the Council and applicant submissions that the nearest sensitive use is approximately 800 m to the south.   

Source; Nearmap aerial photography 28 March 2020.  

29	It is primarily because of the review site’s location within an industrial estate, well removed from residential areas and other sensitive uses, that we have concluded that the proposal is appropriately located in terms of meeting the objective of encouraging the establishment of transfer stations while minimising the impact on residential areas and other sensitive uses.  
30	Our findings in this respect has had regard to the Moolap Coastal Strategic Framework Plan, which is a high level, broad strategy for the region.  The applicant for review submits that the implementation of this plan will result in residential and other sensitive uses eventually transitioning into the area surrounding the industrial estate within which the review site is located.  
31	Significantly however, the Strategic Framework Plan retains the review site in an industrial zoning catering for medium, light, and service industry.  Consequently, future decisions about how land surrounding the estate is developed for predominantly residential uses, will need to be based on the continued existence of the industrial estate.  The Strategic Framework Plan does not provide reasonable grounds for refusing to grant a permit for a use within the industrial estate which is consistent with the purpose of the zone and which meets existing threshold distance requirements.   
32	While we are satisfied that the review site is appropriately located in terms of minimising the impact of the use on residential and other sensitive uses, our findings about the acceptability of the proposal is dependent on us being satisfied about the appropriate management of the organic waste that will form part of the waste material deposited at the site.  
33	We address this issue in more detail below.
Will the transfer station cause unacceptable amenity impacts?
34	The applicant for review raised several concerns about the potential impacts of the proposal on the amenity of the locality.  For the reasons we elaborate on below, we are satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in this respect.  
Litter
35	Objectors concerns in relation to litter related to a green waste operation which is currently being undertaken on part the site and were not referenced to the waste transfer operation proposed.  
36	GGCC advised that litter is not anticipated to be an issue as the unloading and loading is all to be undertaken within the shed.  
37	The generation of litter due to the transfer of wastes from the shed to the landfill could be an issue if the arriving trucks and semi-trailers are not covered. We have therefore included a requirement for the Site Management Plan to ensure that all trucks delivering and removing waste are fully enclosed at all times. 
Noise
38	Objectors advised of concerns in relation to potential noise impacts from the proposed facility. However, none of the parties provided any detailed or expert evidence in relation to where the noise would emanate or evidence of similar issues at other sites. 
39	Council advised that there have been no reported amenity impacts from the existing transfer station facilities in the area on either the other industrial facilities in the area or on the residential area which is situated over 800 metres from the site.
40	All vehicle unloading and loading is to be undertaken within the shed and while it will involve both heavy vehicle and front-end loader movements it is not anticipated that it will result in excessive noise external to the shed.
41	The facility is situated in an Industrial 1 Zone which does not require the same level of noise control as other more sensitive zonings.  The site is situated over 800 metres from the nearest residence which, as we have discussed previously, is in excess of the threshold distance required by Clause 53.10.
42	For the above reasons we do not consider that the operation of the facility will result in unacceptable noise impacts, provided all machinery and operations comply with industry standards.
Odour
43	Mr Probert advised of odour issues associated with the transfer operation at the existing site approximately 5 years ago.  The operator had responded to GGCC directions and there have been no complaints since.
44	It was not clear to us whether the odour issues related to the green waste operation or the red bin waste operation at the existing site.  
45	The proposed conditions for the operation of the facility requires all waste to be removed from the facility within 24 hours of being deposited.  This is a beneficial factor in the consideration of odour issues.  
46	As discussed later we do however have concerns in relation to odour, as the organic wastes which are brought to the facility may have been in red bins for up to a week prior in hot weather and could potentially be very odorous.  We therefore consider that the Site Management Plan which we have required be prepared must address the management of odours both for staff working on the site and in the vicinity. 
Dust
47	While the green waste operation which currently operates on part of the site may give rise to dust issues, this source of dust is unrelated to the application that is before us.
48	The typical wastes in a red bin are not anticipated to be particularly dusty and the unloading and loading is to be undertaken with in a large shed we therefore do not consider that dust is likely to be an issue in the vicinity of the operation. However, we consider that the Site Management Plan should address dust management within the facility.
Fire
49	We were not advised of any requirements in relation to fire control.  However, the EPA letter of 4 September 2019 recommends the GGCC requires compliance with Waste Management Policy (Combustible Recyclable and Waste Materials) and references EPA publication 1667.2 in relation to the occupier’s responsibilities in relation to fire risk management.
50	Mr Probert advised that there had been a fire at a similar facility in the vicinity in recent times.  This resulted in the provision of increased fire control facilities.
51	We note that the proposed operation could potentially be subject to fire risks from within the facility, the green waste operation on the site and even from a grass fire on the rural land to the rear of the site.
52	After the hearing we considered this issue and are of the opinion that fire management is an issue which needs to be appropriately managed.  We therefore consider that approval should include a condition requiring the operator to obtain the written approval of the CFA of the fire fighting facilities prior to the commencement of operation and be addressed in the Site Management Plan.  
Will there be unacceptable cumulative impacts due to the presence of other transfer stations in the area?
53	Objectors advised the tribunal that there are currently 2 other transfer stations in the industrial estate and advise that others are proposed.  They are concerned that there has been no consideration of the potential for cumulative impacts on amenity issues from a number of similar operations.
54	We were advised by the GGCC that to date there have been no issues associated with cumulative impacts due to the presence of several transfer stations in the area.
55	We were provided with no expert or anecdotal evidence of cumulative impacts from multiple transfer stations at other locations or even how such impacts might arise.
56	As all transfer stations are required to minimise all offsite impacts and there have been none observed in recent years, we do not consider there to be any realistic potential for there to be unacceptable cumulative impacts due the presence of multiple transfer stations.
Will there be unacceptable traffic issues?
57	No traffic data was provided in relation to the local road network or how many vehicle movements are associated with the green waste facility operating externally to the shed on the site.  
58	We were advised that there are expected to be approximately 60 kerbside compactor and semi-articulated truck movements per day. 
59	No information was provided in relation to peak hour truck movements or the number semi-trailer movements. 
60	The site provides for 22 staff and visitor carparks which are accessible via a separate entrance to the trucks; plus an additional 9 carparks in an overflow area. The shed has a floor area of 1080 m2 which requires the provision of 31 parking spaces.  A maximum of 10 staff are proposed for the site so parking is not anticipated to be an issue.  However, we were not advised if the 10 staff were only for the transfer station operation or includes the green waste operation also operating on the site.
61	Mr Probert’s affidavit and submission to the us advised that in addition to the proposed transfer operation on the site there is already a green waste operation on the site which consists of a variety of receivals, sorting chipping and storage of green waste external to the shed.
62	We were not provided with any information in relation to the potential traffic impacts of the two operations on the one site.
63	We were advised that the same operation proposed for this site (including the green waste operation) has been operating for 8 years approximately 200 metres west from the site, with no apparent traffic implications.
64	The GGCC engineering department has reviewed the proposed traffic implications and apart from a condition requiring the traffic to avoid a right turn from Buckley Grove onto Portarlington Road no other concerns were raised.  
65	Having regard to the Council’s assessment of the proposal’s traffic impacts, and in the absence of any detailed analysis by the applicant for review contradicting the Council’s assessment, we are satisfied that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant or unacceptable traffic related impacts .
organic waste and the need for a site management plan.  
66	We have outlined previously the circumstances surrounding the revelation that the transfer station should be classified as a use accepting organic waste.   
67	 Because of the lack of assistance provided to us by the parties, the Council and the EPA on this issue, we are therefore confronted with the prospect of refusing to grant a permit because the application has been submitted and assessed on the basis that it is a transfer station that does not accept organic waste, when this is demonstrably wrong.  
68	We have given this matter considerable thought.  We have decided that on balance the appropriate course of action is to grant a permit and impose a permit condition requiring a Site Management Plan which sets out in detail the manner in which the site is to be operated in order to minimise the potential for any offsite effects.  The Plan will be required to demonstrate that it complies with best practice for a transfer facility which receives organic wastes.
69	We have reached the conclusion primarily because of our findings about the locational attributes of the site, its industrial zoning, the operating history of a similar operation in the immediate vicinity and the extensive threshold distances from sensitive uses enjoyed by the site.   Because of these factors we are satisfied that the use, managed in accordance with the Site Management Plan is acceptable.  
other matters
70	The applicant for review raised a concern about the capacity of the permit applicant to effectively operate the proposed use.  
71	In relation to this matter, we have adopted the approach consistently applied by the Tribunal over many years.  In this case, the operator of the transfer station will be required to conduct the use in accordance with all relevant permits and other regulatory requirements.  Failure to do so becomes an enforcement issue that the relevant authorities need to pursue.
72	We have not been persuaded by any of the submissions or evidence that we ought to adopt a different approach in this case to that outlined above.  
conclusion 
73	It follows from the above reasons that it is our conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be varied and a permit issued.
74	The permit will include the conditions contained in the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit issued by the responsible authority with modifications which have regard to the submissions and evidence of the parties and the matters which arise from our reasons.

Laurie Hewet 
Presiding Senior Member
		Greg Sharpley 
Member	

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No:	PP-689-2019	
Land:	72 - 80 Buckley Grove
MOOLAP  VIC  3221	

What the permit allows	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Use of the land for a transfer station and associated advertising signage.  

Conditions:

1	Within 90 days of the issue of this permit 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 provide:
(a)	A septic system layout plan and audit in accordance with condition 13;
(b)	A detailed site management plan to address noise, dust, odour, pest control and loose litter as per the requirements of Condition 14.
Endorsed Plans
2	The use as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
General Amenity
3	The amenity of the area 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 building, works or materials;
(c)	Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, wastewater, waste products, grit or oil;
(d)	Presence of vermin;
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
Operating hours
4	Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, the use hereby approved may only occur during the following times:
(a)	5.00am until 5.00pm - Monday to Saturday.
To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Pest control
5	Pest control measures must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Maintenance of Buildings and Works
6	All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Signs not to be Altered
7	The location and details of the signage, including those of the supporting structure, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Dust	
8	The operation must not result in visible dust beyond the premises boundary.
Odours 
9	Odours offensive to the senses of human beings must not be discharged beyond the premises boundary.
Vehicle Maintenance
10	Vehicles exiting the premises must not deposit waste, on the abutting road.
Discharge and Seepage
11	There shall be no discharge or seepage of waste from the premises to land, groundwater or surface waters.
Noise Emissions
12	Any noise created at the site must not exceed the recommended levels as set out in Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria (NIRV; EPA Publication 1411, 2011) or as amended.
Water System
13	Within 90 days of the issue of this permit, an audit of the existing wastewater system is required to be performed by an appropriate wastewater plumber/drainer, to ensure that it complies with the current Australian Standards and Guidelines (secondary treatment). Once the audit is completed, a written report and plan is required to be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority that provides:
(a)	An amended plan showing the location of the septic system and where the irrigation is (if there is an irrigations field, written details are also required to confirm whether the pipes are pressure compensating);
(b)	Details of where the pipe running from the treatment plant is going and what it is used for;
(c)	Confirmation the septic has a baffle;
(d)	Details of whether there is an alarm on the system;
(e)	Report and photos to be submitted from the plumber/drainer.
The submitted report and plans are to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Fire management
14	The proponent is to prepare a fire management plan for the facility to the satisfaction of the CFA prior to the commencement of the operation.  A copy of the fire management plan and approval of the CFA is to be provided to the responsible authority.  
Site Management plan
15	Prior to the commencement of operation of the site the proponent shall prepare a Site Management Plan for the operation of the transfer station.  The Site Management Plan is to be prepared by a recognised expert(s) in the handling and management of organic wastes and the design and operation of transfer stations.  The Plan is to be updated every 5 years or more frequently if required by the GGCC.
The site management plan must address, but is not limited to the following:
(a)	Record keeping of all wastes received and dispatched, with copies of the records to be made available to the responsible authority and the EPA on request
(b)	Inspection requirements for all incoming waste
(c)	Management requirements for wastes not allowed to be sent to the facility
(d)	Maintenance and operation in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification of the weighbridge and all mobile equipment used in the handling of waste
(e)	Management of:
i	Litter, both on site and in the vicinity of the site
ii	Vehicle enclosure monitoring requirements to ensure that there is no litter or waste deposited on the roads
iii	Traffic, including which roads are to be used accessing and leaving the site. Traffic movements are to be recorded on an hourly basis and provided to the GGCC on request.
iv	Storm water including location of the discharge point and water quality prior to leaving the site 
v	Contaminated effluent/ washdown from the transfer operation
vi	Sewage treatment and disposal
vii	Vermin
viii	Noise both internally and externally in accordance with relevant legislation and with WorkSafe approval
ix	Firefighting facilities, to the satisfaction of the CFA and also in compliance with the EPA Waste Management Policy (Combustible Recyclable and Waste Materials) and addresses EPA publication 1667.2 in relation to the occupier’s responsibilities in relation to fire risk.
Prior to submission of the Site Management Plan to the responsible authority  the proponent shall arrange and pay for the Site Management Plan to be peer reviewed by a recognised expert approved by the responsible authority.  
External Storage Areas
16	All waste products must be loaded, unloaded, and/or stored inside the existing shedding onsite. No operations or storage of any products is to occur outside the shedding.
Litter Management
17	Litter must be managed to as to prevent litter leaving the site and must be confined entirely within the designated waste storage areas as shown on the endorsed plans.
Limited Use
18	This permit only allows the collection, consolidation, temporary storage of refuse or used materials before transfer for disposal or use elsewhere.
No materials recycling
19	No processing, sorting or stockpiling of refuse is permitted on the subject site in association with the use hereby permitted
EPA
20	The permit holder must ensure that nuisance dust and/or nuisance airborne particles must not be discharged or emitted beyond the boundaries of the premises.
21	Prior to the commencement of use, all access and internal roads must be constructed with a material that prevents dust being generated by vehicles driving on the access and internal roads.
22	Pollution control devices must be installed to prevent the discharge of waste to the environment and stormwater system.
23	The permit holder must ensure that litter originating from the premises is not present beyond the boundaries of the premises.
24	The permit holder must ensure that waste does not burn at the premises.
Permit Expiry

25	This permit will expire if the use hereby permitted is not commenced within two (2) years of the date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within six (6) months of the date of expiry.
Note: Before the use and development authorised under this permit starts, the permit holder must ensure that any obligations or duties that arise under the Environmental Protection Act 1970 are met. This includes compliance with the Waste Management Policy (Combustible Recyclable and Waste Materials) as published in Government Gazette No. S397 on 28 August 2018.
- End of conditions -