VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1587/2020
Permit Application no. 19/0526	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Surf Coast Planning Scheme; Farming Zone; art and craft centre; Torquay-Bellbrae non-urban break; agriculture; tourism; parking and landscape impacts    	

APPLICANT	Clarence (Keith) Grossman	
responsible authority	Surf Coast Shire Council	
SUBJECT LAND	Part 375 Grossmans Rd
BELLBRAE  VIC  3228	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	30 March 2021	
DATE OF ORDER	26 April 2021	
CITATION	Grossman v Surf Coast SC [2021] VCAT 388	

Order

1	Pursuant to section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the review application is amended by changing the description of the land to:
Part 375 Grossmans Road, Bellbrae.
2	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by changing the description of the land to:
Part 375 Grossmans Road, Bellbrae. 
3	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by changing the description of the use and development to:
Use and development of an art and craft centre and a reduction in car parking spaces.
4	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans and report filed with the Tribunal: 
Plans prepared by:		T. Gittings for C. L. Gittings DP AD 1677	
Drawing numbers:	Sheets 1 of 15 to Sheets 15 of 15 inclusive all dated 28/01/2021	
Revised Bushfire Risk Assessment Version 2 prepared on 14 January 2021 by St. Quentin	

5	In application P1587/2020 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
6	In planning permit application 19/0526 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at Part 375 Grossmans Road, Bellbrae in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Use and development of an art and craft centre and a reduction in car parking spaces

Christopher Harty
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Mr David King, Solicitor from Kings Lawyers	
For responsible authority	Mr Ben Schmied, Town Planner	

Information
Description of proposal	Use and development of land at part 375 Grossmans Road, Bellbrae (site) for an art and craft centre comprising 13 buildings of various sizes clustered around a driveway and parking area with a central communal toilet facility and a reduction in the required number of car parking spaces.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Surf Coast Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Farming Zone (FZ)
Part Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 – Aquatic Systems – Significant Wetlands and Waterways (ESO1)
Part Land Subject to Inundation (LSIO)	
Permit requirements	Clause 35.07-1 use of land for an art and craft centre (a use not listed in sections 1 or 3)
Clause 35.07-4 to construct or carry out buildings and works for a permit required use
Clause 52.06- 3 reduction of car parking spaces	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21.01, 21.04, 21.05, 21.06, 35.07, 52.06, 65 and 71.02   	
Land description	The site is addressed as part of 375 Grossmans Road.  This land is irregular but roughly “Y” shaped with an area of 56.12 hectares (which excludes approximately 8.8 hectares associated with a group accommodation and day spa resort complex that occupies a part of the site and is addressed as 50 Ashmore Road).  Primary frontage is Grossmans Road, which forms the northern boundary, but it has a secondary frontage to the south-west end of Ashmore Road with the balance of the lot extending south to Spring Creek.  The site is in the non-urban break between Torquay and Bellbrae, approximately 4.5 kilometres from Torquay to the south-east and 1.5 kilometres from Bellbrae to the south-west.
The site comprises a ‘planning unit’ that is part of 375 Grossmans Road situated towards the centre of the property immediately south and south-west of Ashmore Road with a frontage of approximately 79 metres and an irregular area of 1.1 hectares.  The site has a considerable slope of 3-5 metres from Ashmore Road to the south, steepening towards Spring Creek.  The planning unit is bordered on the east and western sides by mature tree plantations and is predominantly grazing land.
The surrounding area comprises farming land used for grazing with scattered dwellings.  Immediately to the east of the site is an art and craft centre called Ashmore Arts which has a collection of approximately 20 buildings clustered together and leased and used to produce arts and crafts.  To the north of the site further up the slope and fronting Ashmore Road is a group accommodation and day spa facility. 	
Tribunal inspection	13 April 2021 unaccompanied   	

Reasons

What is this proceeding about?
1	Clarence (Keith) Grossman (applicant) seeks to use and develop part of the land described as 375 Grossmans Road with frontage to Ashmore Road, Bellbrae (site) for an art and craft centre and a reduction in the required number of car parking spaces (refer to Figure 1).  

Figure 1: Overall site plan
2	The proposal is to construct 13 differently sized buildings clustered around a looping driveway with provision of 23 car parking spaces (refer to Figure 2).  It is proposed to erect six (6) types of buildings as follows:
1.	One (1) 18 metres x 10 metres shed with attached 18 metres x 4 metres canopy.  It is fully clad in Colorbond with three roller doors accessed under the canopy and three small windows.  It is nominated as having a height of 5.58 metres.
2.	Three (3) 2.4 metres x 2.4 metres sheds to be constructed from a metal container.  They will have an access door and three windows.

Figure 2: Site plan
3.	Three (3) 3.7 metres x 5 metres sheds in weatherboard cladding with a shallow gabled Colorbond roof.  They will have a maximum height of 3.37 metres.  They will have an access door and four windows.
4.	Four (4) 4.9 metres x 6 metres sheds.  Other than being larger and with additional windows, they are the same as type 3 buildings.
5.	A 6.06 metres x 2.43 metres toilet block comprising a flat roofed building of 2.94 metres height containing two accessible toilets.
6.	One (1) 6.18 metres x 10 metres shed identical to the type 1 building with the exclusion of the canopy.
3	It is proposed to provide on-site wastewater treatment. 
4	The permit application described the use as:
A commercial hub for local artists of all genres to work with artist studios to create pieces for private and commercial clients.  Space will be provided for artists for design, sculpture, painting, furniture, pottery, concrete, metal and timber artworks.  Artists will typically occupy a designated studio on-site and up to 25 artists are expected to be on-site at any one time.  Operating hours are expected to be 8am to 8pm Monday to Sunday.
5	Surf Coast Shire Council (Council) determined to refuse the application and the applicant seeks a review of that decision by the Tribunal.
6	Council's grounds for refusing the application generally relate to the proposal being contrary to the purposes of the Farming Zone (FZ) and policies of the Surf Coast Planning Scheme relating to the removal of productive agricultural land, land use conflict and introduction of a new non-agricultural use in a non-urban or green break area.
7	Council was also concerned about a lack of information relating to works required on a sloping site.
8	In contrast, the applicant considers:
•	The proposal has been carefully sited to ensure the least effect on the surrounding farming land with minimal visual impact and no unreasonable amenity impacts on adjoining land.  
•	The proposal has synergies with the existing art and craft centre and other nearby tourism uses and is an acceptable outcome under the Surf Coast Planning Scheme.
What are the key issues?
9	The issues raised within the context of this review relate generally to the proposal's effects on agriculture, diminution of the non-urban break between Torquay and Bellbrae, visual impacts, car parking provision and bushfire risk given the site is located within a designated Bushfire Prone Area.
10	Having heard the submissions, the key issues arising from this proposal are:
•	Is the proposal consistent with the zone, policy and physical contexts?
•	Are visual impacts acceptable?
•	Is a reduction in car parking acceptable?
•	Is there any risk from bushfire?
11	I must decide whether the proposal will produce an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the Surf Coast Planning Scheme.  Net community benefit 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  It also requires a decision maker to prioritise the protection of human life over all other policy considerations.  
12	With this proposed development I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regards to the applicable policies and provisions of the Surf Coast Planning Scheme, I find the proposal represents an acceptable outcome. 
13	I have decided to set aside the decision of Council and direct that a permit be granted in accordance with the conditions set out in Appendix A.  My reasons follow.
Is the proposal consistent with the zone, policy and physical contexts?  
14	The proposed art and craft centre is located towards the central area of the site addressed as 375 Grossmans Road.  It is proposed to occupy an area of approximately 1.1. hectares situated on part of the broader farming property that comprises approximately 56 hectares.  The broader property is currently farmed with wide open steeply sloping paddocks with pockets of vegetation (including tree plantations on either side of the site) and deep drainage lines that all lead down to Spring Creek and its associated valley.
15	Despite this parts of the broader property contain alternate land uses associated with tourism activity such as accommodation and the abutting art and craft centre called Ashmore Arts.  The site is situated in a farming area that forms a non-urban break between Torquay and Bellbrae. 
16	The site is in the Farming Zone (FZ), which seeks to provide for the use of land for agriculture, encourage the retention of productive agricultural land and to ensure that non-agricultural uses do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture.
17	The planning emphasis throughout the Surf Coast Planning Scheme is the protection of agricultural production and rural landscapes with a focus on the ability for agricultural production to continue, unaffected by the introduction of alternate land uses.
18	The Surf Coast Planning Scheme also includes reference to maintaining the non-urban or green break between Torquay and Bellbrae (refer to Figure 3) within which the site is located and to protect the landscape and rural values of Spring Creek beyond the settlement boundary.  
19	Council reiterated the landscape value and sensitivity of the region by referring to the declaration of the Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape (SCDAL) and the draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy (SCSPP), which has been on public exhibition and being considered before the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee.  The protection and enhancement of the valued attributes of identified distinctive areas and landscapes is recognised under Clause 11.03-5S, which amongst other strategies seeks to avoid use and development that could undermine the long-term natural or non-urban use of land in these areas.   

Site

 Figure 3: Map 1 to Clause 21.08 Torquay-Jan Juc Framework Map with site marked
Agriculture
20	Council says the proposal is not consistent with the zone and policy framework relating to agriculture and will be at odds with the physical open farming landscape context of the area between Torquay-Jan Juc and Bellbrae.
21	The applicant says the proposal will result in the loss of 1.1 hectares of farming land out of an approximate farm area of 56 hectares.  The extent of loss is considered small if not imperceptible and would be consistent with other similar land uses in the area.  Notably, the existing Ashmore Arts centre located immediately abutting the site to the east, which Council and the applicant consider has been used as the template for the proposal.  
22	The applicant considers the proposal would be compatible with adjoining agricultural activity on surrounding land and believes the fact that the existing art and craft centre has operated for 15 years without causing any land use conflict is evidence of such land use compatibility.
23	The applicant also considers the proposal will support local tourism by offering support for artists to establish activity in a hub that complements the existing art and craft centre and nearby tourist accommodation and spa resort facilities in Ashmore Road.
24	I note that Council does not consider the proposal a significant tourism use and not one that requires to locate in a rural setting or in association with agriculture or nature-based tourism.  Council considers the eventual use of the proposed buildings is unknown and that the proposal is speculative.
25	I acknowledge that the proposal will result in the removal of land available for agricultural activity and that it is a use that will not have direct links to agriculture.  However, I find the impacts from the extent of removal of agricultural land acceptable having regard to the following:
•	The small area of land that would be directly removed from agricultural production within the context of a much larger farming unit.
•	The physical context of the proposal located abutting a similar land use that appears to have happily co-existed with agricultural activity for many years.  I do not hold the same fears as that of Council that the proposed use will create land use conflict with agricultural production on the surrounding land.
•	The physical context of having tree plantations on both western and eastern borders of the site occupied by the proposal, which assists in both screening the proposed development and providing a sense of separation with the abutting Ashmore Arts complex.
•	The mid-slope position of the proposal which results in no views from Grossmans Road and limited views from Ashmore Road until one arrives at the site.
•	The absence of residential use and accommodation, and hence expectations for amenity to be protected.  It also avoids fragmentation of farming land due to the absence of subdivision as the proposed buildings/sheds are to be leased to local artisans.  In other words, the proposal does not permanently break up the farming unit.     
26	The FZ is a working zone and the proposed art and craft centre will also be a working environment consisting of 13 shed type buildings that will appear as a development similar in form to what is commonly found in farming settings (albeit in a clustered form).  I note that the extent of loss of agricultural land will have minimal impact on the sustainability of the balance of the land to continue to be used for farming purposes.  I accept that the proposal will offer an alternative source for off-farm income, which is many peri-urban areas can assist in supporting on-going farming activity and farm diversification.
27	I support the proposal as it will also consolidate an area for local artists to develop their work and artistic endeavours in a manner that can support tourism in the area.  I find the proposal is not inconsistent with the zone, policy or physical context relating to agriculture in this area.
Non-urban break
28	The non-urban break (often referred to as the green break) is about ensuring that urban land uses do not bleed out from identified settlements and their boundaries.  Ribbon development between townships, particularly close to the coast is well recognised as a significant problem and not good orderly planning.
29	I accept that Council is concerned with the proposal representing another urban use occurring in the non-urban break and compromising its status and function.  The immediate area around the site already contains accommodation, a spa resort, an art and craft centre with a cluster of buildings and workshops and a few dwellings.  Slightly further from the site, are other uses such as caravan storage and earth moving based businesses and further away located on the other side of Grossmans Road are rural residential development, retirement village development and a soil and landscaping supplies operation.  All of this displays an eclectic array of different land uses in the area other than farming.
30	Council is concerned the proposal will be at odds with both current and emerging policy of maintaining the non-urban break.
31	Policies supporting the intent of maintaining the non-urban break relate to protecting rural character and rural landscape values.  Part of this includes protecting and maintaining the open and uncluttered character of rural landscapes including vistas from road corridors such as the Great Ocean Road, which is located to the south of the site and on the other side of the Spring Creek valley.  
32	I accept that there is an emerging set of planning controls and policies that may strengthen landscape protection of rural areas between settlements through the SCDAL and SCSPP.  However, they remain subject to public review and as such have less weight in my considerations.  Despite this I note that much of their intent is about how well change can occur whilst protecting and enhancing significant landscape values and character settings.  This includes how development is responsive to the landscape through siting that includes substantial setbacks, use of existing vegetation and proposed landscaping and built form design and use of materials and colours.  
33	The proposed art and craft centre is located in the central part of the broader farming property.  It will abut an existing art and craft centre upon which the proposal has modelled its design.  The site is distant from areas where it may be visible such as Bellbrae and the Great Ocean Road between Bellbrae and Jan-Juc.  This, together with the presence of the tree plantations along the eastern and western side boundaries and the proposed landscaping across the southern edge of the proposal effectively reduces its visual dominance in this part of the non-urban break.
34	The proposal does not take up a large area of land given the size of the farming unit and will have the synergistic appearance with the existing art and craft centre abutting to the east and the group accommodation and spa resort further upslope to the north.  I do not consider this synergy creates a diminution of the extent of the non-urban break nor contribute to its dismantling.  
35	There is no residential use associated with the proposal and it is a form of development that does not result in fragmentation or breaking up of the ability to continue agricultural production on the balance of the land.  The proposed buildings are similar to rural outbuildings or farm sheds and although clustered will not appear urban in character that one would see with more typical urban built form.  
36	I accept that the proposal is not a use associated with nature-based tourism or agri-tourism activity.  However, I consider it does have some association with tourism on the basis that it provides facilities for local artists which can support planned (via appointment) visitation by the public or as part of a more general art trail type concept.  I do not consider this inconsistent with the policy framework related to the non-urban break between Torquay and Bellbrae.
Are visual impacts acceptable? 
37	To some extent, I have dealt with visual impacts.  I note that Council drew my attention to the proposal creating a cluster of 13 buildings of varying sizes with a combined floor area of 748 square metres and associated accessways and car parking and its visibility from the Great Ocean Road between Bellbrae and Jan-Juc.  
38	Although long distant views will be available from the Great Ocean Road and other properties in the area to the proposal, they also will be unlikely to appear visually prominent.  This is due to the combination of the buildings typically looking like farm structures and stylistically fitting into a rural landscape, the separation distance of the view, their muted tone colour scheme and the proposed landscaping.  My inspections revealed that the location of the proposal is some distance at over 1 kilometre to the north from the Great Ocean Road and although visible, I find the view will not be dominated by the proposal.
39	I also accept that the proposal will unlikely be visible from Grossmans Road due to the slope down from the road and intervening areas of vegetation.    
40	I find the visual impacts of the proposal acceptable.
Is a reduction in car parking acceptable?
41	The proposal has set aside an area within the development for 23 car parking spaces.  Under Clause 52.06 relating to Car Parking, the proposal requires provision of 29 car parking spaces based on a combined floor area of 748 square metres calculated by Council and a requirement for four (4) car parking spaces for every 100 square metres of net floor area.  This generates a shortfall of six (6) car parking spaces.
42	Council considers the site has room to provide for the full requirement of car parking and they should be provided given the location of the site at the dead end of Ashmore Road and the lack of public transport in the area.
43	The applicant considers there is no need to provide for the additional car parking as there is enough space for overflow parking to be provided if required without having to increase the expanse of surfaced area for additional accessways and car parking.
44	Clause 52.06 includes, amongst other purposes, the provision of an appropriate number of car parking spaces having regard to the demand likely to be generated, the activities on the land and the nature of the locality.  I am satisfied that the car parking provided in the proposal is sufficient.  I find the reduction in car parking acceptable.  
45	The proposal is one that could be considered a destination located at the end of a rural road.  The proposal is to operate as a place for artists to manufacture their respective artwork.  Visits by the public are to be managed.  Given the nature of the use and locality, I do not consider a 6 car parking space shortfall will generate a reduction in traffic safety and if additional car parking is required, I am satisfied it can be provided on-site as overflow parking.   
Is there any risk from bushfire?
46	Council was concerned that bushfire risk had not been appropriately considered due to a lack of specified defendable space around the buildings that would provide protection from bushfire.  
47	The site is not affected by the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO).  However, it is located within a Bushfire Prone Area (BPA).  Clause 13.02-1S – Bushfire planning is required to be applied where land is within a designated BPA.
48	The policy requires bushfire risk to be considered for use and development in a BPA where large numbers of people may congregate.  Council considers that the proposal to cater for up to 25 artists and up to 10 patrons at any one time may qualify the proposal as one where large numbers of people may gather.  
49	I note Council recognises that the planning scheme does not provide guidance on what constitutes ‘large numbers’ of people.  However, I do accept that a proposal to introduce a larger number of people to an area that may experience bushfire risk, particularly from grassfires, due to the presence of open pasture and steep slopes, where the speed of such fires can catch people unawares, is a risk that should be carefully considered.
50	I am aware that Clause 71.02 requires me to also prioritise the protection of human life over all other policy considerations in bushfire affected areas.  I also am aware, that the applicant recognises bushfire risk as an issue having regard to the substituted amended Bushfire Risk Assessment report (BRA).
51	The BRA identifies the highest bushfire risk is from the north and west and that the approach of a fire from the south-west or south is unlikely due to the drainage line and dams located on the site to the south-west.  Council considers the drainage line is ephemeral which would not be all that effective in reducing fire risk from the south or south-west where there is a long run of grassland and steep downslope relative to the proposed development.
52	The proposal is to construct the buildings to BAL 12.5 standard.  The BRA identifies that this standard of construction should be supported by 25 metres of defendable space to the west.  The tree plantation to the west is a single row of trees with a managed understorey which the BRA considers can be incorporated as part of any defendable space.  However, the substituted amended plans specify BAL 12.5 without any specification for defendable space.  A 20,000 Litres water supply is also proposed.  Other proposed measures include no welding on days of total fire ban and no public visits on days of forecast severe, extreme, or Code Red fire danger rating.
53	I note the permit application was referred informally to the Country Fire Authority (CFA) who did not object to the permit subject to conditions that included preparation of an emergency management plan.
54	Council considers bushfire risk can be reduced to an acceptable level subject to buildings constructed to a BAL 12.5 standard and provided with defendable space of 25 metres to the south and west and 19 metres to north and east.
55	The applicant says provision of defendable space is not necessary.  They say the site is not affected by the BMO, bushfire risks have been considered in the BRA and the CFA have no concerns regarding bushfire risk.  The applicant considers there is no need to move buildings as no permit is triggered and the Council does not consider bushfire risk is a ground for refusing the proposal.
56	Policy at Clause 13.02-1S is relevant and I note that for areas within the BPA, the risk of bushfire to people and property should be considered and that the implementation of appropriate bushfire protection measures to address the identified bushfire risk should be required.  This includes not only building construction standards, but also defendable space, particularly given the land slope and the threat from fast moving grassfires.
57	I agree in part with Council that defendable space should be provided.  However, given the presence of the development to the east, I am not convinced that this area cannot be managed to reduce bushfire risk.  I consider a defendable space area should be provided to the west and south of 25 metres and 19 metres from the north only.  I do not consider it is necessary to provide an area of defendable space to the east.
58	I will include conditions to support improved protection from bushfire risk including defendable space, which I find will reduce bushfire risk to human life and property to an acceptable level.
What conditions are appropriate?
59	I have had the benefit of a 'without prejudice' discussion of various sets of draft permit conditions circulated by Council and the applicant and their respective inputs.  
60	There is some disagreement between Council and the applicant as to what conditions should be imposed.  I have discussed some of them within my reasons.
61	I have included conditions as appropriate for the proposed use and development and the issues regarding management of the proposal.  I find it appropriate to include a condition controlling the extent of the development in accordance with endorsed plans and I have not included a condition restricting materials used in arts and crafts manufactured to be stored in buildings. 
Conclusion
62	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.    

Christopher Harty
Member			

Appendix A 

Permit Application No:	19/0526	
Land:	Part 375 Grossmans Rd
BELLBRAE  VIC  3228	

What the permit allows	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Use and development of an art and craft centre and a reduction in car parking spaces	

Conditions:
1	Before the use or development 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 VCAT Amended Plans, dated 28 January 2021 but modified to show:
(a)	Widening of Ashmore Road gravel pavement to a minimum width of 5.5 metres from the access to 55 Ashmore to the western access to the site.
(b)	Drainage to divert surface water flows around the wastewater disposal area.
(c)	Potable water supply.
(d)	Electricity supply.
(e)	Defendable space around each proposed building of 25 metres to the west (noting the retention of the tree plantation with managed understorey) and south and 19 metres to the north within the boundaries of the site.
(f)	Relocation of buildings and works where required so that defendable space is provided within the boundaries of the site.
2	Before the use or development starts, a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority 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 be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided.  The landscaping plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan submitted with the application.  The plan must show:
(a)	Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways which shall suit the rural landscape.
(b)	Planting which at maturity will comply with the defendable space requirements of Table 6 of Clause 53.02 of the Surf Coast Planning Scheme.
(c)	Increased tree planting to the south and west of the proposed buildings and works.
All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.  The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
3	Before the use commences an emergency management plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority.  When approved the plan will be endorsed and will form part of the permit.  The plan must:
(a)	Identify risks
(b)	Specify measures to reduce those risks to an acceptable level
(c)	Provide management responses to emergency events
(d)	Specify responsibilities, monitoring and communication channels
(e)	Specify the closure of the facility on days of Severe, Extreme and Code Red Fire Danger Rating days
(f)	Ban welding and grinding activities on days of Total Fire Ban
4	Before any road or drainage works associated with the use and development start, detailed construction 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 include:
(a)	5.5 metre minimum trafficable gravel pavement to Ashmore Road as shown on the endorsed plans.
(b)	Drainage
All works constructed or carried out must be in accordance with those plans.
5	Roadworks shown on the endorsed plans on land owned or managed by the Surf Coast Shire Council must be completed to the satisfaction of Council before the commencement of use at the full cost of the owner or developer of the land.
6	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.
7	The area of use shown on the endorsed plans must not be extended.
8	The use must be conducted to the satisfaction of the responsible authority so that the amenity of the area is not 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;
(c)	Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil;
(d)	Presence of vermin.
9	Before the use starts the area(s) set-aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
(a)	constructed
(b)	properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans
(c)	surfaced with an all-weather seal coat, gravel or crushed rock
(d)	drained
(e)	marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes
(f)	marked to show the direction of travel along access lanes
to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all times.
10	Before the use starts the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.  The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
11	Except with the written consent of the responsible authority the use may operate only between the following hours:
(a)	Monday to Sunday -	8 a.m. to  8 p.m. inclusive
12	A maximum of 25 artists manufacturing arts and crafts may be present on the land at any one time.
13	A maximum of 10 visitors/patrons may be present on the land at any one time.  Visitors/patrons may only attend the site by appointment with an artist manufacturing arts and crafts on the land.
14	The land must not be used for the display of arts and crafts for the purpose of retail sale from the site.  Only arts and crafts manufactured on the land may be displayed on the land.
15	Noise levels emanating from the premises must not exceed the recommended levels as set out in the Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria (NIRV; EPA Publication 1411, 2011) or as amended. 
16	Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of garbage, bottles and solid waste in bins or receptacles to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
17	Waste storage receptacles must be kept covered at all times to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
18	All sewage and sullage waters shall be treated in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection Act 1970, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, the Code of Practice Onsite Wastewater Management (EPA 2013) and the responsible authority.  All effluent shall be disposed of within the curtilage of the land and shall not drain directly or indirectly onto an adjoining property, street or any watercourse or drain.  Sufficient land shall be kept aside and kept available for the purpose of effluent disposal.  The exact type, standard and location are to be established with the responsible authority prior to foundations being laid or when the permit for the septic tank is issued.
19	The fire fighting water supply shown on the endorsed plans must:
(a)	Have a minimum 10,000 litres storage reserved for fire fighting.
(b)	Be stored in an above ground water tank constructed of concrete or metal.
(c)	Be made of corrosive resistant metal for all fixed above-ground water pipes and fittings required for fire fighting purposes. 
(d)	Incorporate a ball or gate valve (British Standard Pipe (BSP) 65mm) and coupling (64 mm CFA 3 thread per inch male fitting). 
(e)	Have the outlet/s of the water tank within 4m of the accessway and be unobstructed. 
(f)	Be readily identifiable from the building/s or appropriate identification signage to the satisfaction of CFA must be provided. 
(g)	Any pipework and fittings must be a minimum of 65 mm (excluding the CFA coupling).
20	Access Roads must:
(a)	Be constructed to a standard so that they are accessible in all weather conditions and capable of accommodating a vehicle of 15 tonnes for the trafficable road width. 
(b)	Have an average grade of no more than 1 in 7 (14.4%) (8.1 degrees) with a maximum of no more than 1 in 5 (20%) (11.3 degrees) for no more than 50 meters. Dips must have no more than a 1 in 8 (12%) (7.1 degree) entry and exit angle. 
(c)	Have curves with a minimum inner radius of 9 metres. 
(d)	Have a minimum trafficable width of 3.5 metres and be clear of encroachments for at least 0.5 metres on each side and 4 metres above the access way. 
21	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.
22	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.
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 -