Cynray Pty Limited v Young Shire Council
[2000] NSWLEC 232
•11/13/2000
Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Cynray Pty Limited v Young Shire Council & Anor [2000] NSWLEC 232 PARTIES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Cynray Pty Limited
Young Shire Council & AnorFILE NUMBER(S): 10600 of 2000 CORAM: Cowdroy J KEY ISSUES: Development :- piggery - designated and integrated development - challenge by objectors to issues of odour and salinity of groundwater - whether development application provided sufficient environmental safeguards - EIS prepared by proponent - challenge by objectors to adequacy of EIS - development approval granted subject to conditions relating to monitoring and reporting. LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
Water Act 1912CASES CITED: Prineas v Forestry Commission of New South Wales (1981-1983) 49 LGRA 402 ;
Schaffer Corporation Limited v Hawkesbury City Council (1992) 77 LGERA 21DATES OF HEARING: 28/8/00, 29/8/00, 30/8/00, 31/8/00, 1/9/00, 12/9/00, 13/9/00 DATE OF JUDGMENT:
11/13/2000LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr A Galasso (Barrister)SOLICITORS
Clayton UtzRESPONDENT
Mr A Bradbury (Solicitor)SOLICITORS
Minter EllisonINTERVENER
SOLICITORS
Mr J Johnson (Barrister)
Wilshire Webb
JUDGMENT:
IN THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALESMATTER No. 10600 of 2000
CORAM: Cowdroy J
DECISION DATE: 13/11/00
Applicant
Respondent
Intervener
Background
1. By development application no 2000/DA-00035 dated 24 February 2000 (“the development application”), Cynray Pty Limited trading as Windridge Pig Farm, sought approval pursuant to the provisions of s 78A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“the EP&A Act”) for the development of an intensive piggery (“the piggery”) on land being Lot 1 in DP 217627, Lot B in DP 372950, and portions 3, 34, part portions 16, 91 and 27 in DP 754581. Such land is located at no 345 Old Forbes Road Kikiamah near Young and is known as Koorani-Bywong (“Koorani”).
2. On 17 May 2000 Young Shire Council (“the council”) pursuant to s 80 of the EP&A Act determined the development application by refusal. The grounds of refusal were stated as follows:-
1.
That odour will affect the surrounding neighbours.
2. That the liquid effluent would cause soil salinity.
3. On 26 June 2000 Cynray Pty Limited (“the applicant”) pursuant to s 97 of the EP&A Act instituted a class one appeal to this Court. As a result the council sought advice from an expert in odour, namely Dr Kerry Holmes and from an expert in groundwater namely Mr Andrew Dawkins. Dr Holmes concluded that odour generated by the piggery would be less than that generated by comparable piggeries. Mr Dawkins considered that the liquid effluent from the piggery would not adversely impact upon the deep ground water system of the area. In view of these opinions council determined that it would consent to the piggery subject to conditions. Such course however is opposed by numerous local residents who describe themselves as the ‘Concerned Neighbours of Koorani Piggery’ (“the objectors”).
The evidence
4. The hearing of this appeal took place in Sydney. Expert evidence was given for the council by Mr Dawkins and Dr Holmes. Evidence was also adduced from Ian Ross Kruger, an expert in the operations of piggeries and from Mr Ian Gibbs Farran, an expert in intensive animal housing, each of whom provided testimony for the applicant. The objectors did not elect to call any expert evidence but the Court heard evidence from several residents namely Mr Harvey Jacka AM, Mr Richard Thackeray and Mr Paul Kavanagh. Statements of other objectors were admitted into evidence, namely that of Brian and Penny Nuthall, a joint statement of Mr Keith Smith, Mrs Gail Smith and Mr Stephen Smith, a joint statement of Mrs P T and J R Taylor, a joint statement of Morris and Judy Webb, a statement of Diana Thackeray and a joint statement of Mathew, Lorretta, William, Erinald and Rachel Cavanagh, a joint statement of Stephen, Felicity, Molly and Ruby Cavanagh, a joint statement of Greg and Ruth Wheatley, a statement of Kylie Fountain and a joint statement of Henry and Annie Nation.
5. A view was held at Koorani and at three existing piggeries known as ‘Wonga’, ‘Templemore’ and ‘Westmill’. Both Wonga and Templemore are owned and operated by the applicant.
The objectors’ submissions
6. The objectors’ concerns relate to the potential odour problems and the risk of salinity to the soil, groundwater and watercourses of the area including Cudgel Creek and Burrangong Creek. The objectors have also questioned the validity of the EIS prepared for the piggery.
7. Mr Harvey Jacka AM provided evidence to the Court relating to the effect of odour which he had experienced from the Templemore piggery. Mr Jacka’s house is located near the Murringo Gap which is 4 to 5 kms west of such piggery and separated therefrom by a range of hills. Despite the distance and the geography, Mr Jacka has noticed frequent odour from Templemore, one episode having persisted for five days. Mr Jacka described the smell as ‘ sweet, cloying and sickening’ and one which acts as an impediment to family life by restricting outdoor activities. Mr Jacka explained that he had refrained from making continual complaints to the owners of Templemore or government authorities to avoid even greater upset and annoyance.
8. Mr Richard Thackeray of ‘Woornack’ lives approximately 4 km from the Westmill piggery. Mr Thackeray has experienced odour problems from Westmill ‘ occasionally ’ namely ‘ once a month’ . Mr Thackeray is anxious to avoid odour from a second piggery impacting upon his property. He was also concerned that heavy rainfall could result in the SEPs and recycle lagoon overflowing, causing pollution to nearby watercourses.
9. Mr Paul Cavanagh of ‘Ashbury’, who holds a Bachelor degree in Science (Agriculture) was concerned that the location of the piggery was too close to the existing Westmill piggery and believed there would be a cumulative odour effect. He considered the proposed buffer zones were inadequate and also believed that the topography would be insufficient to ameliorate odour emanating from the piggery. Mr Cavanagh was also concerned that there might be the risk of pollution to the local waterways and of potential noise which might be generated by the piggery.
10. The evidence of other objectors went to similar issues as those raised by Mr Jacka, Mr Thackeray and Mr Cavanagh. Other objectors were concerned that unpleasant odour from the existing piggeries might be exacerbated by the addition of a further piggery. The concern was also expressed that the use of liquid effluent for irrigation at Koorani could cause soil salinity.
The legislation
11. Pursuant to s 78A of the EP&A Act the development application constitutes integrated development as defined in s 91 of such Act. The piggery is also designated development pursuant to Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994 (“the EP&A Regulation”). In support of the development application an environmental impact statement (“the EIS”) describing the piggery was provided to the council and the Environment Protection Authority (“the EPA”).
12. Koorani is subject to the provisions of the Young Local Environmental Rural Plan 1993 (“the LEP”) and is zoned 1(a)1-General Rural. Within such zone the piggery requires development consent from a consent authority, namely the council. Part 1, cl 2 of the LEP states the aims and objectives of the plan. The piggery is consistent with the aims and objectives thereof.
13. The piggery requires a licence pursuant to s 55 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 from the EPA as the activities of the piggery are defined as ‘livestock intensive industry’ within Schedule 3 to the EP&A Regulation. Pursuant to s 116 of the Water Act 1912 a licence is also required for the piggery from the Department of Land and Water Resources (“DLWC”) to increase the volume of bore water required.
14. In determining a development application the Court is required to take into account the matters itemised in s 79C(1) of the EP&A Act.
Infrastructure of piggery
15. The development application proposes accommodation for 10760 pig units or a 9,600 place, grower only piggery. Pigs are to be bred at the nearby Wonga piggery which is owned by the applicant and then transferred to Koorani. The piggery would consist of thirteen sheds and associated facilities. Weaner pigs at age three and a half weeks would be accommodated in four straw-based sheds known as ‘eco-shelters’. The eco-shelters are open on three sides, have simple drainage and concrete floors. After seven weeks the pigs would then be removed to one of four ‘grower’ straw based sheds also of eco-shelter design. After seven weeks the pigs would be moved into one of five conventional sheds which would have slated floors, blinds and trenches under floor level for flushing operations.
16. The use of eco-shelters is considered by the applicant’s experts to be among the best available practices for handling waste management and animal health. The eco-shelter design also provides exposure to sunlight and fresh air which will assist in minimising the impact of odour. It is intended that the used straw from the eco-shelters would be removed and replaced with each batch of pigs.
17. The flushing system under the conventional sheds and the eco-shelters are proposed to be connected to a pond system known as a Sedimentation and Evaporation Pond Systems (“SEPs”). The liquid effluent from the SEPs then passes to a recycle lagoon. A SEP is described in the EIS as a ‘a long shallow bay much like a contour bank - designed to maximise evaporation’ . Two SEPs are proposed. Each SEP would receive effluent for one year and would then be dried during the summer months. Whilst one SEP is drying, the other SEP would be utilised. Liquid from the recycle lagoon is then used to flush the sheds. Excess recycled liquid will be used to irrigate crops or pastures on Koorani. A rotational system for irrigation would be implemented over the whole area of Koorani. Solid waste removed from the SEPs and used straw from the sheds are to be applied to farming and grazing land on Koorani or sold as organic fertiliser.
Environmental Impact Assessment
(a) Challenge to the environmental impact statement (“EIS”)
18. The applicant prepared an EIS in February 2000. Its author, Ms Sally Walker is shown in other documents to be one of the proponents for the development. Ms Walker holds a Bachelor of Economics (Hons). Attached to the EIS is a statement certifying that the author had prepared the contents which to the best of her knowledge complying with cl 54A and cl 55 of the EP&A Regulation.
19. The EIS contains substantial narrative and attachments including inter alia, maps, diagrams of the proposed development, estimates of the volume of waste to be produced, piggery performance data, piggery lagoon dimensions and data, pig water consumption, piggery water usage, piggery feed usage data, nutrient mass balance, standard pig unit calculations, calculation of buffer distances. Also attached are bore water tests performed on 29 June 1995 and soil tests. Attachment 7 of the EIS is the C M Jewell Associates Pty Limited (“the Jewell Report”) a hydrological report performed on 5 February 1994. An undated soil report of David E Zinger is attached together with meteorological data which includes wind records from 1965 to 1991 and evaporation calculations ending in 1990. A noise impact assessment prepared in 1993 is attached together with minutes of a Planning Focus Meeting held on 30 November 1999.
20. The EPA reviewed the EIS and sought additional information from the respondent relating to odour assessment and groundwater monitoring. The EPA made no other observations concerning the adequacy of the EIS. Subsequent to the receipt of additional information on odour and groundwater monitoring, the EPA issued General Terms of Approval for the piggery by letter dated 5 May 2000.
Requirements of an EIS
21. In Schaffer Corporation Limited v Hawkesbury City Council (1992) 77 LGERA 21 Pearlman J at 31 considered the statutory requirements for a valid environmental impact statement and concluded, inter alia, that such statement, ‘ must be sufficiently specific to direct a reasonably intelligent and informed mind to the possible environmental consequences of the proposed development .’
22. The purpose of an environmental impact statement was stated by Cripps J in Prineas v Forestry Commission of New South Wales (1981-1983) 49 LGRA 402 at 417 where his Honour said:-
An environmental impact statement is to a decision-making end in itself - it is a means to a decision-making end. Its purpose is to assist the decision-maker.Clearly enough the legislature wished to eliminate the possibility of a superficial, subjective or non-informative environmental impact statement and any statement meeting that description would not comply with the provisions of the Act, with the result that any final decision would be a nullity. But, in my opinion, provided an environmental impact statement is comprehensive in its treatment of the subject matter, objective in its approach and meets the requirement that it alerts the decision-maker and members of the public and the Department of Environment and Planning to the effect of the activity on the environment and the consequences to the community inherent in the imposed by the regulations. The fact that the environmental impact statement does not cover every topic and explore every avenue advocated by experts does not necessarily invalidate it or require a finding that it does not substantially comply with the statute and the regulations. In matters of scientific assessment it must be doubtful whether an environmental impact statement, as a matter of practical reality, would ever address every aspect of the problem. There will be always some expert prepared to deny adequacy of treatment to it and to point to its shortcomings or deficiencies.
Adequacy of EIS
23. The objectors submit that the EIS was inadequate in that the true potential environmental impacts of the piggery were not identified. The issues raised by the objectors in support of their submission were namely:-
1) The conclusions of the EIS upon scientific issues have no weight since its author is neither qualified nor impartial.
2) The EIS was prepared for a different development application than that presently before the Court. The objectors point to the fact that the Jewell Report was prepared on 15 February 1994.
3) The EIS failed to include a consideration of the EPA’s ‘ Draft Environmental Guidelines for the Utilisation of Treated Effluent by Irrigation (1995)’ (“the Guideline”).
4) The EIS failed to comply with the key factors of assessment as identified in the Guideline, namely factors of alternative use for liquid effluent and the recommendation against using effluent containing more than 2500 mg/L total dissolved solids (“TDS”) for irrigation.
5) There was no assessment of the concentration of TDS, sodium chloride and the various nutrients in the effluent. Nitrogen levels in the straw manure from the weaner and grower sheds was underestimated in the EIS by 7,000 kg/annum.
6) The EIS contained a misleading statement wherein it referred to the fact that almost all of the nutrients produced from the operations of the piggery would be applied to the land at Koorani as solids.
7) The EIS under-estimated the capacity required for the recycle lagoon.
Issue 1: Unqualified author of EIS
24. In response to the objectors submission that the EIS was not independent nor the author qualified, the EPA responded by stating:-
The author has suitable tertiary qualifications and experience in the industry.
25. Whilst there is evidence that the author holds the degree of Bachelor of Economics, there is no evidence, at least before the Court, of the experience of the author in the piggery industry. The Court is accordingly not aware whether the EPA held additional information from that presently available to the Court which would have enabled it to give such response.
26. Section 78A(8) of the EP&A Act relevantly provides:-
A development application must be accompanied by:-
(a) If the application is in respect of designated development - an Environmental Impact Statement prepared by or on behalf of the applicant in the form prescribed by the Regulations or
(b) (not relevant)
27. Regulation 54A of the EP&A Regulation deals with the content of an environmental impact statement and reg 55 thereof provides that the applicant is required to consult with the Director of Planning concerning the form and content of the EIS. The EP&A Regulation does not require the proponent to have any special qualifications or training for the purposes of such task. Nor is there any regulatory prohibition upon an author of an EIS having a vested interest in the success of the development to which the EIS relates. The fact that the proponent of the development can also be the author of the environmental impact statement prepared in support thereof may inherently lead to the apprehension of a lack of objectivity on behalf of its author. It is also a matter of concern that such a document, involving matters requiring scientific analysis, can lawfully be prepared by any person having no demonstrated skill, academic qualifications or experience. Nevertheless the EIS complied with the statutory requirements of the EP&A Regulation, therefore the scientific conclusions of the EIS are not invalidated as a result of Ms Walker’s authorship.
Issue 2: EIS allegedly prepared for a different development
28. The Court finds that there is no evidence to support the submission that the EIS was prepared for a different development. Although some of the reports incorporated in the EIS were prepared several years ago, they relate to Koorani and to the hydrological conditions thereof. In the absence of any evidence that such conditions have altered since their preparation of the reports, the Court accepts that the reports relate to the piggery.
Issue 3, 4 & 5: Accuracy of information in EIS
29. With respect to the objectors submissions concerning effluent irrigation Mr Dawkins referred to the EPA’s published draft Guideline (as defined in paragraph 23 of this judgment). Such Guideline relates inter alia to recommended concentrations of TDS in liquid used for irrigation as follows:-
Under normal circumstances, it is not advisable to use effluent containing more than 2,500 mg/L of TDS for irrigation.
30. Based upon the data contained in the EIS the Koorani west-well contains a salt concentration of approximately 2,100 mg/L. Since the concentration of nitrogen in the effluent would equate to 2,000 mg/L, the concentration of phosphorous is 586 mg/L, the concentration of potassium is 733 kg/L, and the concentration of sodium chloride is 1106 mg/L, the concentration of TDS in the liquid effluent is estimated to be 6,525 mg/L (see transcript of hearing, Tuesday 29 August 2000 at page 97). Mr Dawkins agreed that increased salinity would result if irrigation using such excessive concentrations of TDS took place.
31. Whilst the Guideline applies to the use of rural and industrial effluent by irrigation, the applicant submits that the Guideline has no application to the piggery operations because of the very low rate and frequency of such application namely 12 mm or 15 mm per pass per annum.
32. Having considered the evidence of each expert, the Court finds that the proposal to apply liquid effluent in the manner and quantity envisaged does not amount to ‘irrigation’ as contemplated by the Guideline. The Court accepts the opinion of the applicant’s experts that the term ‘irrigation’ in the Guideline envisages the regular application of liquid effluent by irrigation. The application of liquid effluent on Koorani as proposed would be infrequent and at a low rate. The once per year spray pass of 12mm to 15 mm on the lands at Koorani would not constitute ‘irrigation’ as the term is used in the Guideline.
Issue 6: Was the EPA misled?
33. The objectors submit that the EPA was not alerted to the disposal of effluent by irrigation because the EIS implied that all the waste-product would be applied to the land at Koorani as solids. The EIS states:-
If there is an excess of recycle liquid, irrigation will be carried out on crop or pastures on Koorani.
And also:-
Almost all the nutrients from the piggery will be applied as solids…
34. This submission ignores the fact that the EIS states (see page 12 thereof) that waste produced ‘ will be in a number of different forms’ and identifies the waste as solids, recycle liquid and waste straw. The proposal to irrigate using excess liquid effluent was discussed in several other pages in the EIS. Accordingly when the whole text of the EIS is considered rather than the above isolated statements, the irrigation process as a mode of effluent disposal is clearly addressed.
35. There is no evidence that the EPA was misled in any way by the EIS and the correspondence from the EPA received during the hearing confirms that the EPA is not concerned by the proposal to dispose of liquid effluent. In these circumstances, this ground of challenge fails.
Issue 7: Capacity of recycle lagoon
36. The EIS nominated a storage capacity of 7 ML for the recycle lagoon. Due to the omission of a further 3.5 ML of liquid effluent from the piggery, the applicant has since proposed a storage capacity for the lagoon of 10 ML. Such figure was suggested by Mr Farran. During the course of cross-examination Mr Farran acknowledged that in calculating the 10 ML capacity of the lagoon he had made no allowence for an additional 4.2 ML of rainfall run-off. Mr Farran agreed that it was appropriate that ‘ a couple of megs ’ should further be added to the proposed 10ML capacity of the lagoon (see transcript of hearing, Friday 1 September 2000 at page 414).
37. The Court considers that a precautionary approach should be adopted. Accordingly the freeboard should be provided to deal with emergency flows in addition to the regular one in ten year rainfall design parameter. The Court accepts that the capacity of the recycle lagoon should be 12 ML with 1.5 m freeboard.
Summary of findings on EIS
38. Although the Court has determined that errors exist in the EIS, adopting the words of Cripps J in Prineas v Forestry Commission of New South Wales at 417 the Court is satisfied that the EIS addresses the critical environmental impacts of the piggery namely; odour, salinity and waste disposal.
(b) Risk of increased salinity
39. Mr Andrew Dawkins, hydrologist, has undertaken a study of the proposed piggery and has considered the groundwater study ‘Koorani/Bywong Hydrological Study’ prepared by C M Jewell Pty Limited. Mr Dawkins expressed a view that the calculations used in the EIS had underestimated the impact of the soil salinity from the liquid effluent proposed for irrigation on Koorani. Mr Dawkins noted that the EIS supplied no information in relation to the potential effects of waste water applied to Koorani on the soil and shallow groundwater. Mr Dawkins also observed that the EIS contained no explanation for the fact that the SEPs and recycle lagoon were considered to have a very low permeability whilst the paddocks were considered to have low run-off due to moderate permeability.
40. Mr Dawkins considered the impact of the piggery upon surface water and shallow groundwater in the area and stated in his principal report:-
Waste water and solid effluent disposal could have a potential adverse or unacceptable impact on the shallow groundwater alluvial system due to poor management of effluent and wastewater application to the paddocks. Surface water may be in direct connection with the shallow groundwater system, and they may be assessed as one entity, particularly in the lower slopes near the creek. It is possible that the shallow groundwater system water levels may be raised by waste water application, however this may not be adverse or significant if soil salinisation or water logging do not occur.
41. As to bedrock groundwater, with the qualification that his opinion was given on the basis of the information supplied, Mr Dawkins said:-
…it is anticipated that the proposal would not have an adverse or unacceptable impact on the fractured granodiorite bedrock aquifer. It is not likely that the bedrock groundwater, nutrient or salt levels will be significantly adversely raised by waste water application.
42. Mr Dawkins conclusions as contained in his principal report are summarised as follows:-
It is anticipated that adverse impacts will not occur on the deep groundwater system.
It is recommended that at least one years data is collected monthly for shallow and deep groundwater levels as well as creek flows. Quarterly monitoring of deep and shallow groundwater and surface water quality is required to enable a “baseline” database to be developed which accounts for seasonal variability of the measured variables.Adverse effects are possible on the surface water and shallow groundwater system if the policies, procedures and strategies are not adhered to as outlined in the EIS and by the EPA/DLWC.
43. Mr Dawkins was extensively cross-examined by counsel for the objectors. Mr Dawkins agreed that there would be concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and sodium chloride in the waste water amounting to 4,425 mg/L and that because water used in the piggery would be bore water already containing 2,100 mg/L of salt, the concentration of all salts would total 6,525 mg/L. As a result the liquid effluent would contain a TDS content which exceeded the maximum 2,500 mg/L concentration of TDS for ‘irrigation’ of effluent recommended in the EPA’s published Guideline as referred to in paragraph 23. Mr Dawkins said that numerous factors required consideration before he could conclude that the application of such liquid upon Koorani would have any impact upon the salinity of the groundwater. Such factors included rainfall, types of crops grown, concentration of nutrients applied to Koorani and existing salinity of soil. Mr Dawkins further acknowledged that when the average annual rainfall of 650 mm per annum at Koorani was considered, a spray pass of 12 mm over such land represented a very small percentage of additional moisture.
44. Mr Dawkins drew attention to the fact that there were no EPA approved ‘trigger levels’ prescribed in the EIS to monitor the shallow groundwater or surface water system. Such levels would determine if additional monitoring or further adjustment of the effluent disposal system was necessary. In relation to groundwater monitoring Mr Dawkins recommended that piezometers be installed at numerous locations as a means of monitoring any change caused by the application of water as proposed at Koorani.
45. Since Mr Dawkins had not visited Koorani he did not know the watershed nor of the exact location of the piggery or recycling pond. Accordingly Mr Dawkins was unable to provide any evidence concerning the possible effect that the liquid effluent may have either upon Cudgel Creek which lies to the south of the piggery, nor of Burrangong Creek to the north of the piggery.
(c) Impact of odour
46. Dr Kerry Holmes, a scientist with experience in the matter of odour provided oral evidence and a written report to the Court. Dr Holmes had visited the proposed site of piggery and was aware of the specific proposals for the operation of the piggery including the provision of eco-shelters, conventional sheds, the removal of liquid effluent to the SEPs and the recycling lagoon. Dr Holmes had also visited the piggery known as Westmill which lies to the north-west of Koorani and inspected a large evaporation pond of a similar concept to the SEPs and recycle lagoon proposed for the piggery.
47. Dr Holmes gave evidence that odour from piggeries was generated through decomposition of wastes. Odour reduction could be achieved by preventing or minimising anaerobic activity. Dr Holmes explained that the use of substantial quantities of straw in the sheds would promote aerobic activity of the pig wastes and that the SEP system would ensure maximum exposure of such wastes to the atmosphere thereby reducing odour. The design of the deep anaerobic ponds as used in conventional piggeries encouraged bacteria because of reduced exposure to sunlight and air. Such ponds were known to be a common source of odour.
48. Dr Holmes maintained that the testing of odour was very subjective and that no objective test existed. Guidelines for odour control existed in South Australia entitled ‘ Guidelines for Establishment of Intensive Piggeries in South Australia’ . Such guideline (“the Odour Guideline”) utilised buffer zones to reduce the impact of odour from the various sections of a piggery. Dr Holmes made an odour assessment of the piggery using the Odour Guideline. A Tier 1 assessment, takes into account the specific features of a site such as separation distances and site-specific factors including topography, vegetation and receptor types but does not include any dispersion modelling to predict odour levels. Tier 2 assessment comprises simple modelling of emission rates representative of a site, together with meteorological data. A Tier 3 assessment involves detailed modelling incorporating a specific study of the site together with representative meteorological data and odour emission rates measured at the site. Substantial buffers were proposed for the piggery therefore Dr Holmes assessed the piggery pursuant to Tier 1 of the Odour Guideline.
49. Dr Holmes considered the meteorological factors in relation to Koorani and found that there was no high frequency of directional wind which would adversely impact upon the effectiveness of the buffer zones. Taking into account various other factors including topography and the width of buffer zones Dr Holmes concluded that there would be no cumulative impact of odour from the piggery with existing piggeries in the area. Dr Holmes acknowledged that whilst some odour would be generated from the piggery it would be acceptable and should not cause a problem for the nearby residents.
50. Dr Holmes concluded in her written report:-
On the basis of this review and further assessment the following conclusions have been reached:
The assessment of odour in the EIS is considered to be appropriate.
The proposed piggery falls within the buffer distances indicated in the SA [South Australian] Guidelines.
There is unlikely to be any significant cumulative effect from the proposed piggery and the existing piggeries.This does not mean that there will be no detectable odour beyond the boundaries of the properties. It is very likely that there will be, at times, some odour detected at the nearest residences. None of the existing guidelines in Australia for intensive agriculture preclude occasions of detectable odour at nearby residences.
It is therefore important that operations such as this have in place management practices which provide an appropriate level of mitigation against unacceptable odour impacts. For this operation the following conditions are recommended.
Separation distances between land disposal areas and nearby residences should be increased and should provide an additional margin over the buffer distances calculated according to the Guidelines. An additional 100 metres is recommended in the first instance for the separation between land disposal and the nearest residence. This should be reviewed after one year and increased or decreased subject to negotiation with the occupants of the nearest residence.
In summary, all available evidence indicates that the site is suitable for the proposal and while there is likely to be detectable odour from time to time, this can be kept to a reasonable minimum by the management practices proposed at the site.An on-site meteorological station should be installed which provides continuous measurements of wind speed and wind direction. This will provide additional information about the dispersion meteorology of the site as well provide information on direction of air flows if any odour events are reported by neighbouring residences.
(d) Impact of operation of piggery
51. Mr Ian Ross Kruger provided evidence on behalf of the applicant. Mr Kruger holds various academic qualifications including a Bachelor of Engineering (Agricultural). He has worked in senior positions in the New South Wales Department of Agriculture and in the South Australian Department of Agriculture. He has had extensive experience in the establishment and maintenance of piggeries.
52. Mr Kruger visited Koorani and has considered the details of the proposed piggery. In his opinion the use of straw based eco-shelters combined with the SEP system represents the most modern and acceptable method of intensive pig farming. The straw based eco-shelters would provide a re-usable and organic fertilised by-product which is safer to transport and apply than the liquid effluent drained from conventional sheds.
53. Mr Kruger made the following observation in relation to odour:-
When allowance is made for the potential of 20-25% odour reduction due to the litter based sheds, the possibility for odour impacts on the neighbouring properties is, in my opinion, negligible.In my opinion there is little or no likelihood of odour impact on surrounding residences. There is at least one hill separating most neighbours from the piggery site. Drainage flow of odour along the gully heading north may occur under cool, stable conditions. ‘Gary Park’ is the only resident that could possibly be affected by drainage flow of odour, according to the topography of the area, but it is approximately 2.5 kilometres away which is significantly greater than most conservative calculations of separation distances.
54. As to cropping management, Mr Kruger had conferred with the Regional Manager of the Department of Land and Water Conservation at Young concerning the risk of increased soil salinity. Mr Kruger said:-
Furthermore it is difficult to see how the proposed development would significantly add to any regional salinity.In my opinion, based on the agronomic reuse of effluent and solids, combined with off-site sale of any excess, as outlined in the development application and the EIS, and safeguarded by environmental monitoring as suggested by EPA and DLWC in their General Terms of Approval, this site will have no more potential to pollute surface or groundwaters than surrounding farming practices.
55. Mr Kruger was extensively cross-examined by counsel for the objectors. Mr Kruger confirmed the evidence of Mr Dawkins namely that the application of waste-water to Koorani containing TDS of 6,500 mg/L would not have a deleterious effect upon crops if applied at the low rate proposed by the applicant. In Mr Kruger’s opinion, a spray pass of 15 mm of waste water would not result in saturation and was not environmentally harmful. The EIS had proposed a spray pass of 12 mm. Mr Kruger disagreed with the suggestion that the disposal of waste straw on the bund between the SEPs would cause any harmful effects. Mr Kruger also agreed with the evidence of Dr Holmes that the SEP system would minimise the problem of odour.
56. Mr Kruger was the joint author of a publication entitled ‘ Australian Pig Housing Series - Effluent at Work’ . Various statements and conclusions therein concerning effluent analyses were put to him in cross-examination that were inconsistent with several statements given by him during his evidence. Mr Kruger provided explanations for such inconsistencies and maintained his opinion that the piggery was a sound and desirable proposal. Mr Kruger emphasised that strict adherence to sound management practices in the operation of the piggery was of the utmost importance.
57. Mr Ian Gibbs Farran, an expert in intensive animal housing testified for the applicant. Mr Farran holds a Masters of Engineering Science and Bachelor of Engineering (Agriculture) as well as various diplomas. Mr Farran reviewed the waste management systems and odour management proposals of the piggery. He referred to the publication ‘ Assessment and Management of Odour from Stationary Sources in NSW’ (the “Discussion Paper”) released by the EPA in March 1999 which substantially adopts the South Australian Guidelines referred to by Dr Holmes (“the Odour Guideline”). In accordance with the suggestion of the EPA, the Discussion Paper was considered by Mr Farran in his assessment of the piggery.
58. Mr Farran undertook numerous calculations in respect of odour impact and concluded that because of the buffer distances the piggery met with the separation criteria for neighbouring residences required by the most conservative application of the Tier 1 assessment for odour.
59. Mr Farran said that a distance of 1519 m between a piggery of conventional design and neighbouring residence is prescribed by the Tier 1 assessment as the most conservative separation distance. On this criteria the separation distances from the Koorani piggery to the neighbouring residences are significantly more than such requirement except for the Knhill property. In addition the different design of the piggery compared to a conventional design should further reduce the impact of odour.
60. Mr Farran provided the following evidence relating to odour in general:-
It is clear from the assessments of the odour impact against the Tier 1 approach in sections 7.3 to 7.8 above, that, except in relation to waste disposal, the proposed development provides significantly greater separation distances than those required by the Discussion Paper, even on a very conservative assessment. In relation to waste disposal, the required separation distances will be met by the applicant. I therefore consider that odour modelling is not warranted on the basis of the assessment procedures required by the EPA. It is important to note that the EPA has assessed the EIS for the proposal and, after requesting further information on the slopes or land profiles between piggery and sensitive receptors which I considered in the above assessment, has approved the development by issuing General Terms of Approval.
61. In his report in reply dated 23 August 2000 Mr Farran expressed his opinion that the recommended buffer distances contained in the Discussion Paper should be regarded as the maximum buffer distances for odour assessment unless there were mitigating factors. In relation to the piggery at Koorani he saw no reason for an increase in the EPA recommended separation distance .
62. Mr Farran discussed the issue of soil in relation to the piggery. He gave the following evidence:-
In my opinion, any salinity caused by the proposed development can be satisfactorily managed. In particular, the below root zone monitoring will provide early warning of any significant leaching of nutrients. This will allow for variations to application rates to be made if necessary. At the loading rates of sodium chloride determined over a 7 year rotation and with considerable hay production on this property to remove or distribute the added salt, the loading rates are within acceptable limits and will not cause any significant impact.
63. Mr Farran observed that the irrigation of liquid effluent would be rotational. He said:-
It is also important to note that waste disposal to the paddocks will be on a rotational basis. That is, only some of the paddocks will be used for each application. Therefore, in the first year of operations waste disposal may not be carried out within much more than even 400 metres of the nearest neighbouring residence.
64. Mr Farran did not agree with Mr Dawkins’ recommendation for monthly monitoring of deep and shallow groundwater in the first year of operations. Mr Farran considered that quarterly monitoring as required by the EPA was adequate and that once sufficient data had been obtained, the frequency of monitoring could be reduced. Mr Farran said:-
The main issue raised by Mr Dawkins appears to be nutrient and salt loads for the waste disposal to paddocks. This has been addressed in section 8 of my initial report in these proceedings (pages 24-27).
The disposal of liquid and solid wastes to the land as proposed in the EIS is a relatively non-intensive activity. In relation to liquid wastes, Appendix 3 of my initial report contains a moisture budget for the land associated with the proposed development, which shows that for the months of November to April, when most waste disposal would occur, there is a moisture deficit in an average year of 229 mm. This means that plants should absorb liquid wastes applied at a rate of 12-15 mm to the land during this time by evapotranspiration. This application rate of liquid wastes means that the total available land on the property for irrigation purposes will not have been fully utilised until after a period of 7 to 10 years. In relation to the disposal of solid wastes, this will generally occur once a year for any particular paddock or piece of land with manure and straw from the straw based sheds. As described in the EIS, there will be no over-application of wastes to the land as any excess will be sold for use off site.
It is also noted that the proposed development provides a separation distance of 100 metres from waste disposal to the nearest watercourse (see pages 22-23 of my initial report). This is a conservative separation distance and is far greater than that required for the use of inorganic fertilisers on neighbouring properties, or any requirement to fence water courses to exclude stock from defecating into the water course (which is common practice). The proposed development therefore adopts a more conservative approach to protection of water courses than most surrounding agricultural practices.…
65. Mr Farran summarised his conclusions in his principal report dated 9 August 2000 as follows:-
·
The EIS provides sufficient information on which an assessment of the proposal can be made.
· The assessment of the proposal against the proposed EPA system for “Assessment and Management of Odour from Stationary Sources in NSW” shows that on a very conservative assessment the proposal satisfies the Tier 1 criteria for separation distances. The NSW EPA has also come to this conclusion and issued General Terms of Approval. The potential for odour impacts from the proposed development is therefore low.
· In my opinion, any sodium chloride produced from the proposed development is within acceptable limits and will not result in any increased risk of salinity, and no more than that caused by other agricultural activities. In any event, the location of the proposed development in relation to the nearest water course and the depth of the water table means that the risk of impacts by sodium chloride on surface waters (by runoff) or groundwaters, respectively, is low.
· From my experience in the Australian pig industry and my assessment of this application, it is my view that the proposed piggery development on this site can be operated and managed without creating environmental impacts, provided that appropriate management plans with monitoring requirements are implemented, reviewed annually and improved on. In my opinion, this recommendation has already been addressed in the General Terms of Approval issued by the EPA and Department of Land and Water Conservation.
Summary of findings on environmental issues
66. The critical matters of concern have been identified in these proceedings as the potential impact of unpleasant odour which might be generated by the piggery and the risk of liquid effluent from the piggery causing an increase in soil salinity. The Court finds as follows:-
a) Odour
67. The evidence adduced by the council and the applicant establishes that there are several design features and management techniques that will ameliorate the impact of odour to a ‘negligible’ level for the nearby residents.
68. The applicant satisfies the Tier 1 buffer distances prescribed in the Discussion Paper and the Odour Guideline by the provision of significantly greater separation distances than those required. According to Dr Holmes a Tier 1 assessment is regarded as the most conservative assessment and if a development passes the test for Tier 1, then no further margin is required.
69. Furthermore the applicant’s expert, Mr Farran emphasised the fact that 45% of the pigs are to be housed on straw based eco-shelters and according to Mr Dawkins such facility is likely to reduce the impact of odour by 20-25% compared with a conventional shed system. The applicant also proposes that the conventional sheds are to be ventilated with fully slatted floors. Such design features are expected to significantly reduce the impact of odour.
70. The applicant also proposes to use a SEP system facilitating aerobic activity. This system is expected to result in a diminution of odour when compared to traditional anaerobic ponds system. Whilst some odour will be generated it will be less than that suffered by the residents from existing piggeries. According to the expert evidence any such odour should be negligible. Mr Kruger said in his report dated 22 August 2000, ‘ the [odour] predictions made by the residents in this case will not be experienced in fact’ .
b) Salinity
71. No expert has testified that salinity in groundwaters will increase significantly as a consequence of the operations of the piggery. Mr Dawkins considered that the management procedures of the piggery would be vital in determining whether in fact there was any adverse impact upon salinity loads, soil, surface water and vegetation. It was further acknowledged by the experts that monitoring can be undertaken by the provision of piezometers in several locations, and the data collected could be incorporated in the reporting requirements for the piggery.
72. Mr Dawkins expressed the opinion that the relevant government authorities who had been consulted in relation to the piggery, namely the EPA and DLWC should be notified of the re-evaluated figures for TDS in the waste water. Such figures had been calculated during the hearing of these proceedings. Both the EPA and DLWC were provided with the re-evaluated TDS figures during the course of these proceedings and despite such additional information neither authority has expressed any concern that the operations of the piggery might lead to an unacceptable increase in salinity levels.
73. Accordingly the Court determines that the risk of soil salinity posed by the piggery can be adequately addressed by requiring the applicant to undertake monitoring as recommended by Mr Dawkins and Appendix D of the Jewell Report.
Summary
74. The Court has determined that there will be no serious risk of harm to the environment if consent with conditions is granted to the piggery. Expert evidence was adduced by the applicant and council however no expert evidence was adduced by the objectors to challenge the development application. Accordingly the Court accepts the expert evidence as supplemented during the Court hearing.
75. The council provided the Court with a set of draft conditions for the piggery. The evidence and contribution from the objectors has enabled the Court to formulate additional conditions and vary some of the draft conditions to further minimise the risk of adverse environmental impacts relating to odour and salinity.
76. The Court considers that any nearby residents should have a practical means of communicating with the piggery should there be any episode of odour. The Court will include a condition enabling notification of odour direct to the piggery. The conditions will also make provision for monitoring and an annual report detailing such monitoring and actions thereon. Such conditions should thereby make it possible for the appropriate authorities to ensure unacceptable environmental impacts are avoided.
Orders and conditions
77. The court will make the orders sought by the applicant and council and grant approval to the development subject to the conditions annexed hereto.
78. The Court orders that:-
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. Development consent be granted for the construction and operation of a 9600 head intensive grower piggery on the property known as Koorani being lot 1 DP 217627 lot B DP 372950 and portions 3, 34, and part portions16, 91 and 27 Parish of Burramunda subject to the conditions set out in Annexure 'A'.
3. Leave be granted to the parties to apply in respect of the interpretation or application of the conditions in Annexure ‘A’.
4. Costs reserved.
5. The exhibits be returned.
Annexure A
GENERAL
1. The applicant shall carry out the proposal, and works shall be undertaken, in accordance with the information supplied to Council, the Environment Protection Authority and the Department of Land and Water Conservation, detailed as follows:-
a) The development application 2000/DA-00035, dated 24th February 2000, submitted to Young Shire Council on 29 February, 2000 as amended by the following plans: Plan no. 1410 - amended project layout, plan no. 1411 - amended details of grower building and the amended stormwater and effluent plan dated 19 July 2000 as submitted by the applicant on 4 August 2000;
b) The environmental impact statement accompanying the development application, entitled Koorani Piggery Proposal Environmental Impact Statement, dated February 2000 as supplemented by the evidence adduced during the hearing of these proceedings;
c) The additional documents relating to the development (34 pages), submitted to Young Shire Council on 23rd March 2000, dated 23rd March 2000;
Unless otherwise specified in the General Terms of Approval issued by the Environment Protection Authority and the Department of Land and Water Conservation, or by the conditions of this consent.
2. The use not commencing until such time as ALL the requirements of the conditions of this consent have been carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of Young Shire Council, the Environment Protection Authority and the Department of Land and Water Conservation, as signified in writing.
3. The builder must at all times maintain on the job, a legible copy of the plans and specifications bearing the stamp and building permit of Council.
4. The building works shall be carried out in conformity with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the Regulations made thereunder, in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by Council. No departure from the approved plans and specifications shall be made unless the prior approval of Council has been obtained in writing.
5. Toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site, on which a building is being erected.
6. All building works must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.
AIR
8. Trucks transporting solids from the Sediment and Evaporation Ponds and straw waste must be covered when leaving the premises.7. All operations and activities occurring at the premises must be carried out in a manner that will minimise dust at the boundary of the premises.
WATER
9. Except as may be expressly provided in an Environment Protection Licence, the applicant must comply with section 120 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, prohibiting the pollution of waters.Prohibition of Pollution of Waters
Stormwater/Sediment Control – Construction Phase
10. A Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP) must be prepared in consultation with the EPA prior to construction and implemented which describes the measures that will be employed to minimise soil erosion and the discharge of sediment and other pollutants to lands and/or waters during construction activities, including the construction of the internal accessways. The SWMP should be consistent with the guidance contained in Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction.
Stormwater/Sediment Control – Operation Phase
11. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be developed in conjunction with and to the satisfaction of the Department of Land and Water Conservation for the operation phase of the project, prior to the commencement of work.
12. Any topsoil from disturbed areas shall be conserved and used in the rehabilitation of the site. Consultation shall be carried out with the Department of Land and Water Conservation Catchment Advisory Officer, during topsoil stripping and stockpiling, with respect to topsoil reuse, erosion protection and long term viability of the stockpiles where immediate reuse is not possible.
13. The Applicant shall manage surface water runoff within and adjacent to the site and control points of water discharge within and from the site, in accordance with the Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP)
Construction of Recycle lagoon and Sedimentation and Evaporation Ponds
14. The capacity of the dam/recycle lagoon shall be not less 12 ML with a 1.5 metre freeboard.
15. All effluent storage structures must be constructed and maintained with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-9 meters per second or slower.
16. The holding ponds and the Sedimentation and Evaporation Ponds must be maintained to ensure that sedimentation does not reduce their capacity by more than 20% of the design capacity.Maintenance of Recycle lagoon and Sedimentation and Evaporation Ponds
Effluent Utilisation Areas
17. No part of the property known as Koorani shall be utilised in such manner as to restrict the area presently available for disposal of effluent without further development consent being granted.
18. The proponent must, no later than 30 days after the issuing of this consent, define the effluent utilisation area that will be used for the utilisation of liquid effluent and solids.
- For the purposes of this condition, “define” means a scale map of the premises detailing the location, size and name of individual agronomic management unit in the utilisation area. The map must identify all areas (buffer zones) where the utilisation of liquid effluent and solid waste is precluded.
19. The effluent utilisation area must incorporate the following buffer distances:
Effluent Type Feature Buffer Distance Buffer Distance for windy days*
LiquidProperty Boundary
Neighbouring Residence**
Major Watercourse
Other Watercourse75 metres
400 metres
200 metres
100 metres112 metres
450 metres
300 metres
150 metres
**The buffer distances to the nearest neighbouring residence set out in the above table may be reduced from time to time by agreement with the nearest neighbour.* For the purposes of this condition a windy day is one in which the wind speed is greater than 15 km/hour in the direction of the relevant feature.
20. The quantity of liquid effluent/solids applied to the utilisation area must not exceed the capacity of the area to effectively utilise the effluent/solids as detailed in the Liquid and Solid Waste Management Plan referred to in Condition 21.
For the purposes of this condition, ‘effectively utilise’, includes the use of the effluent/solids for pasture or crop production, as well as the ability of the soil to absorb the nutrient, salt, hydraulic load and organic material, with no unacceptable pollution of surface water or groundwater.
Liquid Effluent and Solid Waste Management Plan
21. The proponent must develop a Liquid Effluent and Solid Waste Management Plan to be approved by the EPA prior to the stocking of the piggery. The plan must take into consideration protocols in relation to the collection, storage, irrigation/spreading and incorporation of liquid effluent and solid waste-on-site. The plan must incorporate 'best practice' methods of management of the liquid effluent and solid waste and must have regard to the following measures, where appropriate:
a)
Flushing of conventional sheds regularly;
b) Effluent irrigation must not occur in a manner that causes surface runoff;
c) Spray from effluent application must not drift beyond the boundary of the premises or into a watercourse;
d) Spreading early in the day to utilise the wind to disperse odours and avoid the drift of odour that can occur in the evening; and
e) Not spreading on paddocks that are up wind of sensitive receptors at the edge of prescribed buffer distances nor on days where climatic conditions would significantly increase odour impacts from waste disposal;
f) Livestock access to any effluent application area must be denied during irrigation and until the applied effluent has dried.
22. The EPA must be advised in writing at least fourteen (14) days prior to a utilisation area being rendered unavailable for use.
23. Solid waste must be stored on an impermeable pad within an area nominated in the Liquid Effluent and Solid Waste Management Plan.Solid waste Storage
Dead Animal Pit
24. Dead animals must be disposed of in a manner that does not pollute waters.
25. Dead animals placed in the pit must be covered as soon as possible to prevent exposure to vermin and flies.
NOISE
26. Construction noise levels shall be in accordance with Chapter 171 of the Environmental Noise Control Manual.Construction Noise Limits
27. The construction activities shall be limited to the following hours:Construction Hours of Operation
- Monday to Friday - 7.00 am to 6.00 pm
Saturday - 7.00 am to 1.00 pm.
And at no time during Sundays or public holidays
Operational Noise Limits
28. Noise from the premises must not exceed LA10(15 minute) noise emission criterion of 35dB(A) within 30 metres of any dwelling not associated with the premises. The noise emission limits apply for prevailing meteorological conditions (winds up to 3m/s), except under conditions of temperature inversions.
MONITORING
29. Prior to commencement of works, the applicant must develop a detailed Monitoring Plan specifying those matters which are to be monitored, how frequently they are to be monitored and the standards required by the EPA and the Department of Land and Water Conservation. The Plan should include a contingency plan and the parameters/levels which trigger the contingency plan or remedial action and take into consideration the recommended monitoring schedule in the report by C M Jewell & Associates Pty Limited.
30. Monitoring shall also be undertaken in accordance with the conditions of the Environment Protection Licence issued for the premises and the Monitoring Plan submitted by the proponent and approved by Young Shire Council and the Environment Protection Authority.
31. Data resulting from all monitoring shall be included in the Annual Environmental Management Report referred to in condition 42.
Groundwater Monitoring
32. The applicant must monitor groundwater at the following locations and frequency:
Location Parameter Frequency
K4, K5, K6, K7 and at the locations referred to in condition 34Standing Water Level
pH
Nitrate/Ammonium
ConductivitySee condition 33
For the purposes of the above condition the locations K4, K5, K6, K7 are the locations of piezometers as identified Figure 1 ‘Hydrogeological Map’ of Attachment 7 of the EIS.
33. For the first year of operations the monitoring must be carried out monthly. After the first year the monitoring must be carried out quarterly unless the conditions of any relevant licence held by the applicant under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 requires the monitoring to be carried out at some other interval.
34. For the purpose of this condition the applicant must also install and maintain piezometers as close as possible to and no further than 5 metres down gradient of each SEP and the recycle pond, screened at 2 metres and 5 metres in depth.
Surface Water Monitoring
35. The applicant must monitor surface waters at the following location and frequency:
Location Parameter Frequency
Cudgell Creek at downstream property boundaryConductivity
pH
Nitrate/AmmoniumSee condition 36
36. For the first year of operations the monitoring must be carried out monthly. After the first year the monitoring must be carried out quarterly unless the conditions of any relevant licence held by the applicant under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 requires the monitoring to be carried out at some other interval.
37. The applicant must monitor the soils of the utilisation area at the following locations and frequency:Soils Monitoring
Location Parameter Frequency
In each agronomic management unit of the utilisation area, topsoil and deep profileTotal Nitrogen
Nitrates
Total Phosphorus
pH
Conductivity
Organic Carbon
Magnesium
Calcium
Aluminum
Sodium
Potassium
Cation Exchange CapacityAnnually, for topsoil samples, once every three (3) years for deep profile samples
For the purposes of the above condition, topsoil samples shall be taken from the top 100 mm of the soil profile and the deep profile samples shall be taken from a depth of 700-1000mm of the soil profile.
Effluent and Solids Monitoring
38. The applicant must monitor the following liquid effluent and solids:
Location Parameter Frequency
Liquid Effluent Holding PondTotal volume irrigated
Conductivity
Total Dissolved Solids
pH
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Sodium Absorption RatioDaily
6 monthly
6 monthly
6 monthly
6 monthly
6 monthly
6 monthly
6 monthly
Straw Waste StockpileTotal volume (dry tonnes)
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Potassium
Sodiumannually annually
annually
annually
annuallySolids collected from Sediment and Evaporation Ponds Total volume (dry tonnes)
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Potassium
Sodiumannually annually annually annually annually
Weather Monitoring
39. The applicant must establish a weather station to provide continuous measurements of rainfall, wind speed and wind direction.
Off-site disposal of solids monitoring
40. The applicant must record all quantities of solids that are disposed of off-site.
Disposal of liquid effluent monitoring
41. The applicant must keep a record of the day, time and agronomic management unit on which liquid effluent is applied.
REPORTING
Annual Report
42. The applicant must complete and supply to the EPA and the Council an Annual Environment Management Report comprising:
(a) An assessment of environmental performance relevant to licence conditions;
(b) All monitoring data together with an analysis and interpretation of the monitoring data;
(c) Recommendations on improving the environmental performance of the premises; and
(d) An analysis of and response to any complaints received.
43. The Annual Environment Management Report must be supplied to the EPA and the council by registered post no later than sixty (60) days after the end of each reporting period.
BORE/WATER LICENCE ISSUES
44. An approval will only be granted to the occupier of the lands where the works are located, unless otherwise allowed under the Water Act 1912.
45. When the Department grants an approval, it may require any existing approvals held by the applicant relating to the land subject to this consent to be surrendered or let lapse.
46. All works subject to an approval shall be constructed, maintained and operated so as to ensure public safety and prevent possible damage to any public or private property.
47. All works involving soil or vegetation disturbance shall be undertaken with adequate measures to prevent soil erosion and the entry of sediments into any river, lake, waterbody, wetland or groundwater system.
48. The approval to be granted may specify any precautions considered necessary to prevent the pollution of surface water or groundwater by petroleum products or other hazardous materials used in the construction or operation of the works.
49. A licence fee calculated in accordance with the Water Act1912 must be paid before a licence can be granted.
50. All works must be constructed and maintained to properly control the water extracted to prevent wastage or any reduction in quality of the sub-surface water. The Department may direct that any necessary repairs or alterations be undertaken to maintain the works in good working order.
51. The bores shall be suitably lined and capped to the standard required by the Department.
52. Officers of the Department or other authorised persons must be allowed full and free access to the works for the purpose of inspection and testing.
53. The volume of groundwater extracted as authorised must not exceed the licensed allocation in any twelve (12) month period commencing 1 July. The allocation will be reviewed if there is any change in the ownership of the land.
54. The Department has the right to vary the volumetric allocation or the rate at which the allocation is taken in order to prevent the overuse of an aquifer.
55. Any saline or polluted water located above a producing aquifer must be sealed by the use of cemented casing as specified by the Department.
56. For the first year of operations the pumping water levels must be recorded at least monthly and every two months when not pumping and reported with the first annual groundwater return. After the first year the pumping water levels must be recorded in accordance with the requirements of any licence or authority held by the applicant under the Water Act 1912.
57. If a bore ceases to be productively used, the Department must be notified and the aquifer must be sealed by a method acceptable to the Department.
- PLEASE NOTE: For the purposes of Conditions 44 to 57 inclusive, relating to an approval under the Water Act 1912 , the following are defined:
“the Department” means the Department administering the Water Act 1912 ;
- “approval” means a licence, permit, authority or approval under the Water Act 1912 ;
“river” has the same meaning as in section 5 of the Water Act 1912 ;
- “work” means any structure, earthwork, plant or equipment authorised under the approval to be granted, as defined in section 5 and 105 of the Water Act 1912 ;
“controlled work” means an earthwork, embankment or levee as defined under section 165 of the Water Act 1912 .
ABORIGINAL HERITAGE
58. If any Aboriginal sites or relics are revealed during construction of the facility, then work should cease and the Archaeologist of the Cultural Heritage Unit of the NPWS should be contacted.
TREE REMOVAL/VEGETATION
59. No indigenous trees shall be removed from the site as part of this development proposal, without the prior consent of Young Shire Council and National Parks and Wildlife Service.
60. Where ever possible additional tree planting is to be carried out on-site. In particular, adjacent to all boundaries and around the piggery complex and should include the use of the following species: Yellow Box (Eucalyptus melliodora). White Box (Eucalyptus albens), Blakley’s Red Gum (Eucalyptus blakleyi), Silver Wattle (Acacia dealbata) or Varnish Wattle (Acacia verniciflua).
BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION
Construction Certificate
61. A construction certificate must be obtained from Council or an Accredited Certifier prior to work commencing.
62. The following information shall be submitted for assessment when applying for a construction certificate: Details from a suitably qualified and insured Structural Engineer in regard to:-
(a) footings;
(b) reinforced concrete slabs;
(c) retaining walls;
(d) structural steelwork;
(e) proposed method of stormwater disposal.
Inspection/Certification
63. Prior to commencement of work, the person having the benefit of the Development Consent and a Construction Certificate shall:
(a) appoint a Principal Certifying Authority and notify Council of the appointment (if Council is not appointed), and
(b) notify Council of their intention to commence the erection of the building (at least 2 days notice is required).
64. Twenty four (24) hours notice is to be given by the Builder to Council to enable inspections to be carried out and Compliance Certificate issued at each of the following steps -
a) Excavation for pier, strip footings and slabs with steel if required, before pouring concrete.
b) When the framework is complete with windows and all flashings in place.
c) When sanitary drainage for the amenities building is laid ready for test. All drainage must be under water test at the time of the inspection.
Occupation Certificate
65. A final Occupation Certificate must be issued by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to occupation or use of the development. In issuing an occupation certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that the requirements of section 109H of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1997 have been satisfied.
66. Footings/Slab for the amenities buildingConstruction
shall be constructed in accordance with Council’s “Code for the construction of Residential Slabs and Footings” and Australian Standard 2870 - 1996.
- Any deviation from the designs of AS 2870 -1996 shall be certified by a practising Structural Engineer.
67. An impervious membrane of a type approved by Council shall be placed under all concrete floors that are on the ground in an approved manner so as to ensure that the membrane is impervious to moisture.
68. The floors of wet areas shall be of an approved impervious materials, properly graded and drained. The junctions of the floors, with the walls shall be so treated as to prevent the penetration of moisture into the walls.
69. The sub-floor space under timber flooring shall be ventilated and cross-ventilated by means of openings in the sub-structure walling.
70. A minimum clearance of 400 mm between finished ground level and any structural components, e.g. bearers, joists or plumbing fixtures. On a sloping site, the minimum clearance may be reduced to 150 mm provided the area is no more than 2 metres from a point conforming sub-floor clearance.
71. A suitable fender wall shall be provided across all elevations.
72. The timber bearers must be tied down to the footings in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard 1684 - National Timber Framing Code or the requirements of the Timber Framing Manual .
73. Where alternative designs to the provisions of the National Timber Framing Code or the Timber Framing Manual is proposed to be used, design details including documentary evidence to satisfy Section A2 of the Building Code of Australia, are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the commencement of construction.
74. Means of egress of all buildings shall comply with Section D of the Building Code of Australia.
75. Roof stormwater shall be conveyed at least 3 m clear of the building and disposed of without causing erosion or nuisance to adjoining premises.Stormwater
Amenities Building
76. All plumbing and drainage work is to comply with the requirements of Australian Standard 3500 - National Plumbing and Drainage Code and the NSW Code of Practice, Plumbing and Drainage.
77. A minimum of one (1) toilet, one (1) handbasin and one (1) shower shall be provided in the amenities block.
Building General
78. The applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the WorkCover Authority of NSW.
ROADWORKS
79. The developer shall upgrade the existing access to Council specification after submitting the relevant application form to Council’s Engineering Department.
SIGNAGE
80. Any freestanding signs proposed to be erected shall be subject to a separate development application.
NOTIFICATION OF ODOUR
81. Within seven (7) days of the date of this consent, the piggery operator shall provide the Council with a telephone number and a facsimile number which may be used to report complaints directly to the piggery operator concerning odour from the piggery.
82. If the piggery operator is unable to operate or proposes to change any of these numbers at any time, the piggery operator shall inform the Council as soon as possible of replacement number(s).
83. If the piggery is to be operated by a different entity than the applicant, the then current piggery operator shall provide the Council with a contact name, telephone number and facsimile number for the proposed new piggery operator as soon as possible.
84. Advisory note: the Council will notify all persons, who live within a five (5) kilometre radius of the piggery building site, of the numbers provided by the piggery operator and any proposed changes to those numbers.
0
0
4