Hypro (Aust) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority

[2020] NSWLEC 106

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Hypro (Aust) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2020] NSWLEC 106

Hearing dates:

30 July 2020

Date of orders:

04 August 2020

Decision date:

04 August 2020

Jurisdiction:

Class 4

Before:

Preston CJ

Decision:

The Court:

(1) Declares that the development carried out at 15 Box Avenue, Wilberforce in accordance with development consent DA0580/15 for the operation of a pet food manufacturing facility is not the activity of “general animal products production” or any of the other activities referred to in cl 23 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

(2)   Reserves the question of the costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – environment protection licence – premises-based scheduled activity – pet food manufacture – whether scheduled activity of “general animal products production” – meaning of – activity does not require slaughter of animals to occur in the plant on the premises – activity does require manufacture of products derived from activity of slaughtering animals – applicant’s pet food manufacturing not “general animal products production”

Legislation Cited:

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 s 49, cll 1, 23 of Pt 1 to Sch 1

Interpretation Act 1987 ss 34, 35

Texts Cited:

Macquarie Dictionary

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Hypro (Aust) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Environment Protection Authority (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr I Hemmings SC with Dr J Smith (Applicant)
Submitting appearance (Respondent)

Solicitors:
A R Walmsley & Co (Applicant)
Environment Protection Authority (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2019/195307

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. Hypro (Aust) Pty Ltd (Hypro) manufactures pet food at 15 Box Avenue, Wilberforce (the premises). The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has asserted that Hypro’s pet manufacturing process involves carrying on of the scheduled activity of “general animal products production”, a type of livestock processing activity, within cl 23 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act), so that a licence is required for the premises at which the activity is carried out under s 48 of the POEO Act. Hypro disagrees with the EPA.

2. To resolve the dispute, Hypro has brought proceedings in this Court seeking declarations that, first, the operation of its pet food manufacturing facility at the premises does not constitute a premises-based “scheduled activity” for the purposes of s 48(1) of the POEO Act; secondly, that the carrying on of that activity is not a livestock processing activity under cl 23 of Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the POEO Act; and thirdly, an environment protection licence is not required under s 48 of the POEO Act for the activity carried on at the premises.

3. The EPA has entered a submitting appearance, except as to costs.

The activity carried on by Hypro

4. The pet food manufacturing process carried on by Hypro at the premises involves the receiving at the premises of raw materials, including meat and other products derived from the slaughtering or processing of animals at other premises; a manufacturing process of batching, extruding and pressing, drying and cooling, and packaging in order to manufacture the end product of pet food and stockfeed; and the dispatch of the manufactured products to end customers.

5. This manufacturing process was explained by Mr Camilleri, a director of Hypro, in his affidavit of 7 November 2019:

“The production process involves the following five stages to produce the pet food or stockfeed product:

Receiving of raw material;

Batching;

Extruding and pressing;

Drying and cooling; and

Packaging and dispatch.

Receiving raw material

15.1 The Process requires both dry and liquid raw materials.

15.2 In terms of liquid raw materials, liquid tallow and chicken digest are delivered by tanker trucks and pumped by direct hose connection to the Tallow Liquid Tanks and Liquid Digest Tanks within the warehouse (See Plan Items 1-2). Tallow is a rendered form of beef fat that enhances the pet food's texture and flavour as well as providing a high-energy and vitamin source. Digest is derived from chicken protein such as muscle and soft tissue which is hydrolysed or "digested" into a liquid. The digest is used to coat the finished product (described further below) to increase palatability.

15.3 In terms of dry raw materials, all dry powdered products and grain material arrive by truck and are unloaded into the receiving hopper located within the warehouse (see Plan Item 3). The material is then transported through a bucket elevator to designated internal storage silos and bins (see Plan items 4-8).

15.4. The details of the materials stored in the silos, tanks, and bins are as follows:

Material	How stored
Chickpeas, Tapioca Starch and Potato Starch, Poultry/Chicken Meal, Meat and Bone Meal, Mill mix, Wheat, Micro-Ingredients: Salt, Multi Vitamins, and Lime.	Holding Silos
Tallow and digest	Holding Tanks
Supplier	Materials
Wood Foods Pty Ltd	Chickpeas
Craig Mostyn & Co. Pty Ltd	Tapioca Starch & Potato Starch
Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd	Poultry/Chicken Meal
Wilmar Gavilon Pty Ltd	Meat and Bone Meal
Manildra Group	Mill mix
Various Brokers	Wheat
EC Throsby Pty Ltd	Tallow
AFB Australia	Digest
BEC Food Solutions Pty Ltd	Micro-Ingredients: Salt, Multi Vitamins, Lime.

...

Batching

15.5. The next stage of the manufacturing process is batching. This is the process of measuring, mixing and milling of dry raw materials (see Plan Item 9).

15.6. The material is transported from the bins and silos (including the micro additives bins (see Plan Item 11)) via the conveyor to the additives hoppers (see Plan Item 10) and micro-doser (see Plan Item 12) where additional ingredients are added (coconut oil, omega 3 or 6 oil, emu oil) and then pumped to the Mixer (see Plan Item 13).

…

Extruders and Pressing

15.7. Following the batching and mixing process the material is then transported via the conveyor to either:

1) A pellet press (see Plan Items 14-15), where the material is cold pressed into a pellet product which is then sent to packaging; or

2) The extruder hoppers and then to the extruders (see Plan Items 16-17) where the product is cooked, gelatinized and cut into the desired kibble shapes and sizes required by our customers...

Dryer and Coolers

15.8. The extrusion process is followed by drying. The extruded kibble product is dried, coated with liquid tallow and chicken digest and then cooled to produce the final product (see Plan items 18-20).

15.9. The finished product is then transported via the conveyors to the product silos ready for packaging (see Plan Item 21).

…

Packaging and Dispatch;

15.10. The final manufacturing stage is packaging. The product is packed by an automated packing and weighing machine in either bulk bags or other smaller packaging such as individual bags or bags in boxes.

15.11. The packed product is then placed on pallets and wrapped and stored in the temporary holding bay awaiting dispatch by truck to the warehouse (see Plan Items 22-24).

…”

6. Mr Camilleri explained that no live animals are received at the premises or slaughtered at the premises as part of this manufacturing process. Although this process does use animal-based materials, being the meat and bone meal, poultry and chicken meal, tallow and chicken digest, those animal-based materials have already been processed off site by others, being the suppliers of the animal-based materials referred to in the table (paragraphs 16-19 of Mr Camilleri’s affidavit).

7. Hypro’s pet food manufacturing plant has a capacity to produce 90,000 tonnes of pet food and stockfeed per year. In the period 1 April 2018 to 1 April 2019, Hypro’s plant produced 29,000 tonnes of pet food and stockfeed (Hypro’s response dated 15 May 2019 to the EPA’s notice to provide information and/or records).

The scheduled activities of livestock processing activities

8. Section 48(2) of the POEO Act provides that:

“A person who is the occupier of any premises at which any such scheduled activity is carried on is guilty of an offence, unless the person is, at the time that activity is carried on, the holder of a licence that authorises that activity to be carried on at those premises.”

9. The expression “any such scheduled activity” in s 48(2) refers to a scheduled activity to which s 48 applies. Section 48(1) provides that:

“This section applies to scheduled activities where Schedule 1 indicates that a licence is required for premises at which the activity is carried on.”

10. Clause 1(1) of Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the POEO Act provides:

“For the purposes of section 48, any activity that is declared by this Part to be a scheduled activity is taken to be an activity for which a licence is required for the premises at which it is carried out (the activity is premises-based).”

11. One of the categories of premises-based activities is in cl 23 of Part 1 of Sch 1, being “livestock processing activities”. Clause 23 provides:

“(1)  This clause applies to the following activities—

general animal products production, meaning the manufacture of products derived from the slaughter of animals occurring in plants producing products such as hides, adhesives, pet food, gelatine, fertiliser or meat products.

greasy wool or fleece processing, meaning the scouring, topping or carbonising of greasy wool or fleeces.

rendering or fat extraction, meaning the manufacture of products derived from the slaughter of animals occurring in rendering or fat extraction plants.

slaughtering or processing animals, meaning the slaughtering or processing of animals (including poultry and fish).

tanneries or fellmongeries, meaning the manufacture of products derived from the slaughter of animals occurring in tanneries or fellmongeries (that is, operations that process animal skins or other animal products to produce leather or other similar products).

(2)  Each activity referred to in Column 1 of the Table to this clause is declared to be a scheduled activity if it meets the criteria set out in Column 2 of that Table.

Table

Column 1	Column 2
Activity	Criteria
general animal products production	capacity to produce more than 5,000 tonnes of animal products per year
greasy wool or fleece processing	capacity to process more than 200 tonnes of wool or fleece per year
rendering or fat extraction	capacity to produce more than 200 tonnes of tallow, fat or their derivatives or proteinaceous matter per year
slaughtering or processing animals	capacity to slaughter or process more than 750 tonnes live weight per year
tanneries or fellmongeries	capacity to process more than 2 tonnes of skins or hides per year”

12. As cl 23(2) states, each of the five activities referred to in Column 1 of the Table to the clause is declared to be a scheduled activity, if it meets the criteria set out in Column 2 of that Table. Each of the activities referred to in Column 1 of the Table is defined in cl 23(1). The category of “livestock processing activities” is not itself declared to be a scheduled activity.

Hypro’s argument that pet food manufacture is not a scheduled activity

13. Hypro contended that the pet food manufacturing process it carries on at the premises does not constitute any of the five activities referred to in Column 1 of the Table to cl 23.

14. Hypro submitted that four of the activities referred to in cl 23 are clearly not relevant. The manufacturing process does not involve the slaughtering or processing of animals at the premises. The animal-based materials received at the premises are derived from the processing of animals on other premises. The manufacturing process at the premises is therefore not the activity of “slaughtering or processing animals”. The manufacturing process does not involve rendering or fat extraction, or tanning or fellmongering, of the animal-based products received at the premises, so that the process is not the activity of either “rendering or fat extraction” or “tanneries or fellmongeries”. There is not receipt of or processing of greasy wool or fleeces, so the process is not “greasy wool or fleece processing”.

15. The remaining activity of “general animal products production” is the only potentially relevant activity. Hypro contended that the pet food manufacturing process it carries on at the premises does not constitute “general animal products production”.

16. Hypro’s contention was that its pet food manufacturing process is not the activity of “general animal products production” referred to in Column 1 of the Table to cl 23 because it does not meet the definition of that activity in cl 23(1). Hypro accepted, however, that its pet food manufacturing process did meet the criteria set out in Column 2 of the Table to cl 23 in that the pet food manufacturing process had capacity to produce more than 5,000 tonnes of animal products per year.

17. Hypro advanced two alternative constructions of the definition of the activity of “general animal products production”. The first and primary construction of the definition advanced by Hypro was that animals need to be slaughtered at the premises as part of the process, that the slaughter of the animals needs to occur in the plant at the premises and that the manufacturing process needs to produce a product derived from the slaughter of animals. Hypro submitted that the pet food manufacturing process it carries on at the premises does not meet these three criteria. No animals are “slaughtered” at the premises as part of the process. The process carried on at the premises does not involve the slaughter of animals “occurring in the plant” at the premises. The process carried on at the premises does not produce “products derived from the slaughter of animals”.

18. Hypro submitted that this construction of the definition of the activity of “general animal products production” is supported by the reference in the definition to the “slaughter of animals”. This language deliberately distinguishes between premises at which slaughter of animals occurs and those at which already slaughtered animals are processed. The activity of “general animal products production”, by referring to “the slaughter of animals”, falls within the first category of premises at which slaughter of animals occurs. Where a manufacturing process does not involve the slaughter of animals, it cannot be the activity of “general animal products production”.

19. Hypro submitted that this construction of the definition of “general animal products production” is supported by the heading to the category of activities in cl 23, namely “livestock processing activities”. Although the heading to cl 23 in Pt 1 of Sch 1 does not form part of the POEO Act (not being a heading referred to in s 35(1) and (4) of the Interpretation Act 1987), s 34(1) and s 35(5) of the Interpretation Act permit the heading to be used to assist in ascertaining the meaning of cl 23 if it is ambiguous or obscure.

20. Hypro submitted that the heading “livestock processing activities” to cl 23 confirms that the activity of “general animal products production” within cl 23 must involve “livestock processing activities” as part of that activity. The ordinary meaning of “livestock processing activities” is activities involving the processing of livestock. The slaughter of animals involves the processing of livestock. Hence, Hypro submitted, any ambiguity as to whether “the slaughter of animals” is required to be part of the manufacturing process involved in “general animal products production” is resolved. The activity of “general animal products production” does involve the slaughter of animals because this is necessary to be a livestock processing activity.

21. Hypro submitted that this construction accords with the purpose of Pt 1 to Sch 1 to the POEO Act to identify premises-based activities that are likely to generate unacceptable levels of pollution and hence require an environmental protection licence to carry on the activity at the premises. Hypro submitted that the activity of the slaughter of animals is likely to have a greater potential to cause pollution than an activity that does not involve the slaughter of animals. This supports construing the activity of “general animal products production” as involving the slaughter of animals. Hypro submitted that there would be little point, and contrary to the purpose of the licensing scheme established by the POEO Act, to specify an activity that is less likely to cause pollution to be a scheduled activity and hence to require a licence to carry on that activity at premises.

22. Hypro’s alternative construction of the definition of “general animal products production” accepts that the slaughter of animals does not need to occur in plants producing the animal products, only that the manufacture of the animal products needs to occur in the plants. However, the raw materials used in the manufacturing process must be “products derived from the slaughter of animals”. Hypro submitted that this expression only refers to products directly derived from the slaughter of animals and not products that are indirectly derived from the slaughter of animals, such as products that have been processed after the animals have been slaughtered.

23. For example, the animal-based materials received by Hypro have been processed by other processors. Those processors might receive products derived from the slaughter of animals but they then process them into different animal products. Many of the animal products result from rendering or fat extraction to produce animal fat such as tallow or proteinaceous matter such as meat and bone meal, poultry and chicken meal, and chicken digest. These processed animal products no longer answer the description of being “products derived from the slaughter of animals”.

24. On this basis, Hypro submitted the pet food manufacturing process it carries on at the premises does not involve the manufacture of “products derived from the slaughter of animals” to produce products such as pet food.

Hypro’s pet food manufacture is not a scheduled activity

25. I reject Hypro’s primary construction of cl 23 of Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the POEO Act and of the definition of the activity of “general animal products production” but accept Hypro’s alternative construction of the definition of “general animal products production”. I will start with my reasons for rejecting Hypro’s primary construction. I will then deal with my reasons for accepting Hypro’s alternative construction.

26. Clause 23 of Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the POEO Act indicates five activities that are declared to be scheduled activities. The five activities are grouped in a category that is labelled as “livestock processing activities”. That category of “livestock processing activities” is not itself declared to be a scheduled activity. Only each of the five activities referred to in Column 1 of the Table to cl 23 is declared to be a scheduled activity, provided that it meets the criteria set out in Column 2 of the Table to cl 23: see cl 23(2).

27. The category of “livestock processing activities” brings together five activities which, although different from one another, all concern the processing in some way of animals or animal products.

28. First, there is the slaughter or processing of animals, activities that include what would be carried on at an abattoir or a knackery. This is the activity of “slaughtering or processing of animals”.

29. Secondly, there are three activities involving the manufacture of products derived from the slaughter of animals in order to produce other products. These activities are “general animal products production” to produce animal products such as hides, adhesives, pet food, gelatine, fertiliser or meat products; “rendering or fat extraction” to produce products such as animal fats, including tallow, fat or their derivatives, and proteinaceous matter, including meat and bone meal and poultry and chicken meal; and “tanneries or fellmongeries” involving the processing of animal skins or animals products, by preparing hides or skins for tanning (fellmongering) or tanning hides or skins (tanning), to produce leather or similar products.

25. Thirdly, there is the processing of a particular animal product, not necessarily deriving from the slaughter of animals, being “greasy wool or fleece processing” involving the scouring, topping or carbonising of greasy wool or fleeces.

26. As can be seen from these definitions of each of the five activities, only one activity falling within the category of “livestock processing activities”, being “slaughtering or processing animals”, involves the slaughter of animals.

27. Three of the activities involve a manufacturing process using “products derived from the slaughter of animals”, which will be products derived from the activity of “slaughtering or processing animals”, but these three activities do not themselves involve the slaughter of animals. The reference in the definitions of these three activities to “the slaughter of animals” is in the phrase “products derived from the slaughter of animals”. These products are used in the particular type of manufacture referred to in each definition. It is this particular type of manufacture that is “occurring” in “plants”, “rendering or fat extraction plants” or “tanneries or fellmongeries” respectively, not the “slaughter of animals”.

28. The remaining activity involves processing of a particular animal product, greasy wool or fleeces, but this product need not be derived from the slaughter of animals.

29. The heading to cl 23 of “livestock processing activities” is generic and wide enough to embrace each of the five different activities involving some form of processing of animals or animal products. The heading certainly does not dictate that each of the five activities, and not just the activity of “slaughtering or processing of animals”, involves the slaughter of animals. That would be contrary to the text and context of cl 23 and the definitions of each activity.

30. A construction of the definition of the activity of “general animal products production” in the context of cl 23, therefore, establishes that this activity does not involve the slaughter of animals at the premises.

31. A textual analysis of the definition of the activity of “general animal products production” supports this construction. The definition refers to the type of manufacturing process (“the manufacture”) that occurs in manufacturing plants (“occurring in plants”) that produces particular products (“producing products such as hides, adhesives, pet food, gelatine, fertiliser or meat products”). The raw materials that are used in this manufacturing process to produce those products are “products derived from the slaughter of animals”.

32. The “products” first referred to in the definition, “products derived from the slaughter of animals”, are the input products used in the manufacturing process. The “products” second referred to in the definition, “products such as hides, adhesives, pet food, gelatine, fertiliser or meat products”, are the output products produced by the manufacturing process.

33. As noted earlier, it is “the manufacture” that is “occurring in plants”, not “the slaughter of animals” and “the manufacture” produces “products such as hides, adhesives, pet food, gelatine, fertiliser or meat products”, not “products derived from the slaughter of animals”.

34. For these reasons, Hypro’s primary construction of the definition of the activity of “general animal products production” as requiring that the slaughter of animals occur in the plant on the premises so as to produce products derived from the slaughter of animals is incorrect. The definition does not require any slaughter of animals to occur in plants on the premises or the producing of products derived from the slaughter of animals.

35. Hypro’s alternative construction of the definition of “general animal products production” is, however, correct. The phrase “products derived from the slaughter of animals” in the definition requires that the products be a result of the particular activity of slaughtering animals. There are two reasons, the first concerned with the words “derived from” and the second with the phrase “the slaughter of animals”.

36. First, the products are required to be “derived from” the specified activity of “the slaughter of animals”. The verb “derived” means “1. To receive or obtain from a source or origin (foll. by from) 2. To trace, as from a source or origin.” (Macquarie Dictionary). The verb “derived” therefore describes a connection between two things: a thing that is a source or origin and a thing that is derivative of that source or origin. The directness or immediacy of the connection required between the two things, in order for one to be derived from the other, will depend on the nature of the two things.

37. In the context of cl 23 of Pt 1 to Sch 1 of the POEO Act, the question of whether a product can be said to be derived from, in the sense of received, obtained or traced from, a particular source or origin will depend on what is specified to be the source or origin. If the source or origin were to be specified as being an animal, a product could be said to be derived from an animal, if the source or origin of the product is an animal. In this instance, the connection between the product and the animal need not be direct or immediate; it would be sufficient if the product can trace its source or origin to an animal.

38. If the source or origin is an activity, however, a different conclusion as to the directness or immediacy of the connection required between the connection and the activity may be warranted. The necessary connection is between the product and the specified activity. The product must be derived from, in the sense of received, obtained or traced from, the specified activity. Expressed conversely, the specified activity must be the source or origin of the product. The nature of both the specified activity that is the source or origin and the product that is the derivative will be important in establishing the necessary connection.

39. In the phrase “products derived from the slaughter of animals” the specified activity that is the source or origin is “the slaughter of animals”. This involves the killing of an animal and the cutting up of the animal carcass into products and parts. In order for a product to be derived from this activity of the slaughter of animals, the product needs to be received, obtained or traced from this activity. This will depend on the nature of the product. It is not sufficient that the product has its source or origin in an animal that has been slaughtered. That only establishes that the product is derived from an animal. The necessary connection is with the specified activity of the slaughter of animals. Does the product result from that activity of the slaughter of animals? This requires that the product be one of the products of an animal that results from the killing and cutting up of the animal. If the nature of the product is the result of some other activity that occurs after the slaughter of animals, such as a particular processing activity, the product will be derived from that other activity and not from the activity of the slaughter of animals.

40. Take the product of tallow for example. Tallow is a rendered form of beef fat. Tallow is produced by the activity of “rendering or fat extraction”. The source or origin of tallow, having regard to its nature, is that activity of rendering beef fat. The source or origin of tallow is not the original activity of the slaughter of animals. The slaughter of animals produces the product of beef fat, which is then rendered to produce the product of tallow. Tallow is “derived from” the activity of rendering not from the activity of the slaughter of animals.

41. Secondly, the specified activity in the phrase “products derived from the slaughter of animals” is limited only to “the slaughter of animals”, not the wider activity of “slaughtering or processing of animals” defined in cl 23(1). Processing of animals that have been slaughtered was not included in the specification of the activity from which products are to be derived. This must have been a deliberate drafting choice. One of the activities referred to in cl 23 is “slaughter or processing animals”. Yet the drafter chose to refer only to the slaughter of animals and not also the processing of animals in the phrase “products derived from the slaughter of animals” in three other activities referred to in cl 23. Hence, products derived from the processing of animals will not be “products derived from the slaughter of animals” in the definition of “general animal products production”.

42. Applying this construction of the phrase “products derived from the slaughter of animals” to Hypro’s pet food manufacturing process, it can be seen that the raw materials received by Hypro and used in the manufacturing process to produce pet food and stockfeed do not meet the description of being “products derived from the slaughter of animals”. The raw materials are the rendered animal fat of tallow and the processed proteinaceous matter of meat and bone meal, poultry and chicken meal, and chicken digest. These animal-based products have their source or origin in one or more of the activities of “rendering or fat extraction” or “general animal products production”, or other processing of animals, but not the specified activity of “the slaughter of animals”. Of course animals have to be slaughtered in order to produce the products of the animals that are processed to produce the products of tallow, meat and bone meal, poultry and chicken meal, and chicken digest. But the nature of these processed products does not have its source or origin in the activity of the slaughter of the animals but rather in the activities that processed the products of the animals that have been slaughtered.

43. As the manufacture of pet foods and stockfeeds occurring in the plant on the premises does not use “products derived from the slaughter of animals” it does not fall within the definition of “general animal products production” in cl 23(1). It matters not that the other elements of the definition are met. The manufacture does occur in the plant on the premises and produces products including pet food. The missing element is that the manufacture is not of products derived from the slaughter of animals.

Conclusion and orders

49. Hypro has succeeded in establishing that the pet food manufacturing process it carries on at the premises is not the activity of “general animal products production” or any of the other activities referred to in cl 23 of Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the POEO Act. A declaration to that effect should be made. This will accord with the first two declarations sought by Hypro in its summons. The third declaration sought by Hypro should not be made as it goes further than what I have decided in this case. A licence is not required under the POEO Act for the premises at which Hypro’s pet food manufacturing process is carried out by reason of that process not being any of the activities referred to in cl 23 of Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the POEO Act. However, I have not determined whether that process is or is not any other premises-based activity in Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the POEO Act so as to be an activity for which a licence is required for the premises at which that activity is carried out.

50. Hypro seeks an order in the summons that the EPA pay its costs if Hypro is successful in the proceedings. As the EPA made a submitting appearance, except as to costs, I will reserve the question of costs. If Hypro, after due consideration, still wishes to apply for an order that the EPA pay its costs, it can relist the matter for hearing of its application for an order for costs and the EPA can be heard on that application.

51. The Court:

1. Declares that the development carried out at 15 Box Avenue, Wilberforce in accordance with development consent DA0580/15 for the operation of a pet food manufacturing facility is not the activity of “general animal products production” or any of the other activities referred to in cl 23 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

2. Reserves the question of the costs of the proceedings.

**********

Decision last updated: 04 August 2020