planning and environment act 1987 report animal industries ... · 7.3 dwellings in the farming zone...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Report

Animal Industries Advisory Committee

29 April 2016

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Animal Industries Advisory Committee appointed under section 151 of the Act

29 April 2016

Lester Townsend, Chair Hugh Millar, Member

Katherine Navarro, Member Lucinda Peterson, Member

Animal Industries Advisory Committee Report 29 April 2016

Contents Page

About the Animal Industries Advisory Committee ............................................................... 1

Executive summary .............................................................................................................. 2

1 Background ............................................................................................................... 11

Importance of animal industries ..................................................................................... 11 1.1 Changing production systems ............................................................................... 12 1.2 Impacts from animal husbandry ........................................................................... 13

2 Submissions and issues ............................................................................................. 16

2.1 Exhibition and submissions ................................................................................... 16 2.2 What are the issues ............................................................................................... 21

3 Policy and control of animal industries ..................................................................... 22

3.1 Planning policy support for animal industries ...................................................... 22 3.2 Legislative control on animal industries ................................................................ 25

4 Issue 1 – Planning for economic development .......................................................... 28

4.1 State economic development ............................................................................... 28 4.2 The need for rural planning ................................................................................... 28 4.3 More flexibility for the range of intensive uses .................................................... 31 4.4 Local economic development ............................................................................... 31

5 Issue 2 – Matching production systems and definitions ............................................ 33

5.1 Animal production systems in practice ................................................................. 33 5.2 Animal production system definitions .................................................................. 36 5.3 Creating more specific definitions ......................................................................... 40 5.4 Issues with the generic definitions ........................................................................ 41 5.5 Is an outcomes based definition possible ............................................................. 43

6 Issue 3 – Matching impacts and controls ................................................................... 45

6.1 A graduated approach ........................................................................................... 45 6.2 The benefits of a Code of Practice approach ........................................................ 49 6.3 Constructing Codes of Practice ............................................................................. 52 6.4 Recognise industry codes and assurance schemes ............................................... 54

7 Issue 4 – Separating uses .......................................................................................... 56

7.1 A consistent approach to separation distances .................................................... 56 7.2 Separation distances on adjoining land ................................................................ 62 7.3 Dwellings in the Farming Zone .............................................................................. 65

8 Issue 5 – Improving permit applications .................................................................... 68

8.1 Better information................................................................................................. 68 8.2 Better applications ................................................................................................ 69 8.3 Better agency input ............................................................................................... 70


8.4 Better permit conditions ....................................................................................... 72 8.5 Planner training ..................................................................................................... 73

9 Issue 6 – Strengthening enforcement and compliance of animal industries .............. 74

9.1 Clarify existing use rights ....................................................................................... 74 9.2 Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 75

Appendix A Terms of Reference ..................................................................................... 78

Appendix B Consultation process ................................................................................... 81 B.1 Notice about the Discussion paper ......................................................... 81 B.2 Submitters ............................................................................................... 82 B.3 Appearances at Hearings ........................................................................ 86 B.4 List of Reference Group members .......................................................... 88 B.5 Document List ......................................................................................... 89

Appendix C Proposed definitions ................................................................................... 91 C.1 Land use definitions ................................................................................ 91 C.2 Nesting diagram ...................................................................................... 93

Appendix D Possible application requirements in the rural zones ................................... 94

Appendix E Possible standard conditions ....................................................................... 96


List of Abbreviations

APIQ Australian Pork Industry Quality Assurance Program

Broiler Code Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009

DEDJTR Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (former)

EPA Environment Protection Authority

Feedlot Code Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots, August 1995

Feedlot Guidelines National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (third edition)

GIS Geographic information system

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

NFAS National Feedlot Accreditation Scheme

Piggeries Code Code of Practice, Piggeries, Department of Planning and Housing and Department of Food and Agriculture, 1992

SCU Standard Cattle Unit

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

VCAT Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

VFF Victorian Farmers Federation

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


List of Figures Page

Figure 1: Australian domestic meat consumption 1971–2012 ............................................ 13

Figure 2: Policy directions presented in the Committee’s Discussion paper ....................... 17

Figure 3: Support for and opposition to policy directions presented in the Committee’s Discussion paper. ............................................................................. 18

Figure 4: Farming land in Victoria ........................................................................................ 22

Figure 5: Strategies addressing animal industries in Regional growth plans ....................... 24

Figure 6: Nesting diagram for agricultural land use terms in planning schemes ................................................................................................................. 37

Figure 7: Current definitions in planning schemes .............................................................. 38

Figure 8: When is a permit required .................................................................................... 47

Figure 9: A graduated approach to land use categories for intensive animal husbandry .............................................................................................................. 48

Figure 10: How graduated approach to land use categories for intensive animal husbandry might apply in different zones ................................................ 49

Figure 11: Separation distance conceived as a ‘buffer’ around intensive animal husbandry that impacts on adjoining land ................................................ 63

Figure 12: Separation distance conceived as a ‘house protection buffer’ that limits opportunities on adjoining land .................................................................. 63

Figure 13: ‘Buffer’ sterilising a development opportunity ..................................................... 65


List of Tables Page

Table 1: Differences in separation distances of the National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (third edition) and the Broiler Code ....................................................................................................................... 57

Table 2: Adjustment of separation distance for different sensitive uses in the National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (third edition)................................................................................................................... 59

Table 3: Adjustment of separation distance for terrain factors in the National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (third edition)................................................................................................................... 61

Table 4: Adjustment of separation distance for vegetative cover in the National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (third edition)................................................................................................................... 61

Table 5: Adjustment of separation distance for wind direction in the National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (third edition)................................................................................................................... 62


Page 1 of 97

About the Animal Industries Advisory Committee

This is the final report of the Advisory Committee submitted to the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Agriculture.

The Committee was appointed on 23 September 2015 by the Minister for Planning to provide advice on how the planning system can support the establishment and expansion of productive, competitive and market‐responsive animal industries in Victoria. The Committee was guided by a Terms of Reference shown in Appendix A.

The Committee consisted of:

Lester Townsend, chair

Hugh Millar

Katherine Navarro

Lucinda Peterson.

The Committee was assisted by Elissa Bell and Emily To of Planning Panels Victoria.

The Terms of Reference set specific steps for the Committee to follow in its work. These included:

The Committee is expected to publish a discussion paper about the issues for the purposes of public consultation and must carry out public notification, consultations, hearings or workshops. All such proceedings will be open to the public.

Consistent with the Terms of Reference, the Committee published its Discussion Paper on 21 December 2015. Appendix B details the consultation process and a list of submitters.

Submissions were sought up until 5 February 2016 with late submissions accepted on request. A total of 146 submissions were received by the Committee and 43 submitters presented at the public Hearings.

The Terms of Reference required the establishment of a reference group to assist the Committee with its work. The Committee benefited from the insights provided by the reference group and thanks them for their time and thoughtful contributions.

A full list of reference group members is provided in Appendix B.4. Staff from the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning also attended reference group meetings.

The Committee also met separately with state and local government representatives.

Public Hearings were held in the week of 22 February 2016 in Colac, Bendigo, Melbourne and Traralgon. The location of hearings was based on the geographic distribution of submitters requesting to be heard.


Page 2 of 97

Executive summary

(i) The purpose of the Committee

The Advisory Committee was appointed to provide advice to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Agriculture:

… on how the planning system can support the establishment and expansion of productive, competitive and market‐responsive animal industries in Victoria, balancing environmental outcomes and community expectations.

Specifically, the Committee is to provide advice and present findings and conclusions on:

The role and function of the planning system in supporting the establishment and expansion of animal industries in the context of changing industry practice to increase production, be competitive and respond to market changes.

The adequacy of the definition of ‘intensive animal husbandry’ in Clause 74 of the Victoria Planning Provisions1 and all planning schemes having regard to emerging farming systems and practices, incremental changes to existing operations over time and changing consumer preference.

(ii) What are the issues?

The Committee believes that the planning controls over intensive animal industries have let down rural communities. They have let down producers and investors – those operators who wish to innovate or expand – and they have let down their neighbours. Well‐run intensive animal operations can fit comfortably in many rural areas, but poorly‐run, or poorly‐sited operations have caused significant environmental or amenity impacts.

The current Farming Zone and other rural zone provisions do not adequately manage competing land uses in Victoria’s rural communities – in some instances farming operations are prioritised, and on other occasions dwellings.

Out‐of‐date planning controls are hindering investment and innovation and do not always deliver appropriate outcomes for those affected. Whether a planning permit is required is often difficult to determine, especially where farms are transitioning from extensive to intensive operations. This has created uncertainty for industry, planners and the wider community.

The Codes of Practice that are incorporated into the planning system are largely out of date and there are animal industries where there are no incorporated Codes of Practice.

The Committee notes that the regulation of animal industries is complex, uncertain and does not adequately respond to, or support, changing animal industry practices or community expectations.

1 The Victoria Panning Provisions are standard state‐wide provisions that are used to create local planning schemes.


Page 3 of 97

(iii) The importance of animal industries

Food and fibre production is an important part of Victoria’s economy and a significant local employer in some regions.

Livestock production systems are changing: higher input costs, lower unit profitability, changing consumer demand and market access requirements are driving changes in the way Victorian animals are farmed. On the one hand, free range pig and poultry production systems are growing to meet consumer demands, while on the other more intensive animal grazing and production systems are being adopted in the sheep, beef and dairy industries.

All intensive livestock production systems have the potential for off‐farm impacts on the environment and community. Tourism‐based agricultural enterprises such as wineries with cellar door sales and restaurants, eco‐tourism and farm stays are increasing in number, taking advantage of Victoria’s rural amenity. These tourism‐based agricultural enterprise uses do not always sit comfortably beside intensive animal farming operations.

The impacts from intensive animal farming activities can be broadly categorised as:

animal welfare and biosecurity

environmental

residential amenity

rural economic development

infrastructure.

Often these impacts are characterised as being the concerns of ‘city folk’ moving to the country:

Tree‐ and sea‐changers may love the rolling hills and open spaces, but they can’t then object to the dust, smell and noise that are part of everyday life in the farming zone.2

It became clear to the Committee from the submissions that many of the concerns about intensive animal farming actually come from other farmers. Certainly reducing the number of dwellings in farming areas reduces the scope for conflicts, but it is not simply tree‐ and sea‐changers who have a different view of appropriate amenity to farmers; farmers disagree amongst themselves.

(iv) The way forward

The Committee’s recommendations are underpinned by the following approaches.

Recognise that animal industries are an economic development driver for Victoria

Intensive farming enterprises are an economic development opportunity and are important to the well‐being of many rural communities. Planning their location, providing the supporting utilities and infrastructure, and managing their environmental or amenity impacts are not insurmountable problems, but they do require industries, communities, local and State governments to work through industry specific, local and State issues.

2 VFF President Peter Tuohey quoted in VFF press release ‘State Government must protect Right to Farm’ 29 July, 2015


Page 4 of 97

Identify and define the known intensive animal production systems

The generic broad‐based definition for intensive animal husbandry in the planning system is problematic. Introducing specific definitions for identified intensive animal production systems would make the planning system much easier to use and understand. Currently, a farmer needs to hire an agricultural nutritionist to determine whether they need a planning permit or not. Defining identifiable intensive animal production systems as specific land uses in the VPP, to avoid relying on the existing ‘one size fits all’ generic definition, will simplify the interpretation of the planning schemes.

Take a graduated approach to planning controls based on risk

Some intensive animal industries are of a scale that people not associated with the industry might find confronting: chicken farms of 1.2 million birds, goat dairies of 14,000 goats. But many intensive animal industries are of a small scale catering to local or boutique markets – the planning system needs to manage the lower risk these operations pose in a manner commensurate with that risk.

Support Codes of Practice

Animal industries are subject to a range of controls by legislation and by industry and statutory Codes of Practice and guidelines. An approach that builds on existing industry codes and standards could deliver a clear planning framework supported by industry associations, minimise duplication and confusion, and promote consistency.

Three such codes are already incorporated into planning schemes:

Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 (the Broiler Code)

Code of Practice, Piggeries, Department of Planning and Housing and Department of Food and Agriculture, 1992 (the Piggeries Code)

Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots, August 1995 (the Feedlot Code).

Only the Broiler Code is up to date; the Piggeries Code and Feedlot Code need to be reviewed. For many intensive production systems there is no supporting code.

Take a more sophisticated approach to separating uses

Separating competing land uses is a common technique but its application, especially in the Broiler Code, is causing a degree of concern from nearby properties. There needs to be:

a more sophisticated approach, such as already set out in the National Guidelines for Beef Feedlots that considers the nature of the nearby sensitive land uses, and wind, terrain and vegetation factors

an acceptance that separation distances should also act to keep dwellings away from farming operations.

Better applications and assessment

Few planners have any real experience and understanding of intensive animal operations. Better guidance around what information a planning application should provide is required. Better guidance is also required as to what permit conditions should be imposed (if any). Access to better information and expert advice would improve the system for applicants, decision makers and neighbours.


Page 5 of 97

Better enforcement

Lack of certainty around enforcement issues has caused some farmers and neighbours a lot of grief, not to mention time and money. Improving enforcement procedures means that poor operators do not tarnish the reputation of whole sectors and unresolved amenity issues do not continue to fester between neighbours.

(v) Recommendations

The Committee has divided its recommendations into three categories:

Immediate action – these are actions that can proceed immediately subject only to targeted consultation.

Medium term – these are actions that will take some time and involve further consultation.

Longer term – these are actions that will take longer or require dedicated resources; they can begin in a timely fashion but may take some time to complete.

The Committee recommends:

Recognise that animal industries are an economic development driver

As an immediate action:

1. Establish a high level working group with a mix of government, industry and community representatives to facilitate continued improvement in the sector, finalise changes to planning schemes, set a framework for developing Codes of Practice and develop model planning permit conditions.

2. Support a program of Council based farm liaison officers to assist animal industries.

As a longer term action:

3. The Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources work with regional groups of Councils to prepare development strategies for intensive farming, identifying suitable and unsuitable areas for intensive animal industries.

Identify and define the known intensive animal production systems


4. Define land use terms for the current known intensive animal production systems as shown in Appendix C, including:

all egg, poultry breeder, poultry hatcheries and poultry meat farms

all pig farms whether pigs are housed or allowed to free range outdoors

cattle, sheep and goat feedlots.

5. Update Table of Uses in zones to include new definitions as Section 2 Uses (permit required) in the Farming Zone, Rural Activity Zone and Green Wedge Zone until contemporary Codes of Practice are developed.

7. Change the definition of Extensive animal husbandry as shown in Appendix C to read:

Land used to keep or breed farm animals, including birds, at an intensity where at least 50 per cent of the animals’ energy needs are the animals' main food source is obtained by directly grazing, browsing, or foraging on plants grown on the land. It includes:


Page 6 of 97

a) emergency and seasonal supplementary feeding; and

b) the incidental penning and housing of animals, including birds, for brooding, weaning, dipping, or other husbandry purposes.

6. Change the definition of Intensive animal husbandry as shown in Appendix C to read:

Land used to keep or breed farm animals, including birds, by importing more than 50 per cent of the animals’ energy needs most food from outside the immediate enclosure, pen or paddock enclosures. It does not include:

a) an abattoir or sale yard;

b) emergency and seasonal supplementary feeding if incidental to the use of land for extensive animal husbandry; or

c) the penning and housing of animals, including birds, for brooding, weaning, dipping or other husbandry purposes if incidental to the use of land for extensive animal husbandry.

8. Make Intensive animal husbandry a Section 2 use (permit required) in industrial zones.

As a medium term action:

9. Define ‘Rural feed mill’ and ‘Farm‐based composting’ as separate uses and require a permit for them in rural zones.

Take a graduated approach to planning controls based on risk


10. Adopt a graduated approach to the application of planning provisions to Intensive Animal Industries that categorises them according to risk and applies the following controls in the Farming Zone:

Category 1 – Full‐scale – Permit, notice and appeal, and compliance with Code of Practice.

Category 2 – Full‐scale contained (where separation distances are located on‐site or an agreement has been negotiated with the relevant adjacent landowners , or otherwise provided for in a code) – Permit, but no notice and appeal, and compliance with Code of Practice.

Category 3 – Mid‐scale – No permit provided specific standards and requirements are met.

Category 4 – Small‐scale – No permit and no planning controls required.


11. Revise the Table of Uses of each of the rural, industrial and flood zones to adopt a graduated approach to the application of planning provisions to intensive animal industries commensurate with the purposes of the zone.

Support Codes of Practice


12. Remove the 1992 Piggeries Code as an incorporated document.


Page 7 of 97

13. Include a new clause in the Victoria Planning Provisions listing incorporated codes and relevant national industry standards to be used to guide decisions, and:

include at least the relevant national guidelines for pigs and for cattle feedlots

refer to this clause in the Decision guidelines in the Farming Zone, Rural Activity Zone and Green Wedge Zone.

14. Parliament approve or ratify the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 and the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots, August 1995 pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and approve or ratify new codes as they are introduced.

15. Amend Clause 63.07 of the Victoria Planning Provisions to list the date when relevant Codes of Practice were approved or ratified.


16. Develop a consistent approach for drafting Codes of Practice that includes the following elements:

Location, siting and sizing, including separation distances from sensitive uses where necessary

Proximity to and impact on waterways

Farm design, layout and construction

Traffic, site access, on‐farm roads and parking

Landscaping

Waste management

Farm operation and management

Animal welfare requirements where these impact on the physical layout of the operation, by reference to relevant regulations, animal welfare standards or model animal welfare codes applying in Victoria.

Criteria for the categorisation of intensive animal industries as Full‐scale, Full‐scale contained, Mid‐scale or Small‐scale.

17. Develop a consistent approach to drafting Codes of Practice that presents Objectives, Standards and Approved Measures for each element, and allows alternative measures as long as the applicant can demonstrate the objectives and standards can still be met with equivalent or superior performance.


18. Develop performance‐based Codes of Practice with prescriptive standards for all intensively farmed livestock. As a minimum the codes should apply to:



cattle, sheep and goat feedlots

supplementary feeding of cattle, sheep and goats that falls short of being a feedlot.

19. Adopt or reference national standards and codes in Victorian Codes of Practice where these meet Victoria’s needs.

20. Incorporate Codes of Practice in Planning Schemes.


Page 8 of 97

21. Formally recognise industry quality assurance programs that adopt all relevant elements of a Victorian Code of Practice and are independently (third party) audited. Extend this to recognising audits as evidence of code compliance.

Take a more sophisticated approach to separating uses


22. Extend the simplified planning processes that apply when separation distances are contained on the applicants land to cases where an agreement has been reached with adjoining land owners.


23. Require a permit for new Dwellings in the Farming Zone:

For land that currently meets minimum requirements for a Dwelling, make the sole decision criteria the need to provide separation distances from intensive animal husbandry operations

Provide flexibility on the location of the Dwelling so it can be located on other land within a larger farm holding by way of a ‘transferable development right’.

24. Develop a standard methodology for determining the separation distances of different production systems as part of developing a consistent approach to drafting Codes of Practice that:

includes minimum separation distances to sensitive uses

includes a minimum setback from boundaries for intensive animal operations

makes the separation distance proportional to the square root of the number of animals

bases the separation distance on the impact on a single rural dwelling

clarifies whether the separation distance should be increased to require greater separation from towns and settlements

accounts for different design and management approaches typical in the production system

sets adjustment factors which increase or decrease separation distance based on terrain, wind direction and vegetation cover.


25. Include a new specific clause in the Victoria Planning Provisions, or an incorporated document, setting out the methodology for separation distances and separation distances for specific production systems.

26. Include separation distances in Codes of Practice.

Better applications and assessment


27. Develop and make available a short course through the PLANET program on strategic rural planning matters, applying the animal industries codes and case studies as a collaboration between the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources; the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; the Environment Protection Authority and the Victorian Farmers Federation.


Page 9 of 97

28. Include Declared Potable Water Catchment areas and the catchments listed in Appendix 2 of the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots on property reports through the Victorian government Land Channel (land.vic.gov.au).


29. Include application requirements in the Farming Zone, Rural Activity Zone and Green Wedge Zone for the use of land for Intensive animal husbandry, Animal keeping and Rural industry and for buildings and works, to improve the quality of planning permit applications and reduce the need for further information.

30. List Agriculture in Clause 66.02 of the Victoria Planning Provisions and make the Minister for Agriculture a determining referral authority and the Environment Protection Authority, water authorities and catchment management authorities recommending referral authorities for intensive animal production systems that require a planning permit.

31. Develop model permit conditions to address common issues for Intensive animal husbandry and include them in the ‘Writing Planning Permits’ standard conditions manual to assist decision makers.

32. Make more information available online to assist farmers, members of the public and responsible authorities and referral authorities.


33. Develop an online planning portal to provide a whole‐of‐Victorian‐government ‘one‐stop‐shop’ for access to information on animal husbandry‐related planning provisions, that includes:

guidance on what the Intensive animal husbandry definitions means in terms of stocking rates for different conditions to provide a quick guide as to whether particular uses are likely to be intensive or extensive

relevant Codes of Practice, standards and requirements

a tool for ‘pre‐application’ self‐assessment against codes and standards

links to other relevant Victorian government agencies

links to relevant industry quality assurance schemes that adopt Victorian codes or standards.

34. Develop processes to provide for certification of Code of Practice compliance by a recognised third party, to assist Council planners and facilitate timely planning decisions for code‐compliant applications.

Better enforcement


35. Release Environment Protection Authority complaint data to Councils to allow Councils to incorporate any relevant complaint data into monitoring or enforcement proceedings.


36. The Environment Protection Authority establish a protocol for delegating certain powers under its enacting legislation to Council environmental health officers to allow


Page 10 of 97

Council officers the opportunity to conduct enforcement action with a wider range of powers when requested by Council.


37. Ensure Environment Protection Authority has appropriate capacity to conduct enforcement action where needed.


Page 11 of 97

1 Background

Importance of animal industries

The Victorian Government has identified six priority sectors that will underpin the State’s future economy and jobs growth. The food and fibre sector, which includes animal industries, is one of these sectors.

The food and fibre sector is recognised as a key driver of the Victorian economy: it contributes 4.9 per cent to gross state product and in 2013‐14 accounted for 48 per cent of the state’s total goods exports, valued at $11.8 billion. The food and fibre sector employs over 190,000 people and underpins the prosperity of many local communities across Victoria.

The Victorian Government has developed strategies for the priority sectors. With projected increases in income and population, the food and fibre sector discussion paper3 identified enormous opportunity for the sector. To realise this opportunity, the paper recognises that significant intensification of productions systems was required. The paper identified the potential benefits of intensification in reducing the amount of land required or making new land types suitable for production.

The Food and Fibre Strategy4 sets a vision that in 2025 Victoria’s food and fibre sector:

is creating new jobs, attracting talent and providing rewarding careers

has seen remarkable growth, with more value adding and product differentiation

is a recognised leader in the Asia‐Pacific region and is a destination of choice for investors

is demand‐driven, achieving strong and sustained export growth

exceeds customer expectations for safety and quality

has welcomed a diversity of business models, technologies and production systems

sees more small and medium enterprises (SMEs)on strong growth trajectories.

The goals of the Strategy include

Attract more ideas and investment 1. Attract and support key industry events in Victoria 2. Build investment readiness and attract investment to the sector

Improve the business environment 16. Support the implementation of Regional Partnerships 17. Tailor facilitation services to support sector growth 18. Reduce regulatory and compliance burden

3 At http://yoursay.business.vic.gov.au/futureindustries/food‐and‐fibre on 16 December 2015. 4 At http://www.business.vic.gov.au


Page 12 of 97

Not everyone agrees in principle with the expansion of intensive animal industries, with one third of submissions to the Committee opposing any intensification of animal industries.

1.1 Changing production systems

The importance of agriculture to the Victorian economy may not have changed over recent years but the nature of farming operations has with a general trend for farm enterprises to expand and diversify.

Livestock production systems are changing: higher input costs, lower unit profitability, changing consumer demand and market access requirements are driving changes in the way Victorian animals are farmed. On the one hand, free range pig and poultry production systems are growing to meet consumer demands, while on the other more intensive grazing and production systems are being adopted in the sheep, beef and dairy industries. The trend towards more intensive production systems is likely to continue, some say it needs to continue, if Victorian agriculture is to meet growing overseas demand for its produce.

Changes to import regulations have changed the nature of some industries, with increasing imports of processed pork driving local industry to focus on fresh meat production. Recent free trade agreements have seen a rise in overseas investment in agricultural industry and an increase in access to overseas markets for fresh produce.

The shift from smaller family‐owned operations to fewer, larger farms owned by bigger businesses continues, but this has been matched by an increase in small commercial niche operations attracting the organic or ‘free range’ markets.

Farming practices have changed in response to reduced profit margins, more severe and prolonged weather conditions (drought, climate change) and the introduction of new technologies, machines, and techniques for farming.

Traditional ‘extensive’ animal systems increasingly use supplementary feeding to deal with challenging weather conditions or to increase stocking density to achieve a more productive farming system.

The type of meat consumers eat is changing with chicken and pork increasing and lamb (and to a lesser extent beef) decreasing. This is shown in Figure 1.


Page 13 of 97

Figure 1: Australian domestic meat consumption 1971–2012

Source: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resources Economics of Sciences Meat Statistics 2012

Consumer interest and the influence of the market has increased with an increase in media attention on the industry (including social media) and public scrutiny of animal welfare and environmental impacts driving changes in farming techniques.

Broader community awareness and interest in farming practices has also risen. Consumers are vocal in their expectations of animal welfare standards and reduction of environmental impact. The community is not only interested in local developments, but also the ethical and environmental standards of production as a whole. For example an application to expand a dairy in Gippsland5 attracted objections from across Australia and from as far‐a‐field as the USA, with the primary concern being animal welfare and foreign ownership.

Rural areas have also changed, with more dwellings in the Farming Zone.

These changes have created a disconnect between current practices, innovation and the planning system.

1.2 Impacts from animal husbandry

All farming has the potential for impacts. Intensive animal industries have the potential for greater impacts than extensive animal industries, though it is not necessarily the case that these impacts are always worse. For example, in times of drought penning animals and feeding them can have better animal welfare and environmental outcomes than letting the animals roam paddocks with little ground cover.

Impacts can be thought of in terms of:

animal welfare and biosecurity

environmental

residential amenity

rural economic development (including industry reputation)

infrastructure.

5 The Yo You Dairy development.


Page 14 of 97

Conflicts from the impacts of animal industries is not always between farmers and rural life stylers, but also between farms of different size and intensity. To understand these conflicts it is necessary to understand the nature of the impacts from animal husbandry which may affect nearby farming operations or the amenity of neighbouring properties.

(i) Animal welfare and biosecurity

The Victorian animal health system includes producers, processors, saleyards, stock agents, transporters, veterinary practitioners, veterinary diagnostic laboratories and government agencies. Collectively, these participants maintain Victoria’s biosecurity standards and contribute to the production of safe and wholesome meat, dairy and poultry products for customers in Australia and overseas.

Any animal farming system needs to meet appropriate animal welfare standards.6 Animal welfare is regulated outside of the planning system and the Committee sees no reasons for this to change. It is not the Committee’s role to review animal welfare standards, but the Committee recognises that at the base of any animal husbandry system the animals need a level of care and management that will drive how the system is configured.

Some prescribed animal welfare standards do relate to the design and layout of intensive animal production systems, for example the penning arrangements for some animals. Planning approvals need to take account of these standards where relevant, and this is best done by referral to such standards in Codes of Practice (Codes of Practice are discussed in Section 6.2 of this report).

There is a biosecurity risk of infectious disease spread within and between farms raising the same species of animal, and this needs to be more closely managed when intensive animal industries concentrate animals at high stocking densities. Any regulation of intensive animal industries needs to consider separation between facilities to minimise the risk of spread of serious infectious diseases between farms. The Broiler Code, for instance, sets out distances between broiler farms for this reason.

Some people in the community are concerned about inter‐species spread of disease, or the spread of animal diseases to humans. Current science says that these risks are small, and are managed by particular protocols aimed at specific known diseases as part of Victoria’s animal health system. The Committee believes that these biosecurity matters are already managed appropriately outside of the planning system.

(ii) Environmental

The critical environmental issue of intensive animal industries is the potential to affect surface and ground water quality. Intensive animal husbandry systems can increase nutrient loads in local streams and ground water. Land capability can also be affected by increased compaction of soils from increased stocking rates.

Though not unique to intensive animal industries, some farming practices may require increased clearing of native vegetation or ground cover which may in turn, affect soil quality,

6 Charles Milne, Victoria’s Chief Veterinary Officer, in a recent annual report Animal Health in Victoria 2014 addresses

animal health issues in Victoria.


Page 15 of 97

create erosion or affect rare and threatened species. There may also be impacts on sites or places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance.

(iii) Amenity

The potential for land use conflict works both ways. Amenity impacts from intensive animal industries such as noise, dust and odour may affect neighbouring and wider community uses including dwellings, bed and breakfast accommodation, rural schools, churches and halls. There may also be visual impacts.

Likewise, sensitive uses can impact on local intensive animal husbandry enterprises. Planning processes need to consider the impact on animal husbandry development opportunities of new sensitive uses in rural areas.

(iv) Rural economic development

Animal industries underpin the prosperity of many regional communities in Victoria with the food and fibre sector (which includes animal industries) employing over 190,000 people.

Many animal producers are keen to create and maintain their own market reputation or point of difference in terms of production method such as ‘free range’, ‘grass fed’, or ‘organic’. A poor operator in an industry can have a reputational impact on other producers.

Amenity and visual impacts can also affect commercial farm‐based tourism‐related enterprises, such as wineries with cellar door sales and restaurants and farm stay properties.

(v) Infrastructure

Increases in traffic associated with some animal industries can impact and damage local roads.

The Committee understands that many animal industries require large amounts of water which may either be provided on‐site and create competition for water resources or be imported from off‐site which may limit the siting of some of these industries. Three‐phase power may also be required.


Page 16 of 97

2 Submissions and issues

2.1 Exhibition and submissions

The Animal Industries Advisory Committee released a Discussion Paper online for public comment from 21 December 2015 until 5 February 2016. The public were invited to make a submission via an online form on the Animal Industries webpage.

A total of 146 online and written submissions were received and 43 submitters presented at the public Hearings. Of the total submissions, 60 were received from organisations including local government and industry groups. Eighty‐six submissions were received from individuals.

The Discussion Paper sought feedback on 16 possible policy directions shown in Figure 2.

The submissions were analysed and where appropriate responses were rated on a five point rating scale from ‘Strong Support’ to ‘Opposed’ for each of the 16 policy directions.

There was broad support for most of the policy directions, but as the Committee stressed in its consultations that this does not mean that they should all automatically be pursued; the Committee paid particular attention to the reasons why some submitters opposed certain directions.

Figure 3 shows the patterns of support and opposition.


Page 17 of 97

Figure 2: Policy directions presented in the Committee’s Discussion paper

1. Provide stronger strategic guidance by undertaking regional agricultural land capability assessments and identifying appropriate areas for intensive agriculture in local planning policies.

2. Strengthen the purpose of the Farming Zone to promote agriculture activity as the priority activity and remove reference to encouraging dwellings as a means of promoting population growth.

3. Identify in planning schemes defined buffer distances for different types and scales of intensive animal industries.

4. Require a permit in the farming zones for dwellings within the buffer distance of intensive animal operations.

5. Base the generic definition of intensive animal husbandry on the impacts of the operation.

6. Base the requirement for a permit for animal industries on the potential environmental and amenity impacts of the operation derived from an assessment with an online tool.

7. Create specific subset land use terms for poultry farms (broiler, egg and hatcheries), cattle and sheep feedlots and piggeries and other clearly intensive uses, to avoid reliance on a generic intensive animal husbandry definition where possible.

8. Strengthen permit triggers and referral arrangements for animal industry applications.

9. Limit the ‘right to object’ in the Farming Zone when standards prescribed for an animal husbandry enterprise type are met.

10. Clarify when farming operations have existing use rights

11. Create a single point of contact for all enforcement actions whose role it is to oversee enforcement activities.

12. Increase the role of the EPA as an enforcement body.

13. Set clearer prescribed standards and conditions for intensive animal industries in planning schemes using the Codes of Practice approach.

14. Develop and maintain contemporary codes for all intensively farmed livestock (as a minimum, for poultry (broiler, layer and hatchery), piggeries, cattle feedlots, sheep feedlots, and feedlot dairies).

15. Introduce a fast track process for applications that meet defined standards.

16. Formally recognise participation in compliant industry assurance programs in the planning process. Some examples include APIQ, NFAS, Chicken Care and Egg Corp Assured.


Page 18 of 97

Figure 3:

Support for an

d opposition to policy directions presented in

the Committee’s Discussion pap

er.

Percentage of submissions that addressed the issue


Page 19 of 97

(i) Councils

Councils generally supported the work of the Committee. Most of the submissions received included comments on each policy direction set out in the Discussion Paper. Responses from Councils were broadly consistent in support for strengthening of the primary purpose of the Farming Zone, greater clarity around existing use rights and the development of a Codes of Practice approach. There was also broadly consistent opposition to limiting the ‘right to object’ in the Farming Zone and introducing a fast‐track process. Councils also raised other issues such as enforcement, lack of resources, changing innovations and unclear policy directions at a state and local level.

The submissions from Councils reflected the different nature of agricultural activity across the municipalities. For example, the Yarra Ranges Shire is considered a metropolitan Council and is characterised by a combination of urban and rural land. Much of the shire is in the Green Wedge Zone. The shire attracts many lifestyle properties, hobby farms and tourism. In their submission, Council stressed the importance of:

… not overlooking the Green Wedge zones when making recommendations for change.

Despite the contrast in submissions amongst Councils, there was general in‐principle support for the implementation of the majority of policy directions.

(ii) Individuals

Across individual submitters, submissions addressed animal welfare, health and wellbeing, environment and individual’s farming experiences. Not all submitters addressed the policy directions.

Individual submitters raised issues regarding the need for clarity about the permit requirements, for example:

… planning policy must not wait for damage to the environment or landscape to be done before considering whether or not a permit for livestock farming is required.

A number of submitters desired policy to support the industry:

… reduce red tape for the farmer and the workload for local government.

Concerns were raised about the inability for individuals to rely on Council for enforcement or information, particularly in situations where nearby farming operators breached permits or caused negative off‐site impacts. It was submitted that some Council officers:

…. do not have the expertise or knowledge of the area of agriculture [and] breaches of conditions are not followed up satisfactorily.

For those raising animal welfare issues, some were fundamentally opposed to ‘intensive’ animal farming as a proposition. It was suggested that policy should:

… gently discourage growth in [animal] industries and encourage diversification into alternative income streams.

Along similar lines, some submissions were opposed to farming animals for consumption and were instead promoting veganism as a better lifestyle choice.


Page 20 of 97

A significant number of submissions limited their concern solely to broiler farms, indicating a portion of the community is strongly opposed to such farms.

Environmental issues raised included general concerns about impacts of the industry on landscape, surface waters, land capability, soil health and amenity. Greenhouse gases from livestock was also raised as a concern particularly in the context of cattle.

In some cases experiences with neighbouring properties provided live examples for submissions on potential impacts to neighbourhood amenity with impacts reported including noise, odour and increases in ‘pest’ species such as birds (corellas) being attracted in large flocks to feed hoppers. Some concerns were from existing farmers who had lived on farms for years without cause for complaint until recent extreme examples. There was also concern that ‘tree‐changers’ were demanding a higher level of amenity prioritising settlement over agriculture in the Farming Zone.

Other concerns included the influence of consumers and large supermarkets marketing different production systems such as ‘free‐range’, ‘organic’, or ‘grass fed’, thus driving consumer‐preferences that were often at odds with the realities of the production system.

(iii) Industry and community groups

The Committee received a good range of submissions from industry groups and community groups ranging from industry representatives to groups promoting veganism.

The pork and chicken meat industry bodies submitted that the current planning system has cost the State both investment and opportunities in these industries.

The pork industry were particularly concerned with the confusion around ‘extensive’ and ‘intensive’ animal husbandry and the negative connotations many producers felt were associated with being branded as ‘intensive’. In this sense, it is considered the word ‘intensive’ denotes a magnitude of impact as opposed to a measure of the percentage of nutrition from off‐site. For pigs, which generally cannot obtain most of their nutritional needs from pasture, the definition is considered most unhelpful. For those attempting to establish themselves as small‐scale boutique operations, the classification as ‘intensive’ is seen to damage their reputation.

Australian Pork Limited supported all pork producers being required to obtain approvals to ensure operations can benefit from ‘good siting, design and management’. It considered that departing from the current definitions of extensive and intensive animal husbandry is seen as a step towards transparency and planning certainty.

The Victorian Chicken Meat Council submitted that the current state of the planning system was in part responsible for slowed growth and investment in the chicken meat industry. Key issues for this industry included lack of certainty in the system and some entrenched opposition to the industry.

(iv) Water authorities

Regional water authorities outlined their role as referral authorities in protecting special water use catchments and highlighted the layer of complexity that this sometimes adds in applications where these authorities are often engaged post application. For this reason a pre‐application process was encouraged to ensure potential applicants could be more aware


Page 21 of 97

of the implications of operating in a special water supply catchment and potentially tailor their farm plans accordingly.

(v) Environment Protection Authority

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is a key referral authority and enforcement body that is governed by the Environment Protection Act 1970.

In its submission, the EPA suggested that enforcement roles should be clarified to allow for enforcement issues to be handled better across government. Any increase in the EPA’s role as an enforcement body was considered to require justification with evidence of environmental impacts. It was also suggested that local government environmental health officers would be a more practical solution to dealing with complaints.

The EPA strongly encouraged permit requirements for dwellings located in a Farming Zone and stated that there is currently a ‘regulatory gap’ in this area. However, it did not support limiting the ‘right to object’ and believed that the involvement of objectors could lead to better planning outcomes.

2.2 What are the issues

This report addresses submissions under the following headings:

Planning for economic development

Matching production systems and definitions

Matching impacts and controls

Separating uses

Improving permit applications

Strengthening enforcement and compliance of animal industries.

Before discussing these issues it is useful to outline the current policy and controls over animal industries.


Page 22 of 97

3 Policy and control of animal industries

3.1 Planning policy support for animal industries

(i) Planning schemes and zones

All land in Victoria is covered by a planning scheme that includes state and local planning policies, zones and overlays and must be considered by Councils in making planning decisions.

Planning zones apply to all land and set out specific uses that may be permitted on land according to the zone. One of the tools used in planning schemes to regulate the use and development of land is to require planning permits for certain types of use or development according to the planning zone.

The key zone used to encourage farming is the Farming Zone. The majority of rural land in Victoria is included within the Farming Zone. To a lesser extent the Rural Activity Zone, Rural Conservation Zone, Green Wedge Zone, Urban Floodway Zone and Rural Living Zone also apply to rural land.

Figure 4: Farming land in Victoria

Source DELWP: Land in the Farming Zone, Rural Activity Zone, Green Wedge Zone and Green Wedge A Zone


Page 23 of 97

A permit is required for Intensive animal husbandry7 in the Farming, Rural Activity and Green Wedge Zones. For a Cattle feedlot or a Broiler farm whether or not a permit is required is related to compliance with a Code of Practice. Intensive animal husbandry is prohibited in the Green Wedge A, Rural Conservation and Rural Living Zones.

(ii) State and local planning policies

State and local planning policy frameworks set out key strategies for meeting defined planning objectives. Both State and Local planning policies must be taken into account by Councils and other decision makers when making planning decisions. The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) sets out the following policy for agriculture and animal industries in Clause 14.01.

Clause 14.01‐1 seeks “to protect productive farmland which is of strategic significance in the local or regional context”. Strategies provided to implement this objective include identifying areas of productive agricultural land and considering its economic importance when considering any decisions which may result in its loss due to incremental or permanent changes of land use.

Clause 14.01‐2 encourages sustainable agricultural land use. As well as supporting long term sustainable land use of existing natural resources, the strategies recognise the need to adjust to the flexibility of the market and specifically seeks to:

Facilitate the establishment and expansion of cattle feedlots, piggeries, poultry farms and other intensive animal industries in a manner consistent with orderly and proper planning and protection of the environment.

(iii) Regional growth plans

Regional growth plans provide broad direction for land use and development across regional Victoria and detailed planning frameworks for key regional centres. Regional growth plans are included in the SPPF and therefore must be taken into account in planning decision‐making.

A number of Regional growth plans include strategies addressing animal industries as indicated in Figure 5.

7 Land use terms defined in the planning schemes are shown like this: Planning scheme defined term


Page 24 of 97

Figure 5: Strategies addressing animal industries in Regional growth plans

G21 (Geelong Region Alliance)

Grow milk production and value added processing, leveraging aggregation opportunities and existing expertise

Grow intensive animal production and processing such as poultry, in suitable areas, leveraging proximity to markets.

Great South Coast

Grow milk production and processing, leveraging aggregation and intensification opportunities, expertise and new business models

Expand livestock production and processing through better pasture and feed utilisation, intensification and new business models.

Wimmera Southern Mallee

Expand intensive animal production given large tracts of available land, water supply infrastructure and ready access to feed grain.

Central Highlands

Grow intensive animal production and processing in suitable areas, leveraging the production environment, ready access to feed grain and proximity to markets.

Loddon Mallee North

Expand dairy production and processing, leveraging irrigation modernisation, intensification and demand for value added products

Build scale in livestock production and processing based on implementation of specialist finishing systems, value chain integration, intensification and new business models.

Loddon Mallee South

Expand intensive animal production and processing, with tracts of available land and leveraging skills and freight corridors.

Hume

Expand dairy production and processing, leveraging intensification and value adding opportunities and irrigation modernisation

Build scale in intensive animal production and processing, leveraging tracts of available land and the Hume transport corridor.

Gippsland

Expand dairy production and processing, leveraging aggregation and value adding opportunities and irrigation modernisation

Expand intensive animal production and processing, focused on value added products for domestic and export markets.


Page 25 of 97

3.2 Legislative control on animal industries

Key aspects of animal industries are regulated under the following Acts:

Animal welfare and biosecurity - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (and associated Codes of Practice or

National Standards relating to animal welfare) - Livestock Management Act 2010 - Impounding of Livestock Act 1994 - Livestock Disease Control Act 1994 - Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992

Environmental - Planning and Environment Act 1987 - Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 - Environment Protection Act 1970

Residential amenity - Environment Protection Act 1970 - Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008

Rural economic development (including industry reputation) - Dairy Act 2000 - Meat Industry Act 1993.

The Committee is broadly aware of the legislative framework and standards dealing with animal welfare and biosecurity issues that apply to animal industries. In some areas, these standards have implications for planning, for example, biosecurity standards that dictate separation distances are relevant for planning decisions. In other circumstances there is, appropriately, no overlap between the issues addressed and the planning system. For this reason the Committee has not set out in detail the role of each of the above Acts.

There is some overlap and interaction in the planning system and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 with the Environment Protection Act 1970 and Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 in relation to the regulation and enforcement of animal industries. This section briefly outlines the role of the relevant Acts dealing with environmental issues and residential amenity.

(i) Planning and Environment Act 1987

The Planning and Environment Act establishes the framework for planning use, development and protection of land in Victoria. Planning schemes set out the way land may be used or developed to achieve state and local planning objectives.

The Planning and Environment Act makes it an offence to contravene the planning scheme, permit or an agreement under the Act. Penalties of up to $186,552 can apply with an additional $9,327.60 each day for continued breaches (section 127).8 Where a body corporate commits an offence an officer of the body corporate may also be liable if they failed to exercise due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence (section 128).

8 Technically 1200 penalty units with an additional 60 penalty units for continued breaches. In Victoria fines are

expressed in legislation as ‘penalty units’. Penalty units determine the amount a person is fined when they commit an offence. The current value of a penalty unit is $155.46 (as at 29 March 2016).


Page 26 of 97

Authorised officers may serve infringement notices (section 130). The Act also provides authorised officers with powers of entry and they are to receive police assistance if requested in the execution of their powers (Part 6 Division 3).

(ii) Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008

The purpose of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act is to promote and protect public health and wellbeing in Victoria. Division 1 of Part 6 of the Act deals with ‘nuisances’. ‘Nuisance’ is not defined in the Act, but the Act applies to nuisances which are, or liable to be, dangerous to health or offensive. The Act defines ‘offensive’ to mean ‘noxious or injurious to personal comfort’.

The Act applies to nuisances arising from or constituted by any premises, water, animal (including bird or insect), noise or emission, state/condition/activity or other matter or thing which is, or is liable to be, dangerous to public health or offensive. In determining this level of nuisance, the degree of offensiveness is relevant, but not the number of persons affected or who may be affected (section 58(2)).

The nuisance sections of the Act work in addition to any remedy or proceeding at common law or under any other act, including other parts of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act (section 59).

The Act imposes a duty on Council to remedy nuisances in its municipal district. If a Council fails to investigate the matter within a reasonable time, an affected person may make a complaint to the Magistrates’ Court who may investigate the matter further (section 63).

Penalties for nuisance under the Act range from $18,655.20 for an individual to $93,276 for a body corporate9 (section 61). The Act outlines powers of entry afforded to authorised officers in enforcing their obligations (Part 9 Division 3).

In a cases where a Council pursued a summary prosecution proceedings under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act in addition to enforcement action in Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal under the Planning and Environment Act, the magistrate ruled that this was an abuse of process.10

To avoid such criticism, Councils need to determine which proceeding it will issue and continue with – this will depend on a number of factors such as the burden of proof, requisite evidence required for that burden, defences available to defeat the enforcement proceeding and level of remedies available that would make the enforcement proceeding a success.

The Victorian Farmers Federation submitted that the Public Health and Wellbeing Act should be amended to exempt agricultural producers from nuisance complaints. The Committee does not know how many, if any, nuisance actions under the Act are unfounded; a review of actions under the Act is beyond the Committee’s Terms of Reference. However, considering the Act works in addition to common law this may not be a fruitful solution.

9 120 to 600 penalty units for an individual and body corporate respectively. The current value of a penalty unit is

$155.46 (as at 29 March 2016). 10 Hopkins River Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Moyne Shire Council, ruling delivered 26 June 2014


Page 27 of 97

(iii) Environment Protection Act 1970

The purpose of the Environment Protection Act is to create a framework for environmental protection having regard to principles set out in the Act.

The Act sets up a licencing system for ‘scheduled premises’ requiring a works approval or licence from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) in certain circumstances (sections 19A and 20). ‘Works approvals’ permit plant and equipment to be installed and are usually completed in parallel with the planning permit process. Licences control the operation of premises.

Schedule 1 to the Environment Protection (Scheduled Premises and Exemptions) Regulations 2007 sets out the categories of ‘scheduled premises’. Category B01 is ‘Intensive animal industry’ and is defined as:

Intensive animal industry, being premises upon which are situated piggeries or cattle feedlots and the like, where more than 5,000 animals are confined for the purposes of agricultural production.

Poultry is generally not included in this definition.

The table specifies that in this category:

Premises discharging or depositing waste solely to land are exempt from licensing under section 20(1) of the [Environment Protection] Act.

However, other aspects of the intensive animal supply chain may require an EPA licence. For example, Hazeldene’s processing facility in Bendigo has an EPA licence for scheduled categories D01 (Abattoirs) and D02 (Rendering), which addresses odour and the discharge of treated wastewater to land. In certain circumstances, certain decisions by the EPA may be reviewed by VCAT on application of persons affected (section 33B).

The Act establishes offences for owners and occupiers of scheduled premises which discharge waste to the environment without a licence or in contravention of a licence (section 27). Offences under this section are indictable and penalties up to $364,000 may be imposed.11 The Act enables the EPA to issue pollution abatement notices requiring the cessation or control of activities on site (section 31A)

The scheduled premises regulations are currently under review, and any change to the role of the EPA would best be considered through that more comprehensive process.

In addition to scheduled premises, the Act also establishes more general offences for discharges to water, air and land that are not in accordance with State Environment Protection Policies (Parts V to VII of the Act).

11 Technically 2400 penalty units. In Victoria fines are expressed in legislation as ‘penalty units’. Penalty units

determine the amount a person is fined when they commit an offence. The current value of a penalty unit is $151.67 (as at 1 July 2015).


Page 28 of 97

4 Issue 1 – Planning for economic development

4.1 State economic development

State and local government strategic planning resources have tended to focus on settlement planning, and in many parts of the State there is a lack of strong strategic direction for rural land use. There are many areas where there is a significant policy vacuum and the Farming Zone, the most widely applied zone in rural Victoria, operates alone as a ‘one size fits all’ regardless of land suitability for different types of agriculture or the economic opportunities presented in an area.

At a state policy level known issues have been left unaddressed for some time – such as the fact the incorporated Piggeries Code is well past its use by date and has been superseded by more appropriate industry codes, but remains in planning schemes.

The Victorian Farmers Federation submitted that the government should establish a working group to develop industry guidelines and finalise changes to planning schemes. The Committee agrees that there is a need for such a working group, but also sees a wider role for providing high level guidance on the economic development of the industry, and rural areas in general.

Due to the vast number of divergent views on the issues and the level of detail required to resolve these, such as for revising or developing new Codes of Practice, the Committee agrees that a working group is warranted to assist in guiding the implementation of changes to planning schemes and developing Codes of Practice.


Establish a high level working group with a mix of government, industry and community representatives to facilitate continued improvement in the sector, finalise changes to planning schemes, set a framework for developing Codes of Practice and develop model planning permit conditions.

4.2 The need for rural planning

Historically, the geographic location of farming enterprises and commodities have been driven by natural resources such as soil composition and health, availability of water resources and climate profile. As technologies have changed over time, farming has become more intensive and intensive animal industries have become less reliant on land capability as a result of these technologies and emerging farming practices. Access to feed sources, markets, transport and value‐added processing have further influenced the location and clustering of animal industries.

The capacity of farming land to provide a return is becoming more vulnerable to significant variations, including climate change, changes to government incentives or policy, water allocations, consumer demand, corporate investment in agriculture, life cycle of farmers (smaller parcels sold off for superannuation) and changes in surrounding land uses, most often from agriculture to rural residential or housing.


Page 29 of 97

In terms of land use planning, there are two issues relating to land suitability in relation to intensive animal industries that need to be considered:

the potential impact of intensive agricultural uses on the capability of the land to accommodate production over the long term

the potential impact of new uses, development or subdivision on existing or potential intensive agricultural enterprises.

The Committee received a number of submissions from Councils where significant effort has gone into the strategic planning of rural areas. Not all of this strategic work has resulted in the introduction of new policy and planning controls into planning schemes.

A number of Councils, sometimes as part of a wider region, have prepared land capability studies and rural plans and have sought to formally identify areas for various agricultural production methods, including Intensive animal husbandry. For example the Councils of Campaspe Shire, City of Greater Shepparton, and Moira Shire undertook the Regional Rural Land Use Strategy. This was introduced into their respective planning schemes by a set of planning scheme amendments: Campaspe C69, City of Greater Shepparton C121 and Moira Shire C51. In its report on the amendments (March 2012), the Panel that considered submissions recommended four farming zones be created to allow for different land (soil) and farming types to be distinguished with clear guidance to be given on minimum lot sizes for each zone.

Industry clusters have also been recognised in some Regional growth plans and Local Planning Policy Frameworks (LPPFs) in relevant planning schemes. For example, Clause 21.04 of the Campaspe Planning Scheme and Clause 21.06 of the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme present policies that identify growth, consolidation and niche areas based on land capability and subdivision patterns. These policies identify the preferred location for intensive farming – such as piggeries in the Patho Plains – and locations where intensive animal husbandry should be avoided – such as irrigation areas.

Conversely, Clause 22.06 Rural Activity Zone Policy of the Campaspe Planning Scheme discourages intensive animal industries and Cattle feedlots in specific areas and encourages tourism‐based development. Golden Plains Shire Council have moved to strengthen rural policy as reflected in Clause 22.03 Intensive Animal Husbandry Policy and includes a series of design guidelines and siting requirements for the establishment of Intensive animal husbandry uses to protect amenity. Clause 22.02 Sustainable Intensive Agriculture Policy of the Strathbogie Planning Scheme is another example.

Providing stronger strategic guidance

The Committee sought submissions on how effective the following policy direction might be and how it might be implemented:

Provide stronger strategic guidance by undertaking regional agricultural land capability assessments and identifying appropriate areas for intensive agriculture in local planning policies.

The Committee received a range of submissions on the benefits of conducting land capability assessments. While many supported the approach others were more sceptical. The Committee heard that, while they have a role in understanding the characteristics of land, land capability assessments were limited in their ability to affect or direct particular animal industries. It was said that intensive agriculture should not be determined solely by


Page 30 of 97

agricultural land capability, as this did not take into account a range of relevant factors that would influence the location of intensive farming operations: transport infrastructure, water, access to markets and labour – which is ‘land suitability’.

Concerns were raised that strategic assessments could favour one land use over another, potentially causing a new form of conflict between competing land users. It was submitted that nominating areas suitable for new intensive farming operations might imply that others areas were not suitable when this was not the case.

The key determinants of the location of animal industries seem to be based on12:

environment

access to processing and markets

transport infrastructure, potable water, power and natural gas

concentration of dwellings, rural living, tourist development/tourist related agriculture

ability to secure required setbacks or buffers for amenity or biosecurity concerns

land values

proximity to workforce

The Committee agrees there could be broad benefit in identifying the areas suitable for further investment in intensive animal farming operations. Councils could also determine areas not suited to more intensive farming due as a result of competing land uses such as tourist related agriculture or concentration of dwellings. Such assessments should ultimately result in policy changes in planning schemes to guide how animal industries can survive and thrive in each local and regional context.

Land suitability assessments should complement other work being undertaken by Councils.

The Committee heard submissions from innovative operators who were embedding their farms in local economies and ecological systems, for example by feeding their pigs on ‘waste’ from a nearby craft brewery. This is as much the future of intensive animal farming in Victoria as 14,000 head goat dairies. It is important that strategic work is carried out primarily as an economic development strategy, with environmental and social inputs: this does not mean that local amenity issues are not important, but that such work needs to support innovations. In some cases new infrastructure, say a water pipe, or a new processing plant could unlock potential to support new operations to the benefit of local communities.

Some submissions considered that in addition to the Farming Zone there should be a ‘Rural Industry Zone’ or equivalent to facilitate more intensive or ‘industrial scale’ production systems.

The Committee has reviewed the rural zones in the context of Intensive animal husbandry. The purposes of the Farming Zone, Rural Activity Zone and Green Wedge Zone all have a strong focus on agricultural production. The Committee considers that, given the use of the schedules in the zones, the State Planning Policy Framework policy and the ability to set out policy in Local Planning Policy Framework, the suite of rural zones is generally sufficient. The introduction of a new zone is not necessary to deal with this issue.

12 List builds of key determinates identified in submission from Golden Plains Shire


Page 31 of 97


The Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources work with regional groups of Councils to prepare development strategies for intensive farming, identifying suitable and unsuitable areas for intensive animal industries.

4.3 More flexibility for the range of intensive uses

Almost all operations meeting the definition of Intensive animal husbandry require a planning permit with no distinction made between the scale or nature of the particular operation. In some zones all Intensive animal husbandry is prohibited.

A number of submissions highlighted the variation between various ‘intensive’ land uses giving practical examples of the different level of intensification and the different potential for off‐farm impacts. A broad range of production systems fall under the definition, yet the planning scheme considers them as all the same ‘use’.

Presently in the Farming Zone, Rural Activity Zone, Green Wedge Zone and Urban Floodway Zone, Intensive animal husbandry is a discretionary (Section 2) use.

Intensive animal husbandry (no matter the scale or animal type) is currently prohibited (Section 3) in a number of rural zones including the Rural Conservation Zone, Rural Living Zone and Green Wedge Zone A. It is also prohibited in residential and industrial zones.

Given the wide variety of intensive animal operations (which sometimes only require a small amount of area and may have negligible off‐site impacts, such as breeding butterflies) the Committee considers, as a short term action, Industrial Zones ought to include the opportunity for people to apply to use their land for Intensive animal husbandry subject to obtaining a planning permit. Permit applications would be considered on their merits and have regard to the specific circumstances of the site and surrounding land uses. As with warehouse and industrial uses under the industrial zones, Intensive animal husbandry could require a threshold distance from education or residential zones and separation distances should apply. The Committee does not envisage a feedlot being established but a snail farm might be appropriate.13


Make Intensive animal husbandry a Section 2 use (permit required) in industrial zones.

4.4 Local economic development

The Committee heard about the success of embedding farm liaison officers within rural Councils, for example on the Mornington Peninsula, to work between economic development and planning. Such a role would take a more proactive role in supporting local producers and assist Councils in managing the potential conflicts between intensive farming operations and other rural uses and residents. This on‐the‐ground approach has the

13 The committee was told that at least one Council had fielded enquiries for a snail farm.


Page 32 of 97

potential to deal with a range of issues before they escalate, and provides Council with in‐house technical expertise in assessing new operations and providing advice to producers.


Support a program of Council based farm liaison officers to assist animal industries.


Page 33 of 97

5 Issue 2 – Matching production systems and definitions

5.1 Animal production systems in practice

Intensive animal husbandry covers a wider range of different production systems. This section describes common systems.

(i) Beef cattle

The overwhelming majority of Australia’s cattle are raised on grass in pasture‐based systems with a small minority – 2 to 3 per cent – kept in feedlots at any time. The greater efficiency of feedlots mean that feedlot cattle are responsible for about 34 per cent of beef production.

According to national standards a feedlot is ‘a confined yard area with watering and feeding facilities, where cattle are completely hand‐ or mechanically‐fed for the purpose of beef production. This definition includes both covered and uncovered yards’.14

Pasture‐based beef cattle are often fed hay, silage or grain as a supplement to improve growth and productivity, or as substitute pasture during droughts or dry seasons.

In order to qualify as ‘grain‐fed’ a cattle’s diet must consist predominantly of grains for a specified number of days, typically 60 to 70 days minimum which equates to 10‐15 per cent of its life. Feedlots typically operate as a ‘finishing’ system. This system is popular in Australia as it allows market requirements of quality and quantity to be met irrespective of the seasons or droughts. Queensland is the largest state in terms of feedlot capacity with approximately 60 per cent of capacity followed by New South Wales with 30 per cent, Victoria with 7 per cent and the remainder shared between South Australia and Western Australia.

(ii) Dairy cattle

While grain feeding of dairy cattle is increasing, the Australian dairy industry remains predominately pasture‐based.15 The dairy industry have recognised five main feeding systems in Australia which range from predominately pasture‐based with low grain input to total mixed ration with no grazing. In Victoria, most dairies are pasture‐based with moderate to high grain concentrate.

Where pasture is supplemented or replaced with feed, a feeding system needs to be provided. There are four general types of feeding systems recognised: temporary, semi‐permanent, permanent basic, and permanent deluxe.

14 National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia, 3rd edition, accessed at www. Mla.com.au on 11 December

2015. 15 Dairy Australia http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/Industry‐information/About‐the‐industry/About‐the‐Australian‐

dairy‐industry.aspx


Page 34 of 97

A temporary system may consist of hay rings or old tractor tyres filled with feed. These need to be relocated in wet weather and this results in most of the feed being lost. A semi‐permanent system may include a low cost or earthen trough on a compacted surface. Feed loss is less than a temporary system and the facility may be relocated with a bit of effort. A permanent basic system includes compacted surface with concrete troughs and involves moderate feed wastage. A permanent deluxe system provides for maximum control and minimal wastage and is likely to have a cement surface and covered roof.

(iii) Chickens and eggs

Breeder farms

Breeder flocks are kept in sheds until they reach sexual maturity when they are transferred to laying sheds. Most sheds provide one nest per five hens and one rooster to every ten hens.

Hatchery

Eggs from breeder farms are sent to a separate hatchery for incubation. Once hatched, chicks are transported to a separate Broiler farm. In some cases, chicks are separated according to sex and male chicks are humanely destroyed and composted. At the hatchery, chicks get all their nutrition from their yolk sac and do not require feeding.

Broiler farm

Most chickens for meat are grown in permanent sheds, with highly mechanised operations. The type of chicken used for meat production is known as a ‘broiler’, hence the term ‘Broiler farm’. Chickens are free to roam around the shed and have continuous access to feed and water or, are automatically fed at ‘meal times’. The shed floor is covered with bedding (rice hulls or wood shavings) and ventilation is provided – this is known as a ‘deep litter’ system. A batch of chickens will remain in the shed until harvest (between 30 and 60 days). At this time the shed is cleaned and disinfected in time for the following batch of chickens.

Free range chickens are reared in the same manner but are provided access to the outside for part of each day once they have reached a certain age. In some cases, free range chickens are housed in caravan coops which are transported around the paddock.

Egg production

The three main types of egg production in Australia are cage, barn and free range.16 As of 2008 most cage systems are environmental cage systems which are housed in large sheds and have computerised climate control and tunnel ventilation. Most of these sheds also have automated feeding systems and some may also have manure belts to remove the manure, which is generally transported off‐site for further processing or used for agriculture.

Barn laid systems generally comprise an automated nesting system with hens being housed in groups in sheds. After approximately 1 year birds will go into a natural moult and are

16 Information from Environmental Guidelines for the Australian Egg Industry, June 2008 accessed at

https://www.aecl.org/assets/Uploads/Resources/Environmental‐Guidelines‐for‐the‐Australian‐Egg‐Industry.pdf on 14 December 2015.


Page 35 of 97

removed for processing. Manure and spent litter is removed at the same time and the shed is sanitised.

Free range systems are similar to barn laid however adjoining the shed will be an open‐aired outdoor range in which the birds can access open space and vegetation for part of the day.

(iv) Pigs

Pigs are omnivores and have relatively poor ability to digest pasture and require significant supplementary feeding to obtain adequate nutrition for health and growth.

The National Environmental Guidelines for Piggeries, identify two classes of intensive piggeries being indoor housing and outdoor piggeries. Extensive pig farming (where pigs rely primarily on foraging) is not covered by the National Guidelines and the Committee was told that there are no commercial piggeries meeting the definition.

There are two types of indoor piggeries: conventional piggeries and deep litter piggeries. A ‘conventional piggery’ is typically steel or timber framed sheds with corrugated iron or sandwich panel roof, and concrete panel, concrete block, corrugated iron or sandwich panel walls with side curtains or ventilation systems. Flooring may be slatted with spilt feed, water and animal waste falling through the slats to be collected under the floor. Otherwise flooring may include an open channel dunging area which is flushed regularly.

Deep litter piggeries are typically made of a series of hooped metal frames covered in waterproof fabric similar to a greenhouse. Flooring may comprise of concrete or compacted earth. Straw, sawdust or similar bedding is used to absorb manure and eliminates the need for water use in cleaning. This bedding is generally removed and replaced with each batch of pigs.

Outdoor piggeries house pigs outdoors with access to shelters. There are two types of outdoor piggeries: rotational outdoor and feedlot piggeries. Rotational outdoor piggeries keep pigs in paddocks with open deep litter shelters or basic huts. Paddocks are rotated with a crop‐forage‐pasture phase to remove nutrients deposited during the pig phase. Rotational systems can consist of free range piggeries (all pigs permanently outdoors) or outdoor bred raised indoors on straw piggeries. Feedlot piggeries accommodate pigs in permanent outdoor areas that have an impermeable base (concrete or compacted earth). Nutrient rich run‐off is captured from the pens.

(v) Lamb and wool

Sheep may either be bred for meat or wool or both. Similar to cattle, sheep are generally pasture fed with some supplementary feeding or ‘finishing’ with hay or grains, or grazing on crop stubbles. Victorian sheep farms are generally small with an estimated value of less than $100,000.17 Most sheep farms focus on the production of meat for domestic markets, however wool and live exports are also important.

17 DPI website http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/sheep/victorias‐sheep‐meat‐and‐wool‐

industry/victorias‐sheep‐meat‐and‐wool‐industry‐summer‐2011


Page 36 of 97

(vi) Other farm animals

There are a number of other animal industries and production systems that operate in Victoria including camel, goats and rabbits. The production systems for these animals vary in the same way the systems for more traditional industries vary, and are likely to have similar impacts to the more predominant animal systems, particularly as they intensify.

(vii) Exotic animals

The definition of Intensive animal husbandry captures a range of exotic and unusual operations. A business growing mice as food for pet reptiles was classed as Intensive animal husbandry. Submitters related inquiries from snail and quail farms; an operation breeding butterflies for weddings is likely to be an Intensive animal husbandry in Victoria. Planning schemes should provide flexibility so that such uses can be considered on their merits. The graduated approach set out in section 6.1 provides such flexibility based on risk.

5.2 Animal production system definitions

Lack of specific definitions 5.2.1

Land use types are defined in the VPPs, and in some cases more specific definitions are ‘nested’ within broader categories. The broad land use term of Agriculture encompasses a range of more specific land uses from Crop raising to Animal husbandry. Apart from Cattle feedlot and Broiler farm the definitions do not relate to specific production systems.

Extensive animal husbandry is defined where “the animals’ main food source is obtained by grazing, browsing, or foraging on plants grown on the land”. The Intensive animal husbandry definition refers to “importing most food from outside the enclosures”. In simple terms, once an animal’s main food source is from imported food a planning permit is required.

Agribusiness Yarra Valley Inc. submitted:

The lack of description in the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) definitions for intensive and extensive animal husbandry are limiting the viability, expansion and competitiveness of Victorian farming enterprises using quality animal husbandry techniques with high animal welfare practices that are sustainable and environmentally sound.

Farming enterprises that are considered intensive such as free range – pig, goat, chicken and egg production, are not permissible in some regions, while in others they are forced to comply with onerous permit guidelines. It is due to the lack of detail in the VPP definition, particularly for intensive animal husbandry.

Figure 6 shows how the definitions fit together and Figure 7 provides the relevant definitions. Animal farming generally falls under the definitions of Extensive animal husbandry, or Intensive animal husbandry.


Page 37 of 97

Figure 6: Nesting diagram for agricultural land use terms in planning schemes


Page 38 of 97

Figure 7: Current definitions in planning schemes

Land use term Definition Includes Included in Agriculture Land used to:

a) propagate, cultivate or harvest plants, including cereals, flowers, fruit, seeds, trees, turf, and vegetables; b) keep, breed, board, or train animals, including livestock, and birds; or c) propagate, cultivate, rear, or harvest living resources of the sea or inland waters.

Animal husbandry Aquaculture Crop raising

Animal husbandry

Land used to keep, breed, board, or train animals, including birds.

Animal keeping Animal training Apiculture Extensive animal husbandry Horse stables Intensive animal husbandry

Agriculture

Animal keeping Land used to: a) breed or board domestic pets; or b) keep, breed, or board racing dogs.

Animal boarding Dog breeding Racing dog keeping

Animal husbandry

Animal training Land used to train animals. Horse riding school Racing dog training

Animal husbandry

Apiculture Land used to keep honeybee hives and to extract honey or other bee hive products.

Animal husbandry

Extensive animal husbandry

Land used to keep or breed farm animals, including birds, at an intensity where the animals' main food source is obtained by grazing, browsing, or foraging on plants grown on the land. It includes: a) emergency and supplementary feeding; and b) the incidental penning and housing of animals, including birds, for brooding, weaning, dipping, or other husbandry purposes.

Animal husbandry

Intensive animal husbandry

Land used to keep or breed farm animals, including birds, by importing most food from outside the enclosures. It does not include: a) an abattoir or sale yard; b) emergency and supplementary feeding if incidental to the use of land for extensive animal husbandry; or c) the penning and housing of animals, including birds, for brooding, weaning, dipping or other husbandry purposes if incidental to the use of land for extensive animal husbandry.

Broiler farm Cattle feedlot

Animal husbandry

Cattle feedlot Land used to keep and fatten cattle which are restrained by pens or enclosures and intensively fed.


Broiler farm Land used to keep broiler chickens which are housed permanently in sheds and reared for meat production.



Page 39 of 97

Uses not captured 5.2.2

Not all intensive animal operations are captured by the Intensive animal husbandry definition.

Chicken hatcheries

VCAT recently considered the case of a proposal to develop a chicken hatchery.18 The proposal was for four large sheds developed in stages which when completed would produce nearly one million chicks per week. Half of these being the male chicks would be humanely destroyed, while the female chicks would be transported off‐site within 2–3 days of being hatched. No feed for the hatched chicks was required as at that age chicks receive all the necessary nutrition from their yolk sac (a remnant from the egg). A wastewater treatment plant would process 40,000 litres of wastewater per week to be disposed of by on‐site irrigation.

The planning permit applicant applied to the Campaspe Shire Council for a planning permit for the use and development of a chicken hatchery on the subject land. In the planning permit application, the applicant referred to this use as being Animal husbandry.

Nearby residents sought review of the Council’s decision to grant a permit and also challenged Council’s characterisation of the land use as Animal husbandry.

VCAT noted that:

This is a significant operation conducted in an industrialised setting and generating substantial traffic. The issue in dispute is whether such use and development require planning permission within a Farming Zone with no overlays. If the use does not require a permit, no permit for development is required except for buildings, but not works, within certain setbacks.

In VCAT’s view, the proposed hatchery use was most appropriately characterised as Animal husbandry (as no feed was imported onto the premises) and no permit was required for the use. The lack of a specific definitions means that hatcheries are not subject to any planning controls despite the significance of the operation.

Piggeries

In the Happy Valley Piggery case VCAT determined that ‘most food’ meant most nutrition.19 This had the effect of making a ‘free range’ piggery fall under the definition of Intensive animal husbandry. This classification was counterintuitive to some people as a ‘free range’ piggery was not seen as ‘intensive’. This issue was raised a number of times in submissions in that the producers’ view of whether or not they were ‘free range’ coloured their interpretation of the formal planning scheme definitions.

The fact that a piggery was Intensive animal husbandry did not surprise a number of observers. Pigs are omnivores and their ability to extract energy from grazing activity, is less efficient than ruminants. No farmed pig – whether free range or housed – is likely to get most of its nutrients from grazing.

18 Gaist v Campaspe SC [2‐15] VCAT 1662 (16 October 2015) 19 Yarra Ranges SC v Happy Valley Free Range VCAT 1058 (16 July 2016)


Page 40 of 97

All pig farming is likely to be Intensive animal husbandry in the planning sense of the term. Confusion could be avoided by recognising this and defining ‘Piggery’ in the VPP as a form of Intensive animal husbandry. The graduation in the intensity of pig production – from small free range systems to large fully housed systems – is addressed by the graduated approach to planning controls recommended in Section 6.1.

Sheep feedlots

Cattle feedlot is separately defined, but there is no definition for Sheep feedlot but a number of these operations have been established.

5.3 Creating more specific definitions


Create specific subset land use terms for poultry farms (broiler, egg and hatcheries), cattle and sheep feedlots and piggeries and other clearly intensive uses, to avoid reliance on a generic intensive animal husbandry definition where possible.

There was broad support for this approach. The Victorian Farmers Federation submitted there should be separate definitions for:

Piggeries

Poultry production for eggs

Cattle feedlot

Broiler farm

Dairy

Cattle grazing

Sheep and other livestock grazing.

The Committee does not support the addition of a separate definition for dairy. Dairy operations range from pure pasture‐based systems which would be considered extensive to intensive operations using feedlots. In both cases existing definition for intensive and extensive animal husbandry and the proposed new definition of feedlot would capture these operations. Grazing operations are also captured by the existing definitions.

Nesting the definitions

In the definitions – and as shown in the nesting diagram – Intensive animal husbandry and Extensive animal husbandry act as alternatives. If new definitions are introduced it must be clear that they are an additional alternative; if a use meets the definition of a ‘piggery’ it must meet that definition whether or not more than 50 per cent of the food is imported. This means that the new definitions cannot be nested under Intensive animal husbandry but must be an alternative to Intensive animal husbandry.

The simplest way to achieve this is to create a new term such as ‘Commercial animal production’ as a head term for Intensive animal husbandry, Extensive animal husbandry and the new specific definitions.

Feed mills and composting

Feed mills and composting can cause significant off‐site effects but may be considered ancillary to the animal production and not require a permit. Given their potential for off‐site


Page 41 of 97

effects it would be prudent to amend the VPP so that a permit is required for these uses in rural zones.

Recommendations


Define land use terms for the current known intensive animal production systems, as shown in Appendix C, including:




Update Table of Uses in zones to include new definitions as Section 2 Uses (permit required) in the Farming Zone, Rural Activity Zone and Green Wedge Zone until contemporary Codes of Practice are developed.

Define ‘Rural feed mill’ and ‘Farm‐based composting’ as separate uses and require a permit for them in rural zones.

5.4 Issues with the generic definitions

There is a need to retain the generic definitions, as not all forms of intensive animal husbandry can be defined individually. It is also needed to provide a clear point of difference to extensive animal industries relying on grazing and for which planning controls are not applicable.

Clear communication

It was submitted that the term ‘intensive’ has a stigma for some production system operators such as ‘free range’, where it is at odds with market reputation and desired image. This can lead to undesirable ‘avoidance behaviour’ by some farmers with respect to complying with planning requirements.

Energy or nutrition

An issue that has been argued at VCAT is whether ‘most food’ refers to the weight of feed supplied or the calories provided in the animals feed. It has been determined that ‘most’ meant more than 50 per cent.20 A beef cow may graze on pasture and source ‘most’ of its food directly from the land in terms of weight, but high‐calorie supplementary feed may supply ‘most’ of its feed requirements in terms of calories or kilojoules consumed. In the Happy Valley Piggery case VCAT determined that ‘most food’ meant most nutrition.

Where it is necessary to determine the source of most food, this is easier to do as an energy balance rather than as a nutrient balance. The definition should be changed to make this clear.

20 Yarra Ranges SC v Happy Valley Free Range VCAT 1058 (16 July 2016)


Page 42 of 97

Cutting and carrying

The second element of to the Intensive animal husbandry definition relates to the interpretation of ‘importing from outside the enclosure’.

Some doubts have been raised over the term ‘enclosure’, with one interpretation being a physical structure like a shed, such as traditional broiler sheds, egg sheds and piggeries.

The ordinary meaning21 of ‘enclosure’ is:

1the act of enclosing. 2the separation and appropriation of land, especially of common land, by means of a fence.3a tract of land surrounded by a fence. 4that which encloses, as a fence or wall.

In the matter of Burdett v Mornington Peninsula SC (2011)22 VCAT concluded that the use was ‘extensive’ as ‘most’ of the animal’s feed was to be obtained from ‘grazing, browsing or foraging on plants grown on the land’. This includes the ‘cutting, storing and later feeding of hay’ including from areas of land outside of each horse enclosure. This is in contrast to the discussion in Geoffrey v Wellington SC (2007)23 where food from outside the dairy feed barn or ‘enclosure’ was considered ‘imported’.

There is a need to make it clear in the definition of Intensive animal husbandry that growing, cutting and carrying feed, even if from elsewhere on the farm, counts as part of the 50 per cent of food that is imported into the animals’ enclosure.

Intensive animal husbandry does not include24:

b) emergency and supplementary feeding if incidental to the use of land for extensive animal husbandry; or

c) the penning and housing of animals, including birds, for brooding, weaning, dipping or other husbandry purposes if incidental to the use of land for extensive animal husbandry.

The ordinary meaning of ‘emergency’ is:

an unforeseen occurrence; a sudden and urgent occasion for action.

The Committee does not doubt the issues of drought and climate change on farming operations, but do not see that these would constitute an ‘emergency’ over a sustained period.

There is a question around drought conditions and when management of dry seasonal conditions can be considered an ‘emergency’ situation. Farms suffering financial hardship may also argue they are in an ‘emergency’ situation.

It is not clear when importing feed is incidental to an existing operation or if the extensive operation has shifted permanently into an intensive enterprise.

21 Macquarie Dictionary 22 VCAT 1613 (22 August 2011) 23 VCAT 496 (29 March 2007) 24 Clause 74 of VPPs


Page 43 of 97

Recommendations


Change the definition of Extensive animal husbandry as shown in Appendix C to read:



a) emergency and seasonal supplementary feeding; and b) the incidental penning and housing of animals, including birds, for brooding, weaning, dipping, or other husbandry purposes.

Change the definition of Intensive animal husbandry as shown in Appendix C to read:


Land used to keep or breed farm animals, including birds, by importing more than 50 per cent of the animals’ energy needs most food from outside the immediate enclosure, pen or paddock enclosures. It does not include:

a) an abattoir or sale yard; b) emergency and seasonal supplementary feeding if incidental to the use of land for extensive animal husbandry; or c) the penning and housing of animals, including birds, for brooding, weaning, dipping or other husbandry purposes if incidental to the use of land for extensive animal husbandry.

5.5 Is an outcomes based definition possible

Various commentators have observed that the objective of distinguishing between ‘extensive’ and ‘intensive’ animal husbandry is to manage potential environmental or community impacts.

In Burdett v Morning Peninsula SC, VCAT emphasised that:

… distinguishing between these two levels of animal husbandry [extensive and intensive] is…intended to deal with the consequential environmental and land use impacts that may arise between the two different uses.

In this case, the definition was interpreted to avoid excessive legalism of the definition to distinguish between what is a relatively low impact use of horse agistment and the land use impacts of a feedlot.


Page 44 of 97

The 1997 VPP Advisory Committee that reviewed the implementation of the VPP said25:

It does not matter where the food is sourced from because it is the concentration of the animals which leads to the need for planning control.

The current definition is an input measure; it seeks to define the use based on the source of the feed inputs. What matters in planning are the outcomes or impacts of a use and shifting the definition and control of animal industries to focus on their impacts might make more sense.


Base the generic definition of intensive animal husbandry on the impacts of the operation.

While there was broad support for this approach the Committee was cautioned that it is a difficult approach to achieve in practice and suffers from the failing that it attempts to classify uses based on information that is often simply not available at the time of the application: the use’s actual impacts.

The Committee also considered the possibility of a definition based on stocking rates, which is the number of animals per hectare. While this has some attraction and the use of stocking rates would be easy enough to apply, there is no simple way to determine what the stocking rates should be for a particular farm; the carrying capacity of land varies from region to region, but also from farm to farm, and paddock to paddock. Using regional rates would be too crude, rates tailored to actual condition too complex and costly to administer.

After hearing submissions the Committee concluded that definitions based on the activities of the use with controls to manage the impacts is a less complicated and more straightforward way to proceed.

That said, while stocking rates cannot serve as the basis of a definition they can assist planners and producers know whether a use that falls under the generic definition is likely to be Intensive animal husbandry or not.


Provide online guidance on what the Intensive animal husbandry definitions means in terms of stocking rates for different conditions to provide a quick guide as to whether particular uses are likely to be intensive or extensive.

25 Section 16.9


Page 45 of 97

6 Issue 3 – Matching impacts and controls

6.1 A graduated approach

(i) The Farming Zone

Almost all operations meeting the definition of Intensive animal husbandry require a planning permit with no distinction made between the scale and nature of the particular operation.

A number of submissions highlighted the variation between various ‘intensive’ land uses, giving practical examples of the different levels of intensification and the potential for off‐farm impacts. For example, a small free‐range ‘ecologically sustainable’ pig farm compared with a large conventional piggery on which a large numbers of pigs are intensively housed and reared.

Applying the same planning requirements to all scales of intensive operations results in over regulation of smaller operations and is unwarranted. In some cases it has created confusion as operators do not see themselves falling under the Intensive animal husbandry definition even if they technically do.

There may be considerable variation in the likely off‐farm impacts of different intensive animal production systems, but there are impacts none the less and the potential for adverse impacts exists for all of them – hence the need for some level of risk management.

There is scope to categorise intensive animal production land uses to support a graduated approach to planning assessment and approval processes based on risk. A graduated approach would reflect the different levels of intensive animal production, and the differing potential for soil nutrient imbalance, and off‐farm impacts on the environment and local communities. This graduated approach could be used to determine the need (or otherwise) for a planning permit and conditions that ought to be applied, for various categories of intensive use.

The graduated risk profile of different intensive animal production systems, and the existence of effective management practices for some impacts, provides a basis to consider a graduated approach to requirements such as notification and objector appeal provisions.

Exemption from notice

Many submissions did not support limiting of the right to object, while a number of submissions supported limiting the right for an objector to subsequently appeal a planning decision under appropriate and defined circumstances:

Council does not support limiting the rights of third parties to object. It considers that adjoining farmers often have important and valuable views relating to their operations and how an application for an intensive animal industry may impact on their operations.

Should any steps be taken to limit the role of third parties in the planning process be considered, Council would encourage focus on limiting rights to seek a review of a council decision rather than exclude them completely from the planning process. In other words, Council would support in appropriate


Page 46 of 97

circumstances a situation where a Council would be required to give notice of an application and consider any objections, but objectors would be precluded from seeking a review of that decision. The legislative framework for such a process is already available under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Another council supported the policy direction:

… if the prescribed standards are adequate and are assessed by the community through consultation and exhibition.

The VPPs already recognises circumstances where compliance with certain standards reasonably allows for exemption from a permit of notification requirements and objector review provisions. Figure 8 shows when a permit is required for Intensive animal husbandry.

The Broiler Code classifies Broiler farms into four categories – Class A, Class B, Special Class and Farm Clusters according to different levels of environmental and amenity risk, and applies different approval requirements and notification and review rights to planning permit applications.

Currently, all planning schemes exempt an application for a Class A Broiler farm from the notification requirements and objector review provisions otherwise applicable under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

A Broiler farm is classified as Class A if it is smaller than a certain farm capacity based on bird numbers, and when the minimum separation distance requirement set out in the Broiler Code is fully contained within the Broiler farm boundary.

The basis for this exemption is that the inclusion of the separation distance within the farm provides acceptable management of the risk of off‐site impacts on the local community. Having a Code of Practice that sets out a standard for determining the separation distances is critical to this arrangement.

There is scope to extend the approach currently applying to Class A Broiler farm planning applications to a wider range of circumstances where certain standards set out in a Code of Practice that address off‐site impacts are complied with. This approach could also apply to categories of low‐intensive uses where relevant standards are codified and met. This approach would require the development of a wider range of Codes of Practice.

The Committee finds merit in a graduated approach to the application of planning requirements such as set out in Figure 9 (using the Farming Zone as an example).

For the graduated system to work effectively and efficiently, very clear planning permit triggers need to be built into the zone and the Codes of Practice to ensure that it is easily determined when a planning permit is required and when it is not. This is a matter of drafting and should be tested with Councils and industry.


Page 47 of 97

Figure 8: When is a permit required

Farming Zone Rural Activity Zone

Green Wedge Zone

Green Wedge A zone


No permit No permit No permit

Intensive animal husbandry (excluding Broiler farm and Cattle feedlot)

Permit required Permit required Prohibited

Broiler farm Permit required. Certain conditions must be met. If they are not, the use is prohibited. Note: Some farms are exempt from notice

Permit required. Certain conditions must be met. If they are not, the use is prohibited. Note: Some farms are exempt from notice

Prohibited

Cattle feedlot No permit, if the following conditions are met:

Must meet the requirements of Clause 52.26.

The total number of cattle to be housed in the cattle feedlot must be 1000 or less.

The site must be located outside a special water supply catchment under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994.

The site must be located outside a catchment area listed in Appendix 2 of the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots – August 1995.

If these conditions are not met then a permit is required and the following conditions must be met:



If these conditions are not met the use is prohibited

Permit required. The following conditions must be met:



If these conditions are not met the use is prohibited

Prohibited


Page 48 of 97

Figure 9: A graduated approach to land use categories for intensive animal husbandry

Intensive use category

Some Examples Planning approach in Farming Zone

Category 1 Full‐scale

Poultry farms, feedlots, piggeries and other intensive animal industries unless a code provides for an alternative category.

Permit, notice and appeal provisions, compliance with Code of Practice

Category 2 Full‐scale contained

Class A Broiler farms as provided for in Broiler Code

Operations that control the separation distance on their own land as set out in a code.

Small Cattle feedlots, where provided for in a code.

Small free range pig and poultry farms where provided for in a code.

Intensive supplementary feeding of cattle, sheep or goats (not a feedlot) where provided for in a code.

Permit, but no notice and appeal provisions. Compliance with Code of Practice

Category 3 Mid‐scale

Intensive supplementary feeding of cattle, sheep or goats (not a feedlot) where provided for in a code.

Small sheep feedlot where provided for in a code.

Small free range pig and poultry farms where provided for in a code.

No permit if specified standards and requirements are met

Category 4 Small‐scale

Backyard or domestic keeping of pigs and poultry. No permit and no planning controls


Adopt a graduated approach to the application of planning provisions to Intensive Animal Industries that categorises them according to risk and applies the following controls in the Farming Zone:

Category 1 – Full‐scale – Permit, notice and appeal, and compliance with Code of Practice.

Category 2 – Full‐scale contained (where separation distances are located on‐site or an agreement has been negotiated with the relevant adjacent landowners, or otherwise provided for in a code) – Permit, but no notice and appeal, and compliance with Code of Practice.

Category 3 – Mid‐scale – No permit provided specific standards and requirements are met.

Category 4 – Small‐scale – No permit and no planning controls required.

(ii) Extending the graduated approach

For those zones where Intensive animal husbandry is currently prohibited, there is an opportunity to enable lower impact animal enterprises to be considered provided they meet their relevant code. For example, in the Rural Living Zone any intensive animal operation, no matter the scale, is prohibited (a section 3 use). However, in these areas there may be the potential for ‘small scale’ enterprises. The current system does not even allow for such uses to be considered. Introducing graduated categories into the zones would allow for a greater


Page 49 of 97

variety of production methods and assessment pathways to be considered appropriate to the purpose of the zone provided they meet specific requirements. Figure 10 shows how this might work, using the categories of intensive use recommended above.

Figure 10: How graduated approach to land use categories for intensive animal husbandry might apply in different zones

Current All Intensive

animal husbandry

Category 1

Full‐scale

Category 2

Full‐scale Contained

Category 3

Mid‐scale

Category 4 Small‐scale

Farming Zone Section 2† Section 2 Section 2* Section 1* Section 1

Rural Activity Zone Section 2† Section 2 Section 2 Section 1* Section 1

Green Wedge Zone Section 2 Section 2 Section 2 Section 1* Section 1

Green Wedge Zone A Section 3 Section 3 Section 3 Section 2 Section 2

Rural Conservation Zone Section 3 Section 3 Section 3 Section 2 Section 2

Rural Living Zone Section 3 Section 3 Section 3 Section 2 Section 2

Industrial Zone Section 3 Section 2 Section 2* Section 2* Section 1

Urban Floodway Zone Section 2 Section 2 Section 2 Section 2 Section 2

Note † Some small Cattle feedlots do not require a permit in the Farming Zone Some Broiler farms are exempt from notice

Section 3 = Prohibited Section 2 = Permit required, notice and appeal rights Section 2* = Permit required, no notice Section 1* = No permit compliance with Code of Practice Section 1 = No permit


Revise the Table of Uses of each of the rural, industrial and flood zones to adopt a graduated approach to the application of planning provisions to intensive animal industries commensurate with the purposes of the zone.

6.2 The benefits of a Code of Practice approach

There was broad support for developing Codes of Practice, and the Committee was taken to a DEDJTR project aimed at developing codes.

For Broiler farms and Cattle feedlots, existing Codes of Practice codify principles and standards that manage the risk of off‐farm impacts to an acceptable level. Developing codes, standards or guidelines for a wider range of intensive land uses would provide clarity and consistency for farmers and planners.

Planning decisions are the responsibility of the elected Council26 and planning permit assessments are not always a technical exercise in complying with prescriptive standards,

26 Council have the power to act as a ‘planning authority’ and amend their planning schemes and act as a ‘responsible

authority’ to issue planning permits. Decision about planning permits are subject to review at VCAT.


Page 50 of 97

but the absence of clear standards can make the exercise of discretion difficult for Councils and uncertain for the applicant and their neighbours.

Victoria’s planning system for intensive animal husbandry is unique compared to other states; Codes of Practice have been developed for a number of intensive livestock production systems to support the planning process. The codes were developed in response to the expansion of these industries coupled with a recognition that the expansion needs to be managed to facilitate an environmentally and financially viable development.

The intent of the codes is to provide a rigorous framework of accepted principles and where possible standards for the establishment and operation of intensive animal industries under Victorian conditions.

The codes are designed to:

encourage best practice design, management and operation of the farms

reinforce relevant environmental and public health and safety standards

safeguard investment in the industry in Victoria

provide greater certainty for the industry and the community in the planning approvals process

present an appropriate balance between the operational needs of farms and the protection of the environment, and the local community.

There are significant benefits from using well‐constructed and contemporary Codes of Practice to support the planning scheme. Codes provide all parties involved in the design, development, assessment and approval of intensive farms with a clear set of standards and requirements that aim to mitigate environmental and social impacts. They serve to provide more certainty and consistency in the planning assessment and approvals process for new developments, and provide a structured basis for assessment and verification of the ongoing compliance with appropriate operational standards.

The process of code development brings together technical, policy, industry, planning and community representatives in a consultative environment.

A further benefit of a code is that it provides the opportunity transparently set out standards for matters such as sensitive use separation distances, and can provide the basis for categorisation of intensive animal industries and a graduated approach to planning requirements as discussed in the previous section.

All intensive farming systems should have a Code of Practice

Not all intensive animal production systems currently have a code. There are no Victorian codes for poultry farms (other than Broiler farms), including hatcheries, layer farms and free range production systems, for sheep feedlots, or for intensive feedlot dairies.

There is also no code for intensive livestock feeding systems that fall outside the definition of a feedlot. The Committee heard from a number of submitters of problems caused by intensive cattle feeding operations that were not feedlots, but which generated off‐farm impacts affecting neighbours and community amenity.

In submissions to the Committee, there was very broad support for the development of performance‐based codes for all intensively farmed livestock.


Page 51 of 97

There should be a Code of Practice for intensive supplementary feeding

Some of the recent issues concerning the definition of Intensive animal husbandry have been associated with changes to existing operations. As traditional extensive grazing enterprises begin to incorporate ongoing supplementary feeding, the line between extensive and intensive may be crossed. The precise point at which an enterprise shifts into an intensive use is difficult to pin‐point especially as the amount of supplementary feeding will vary depending on the time of year and the nature of a particular farming season.

As an example, dairy cows are routinely provided supplementary feed through the use of feed stalls. It is difficult to know when such supplementary feeding tips from being less than half the cows’ nutrition to ‘most’ nutrition and hence trigger a shift from Extensive animal husbandry to Intensive animal husbandry.

The more high profile and contentious cases are where beef farmers have supplementary fed cattle to a degree that causes off‐site impacts, but at a level that is not obviously a feedlot. Some of the difficulties in these cases have been interpreting the current definitions and Code of Practice – such as feedlots for operations from 50 to 1,000 head, or enforcing requirements – but the broader issue is whether these uses could be better managed, for all concerned, if there were clearer standards or guidelines for good practice.

Preparing a Code of Practice for these uses could avoid potentially lengthy, costly and divisive debates over the definition and shift attention to the off‐site impacts of the operation, and whether or not these are acceptable.

Developing such a code may not be easy. The Committee heard from one submitter on what were acceptable standards for grazing:

a minimum of 70 per cent soil cover with a combination of plant crowns and plant litter (dead stems) all year (sloping land requires 100 per cent cover)

pastures have a minimum of 25 per cent content of perennial plants (although some farmers will sow high performance annual grasses, especially dairy farmers, so this test needs to be discussed more)

livestock to be removed from a paddock when pasture is eaten down to 1200 kilogram herbage dry matter per hectare.

Other submitters simply did not agree that these were relevant standards or that standards were required at all.

The Committee heard of the off‐site impacts of supplementary feeding from grain hoppers which can attract corellas.27 There are no clearly accepted ways to manage this issue.

There would be a need to build flexibility in any such code, for example in dry times stock may be confined to an area for maintenance feeding, protecting the balance of the property from overgrazing and reducing animal energy requirements. In extended periods of saturated ground conditions or floods, stock may be confined to prevent damage to the

27 More and more corellas will be attracted to the food source as passing birds notice the existing flock and add to it.

The bird numbers will continue to build while there continues to be food. The flock, which can number in the thousands, will find a convenient roost with a few kilometres of the food source. If this roost is a tree in your house garden or your tourism accommodation business you may well feel aggrieved.


Page 52 of 97

balance of the property. These exceptional circumstances should not constitute an ‘intensive use’ for planning purposes.

Reviewing of Codes of Practice

When first introduced, it was intended that the codes would be periodically reviewed in order to keep them relevant and in line with best management practices. However the Feedlot Code and Piggeries Code in particular are no longer current and do not reflect emerging farming systems or industry best practice.

The Committee received many submissions that were critical of the lack of regular updating of the current Piggeries Code and Feedlot Code.

A major concern highlighted by Australian Pork Limited was the need for the planning system to keep in step with current best practice and refer to the most relevant up‐to‐date codes or industry guidelines. Currently the planning system refers to the 1992 Piggeries Code. This code is woefully out of date and only serves to confuse the planning process. The Committee was told that several requests to government to have the code removed from the VPP have fallen on deaf ears.

Recommendation


Develop performance‐based Codes of Practice with prescriptive standards for all intensively farmed livestock. As a minimum the codes should apply to:




Develop a Code of Practice for the supplementary feeding of cattle, sheep and goats that falls short of being a feedlot.

Incorporate Codes of Practice in Planning Schemes.

Include a new clause in the Victoria Planning Provisions listing incorporated codes and relevant national industry standards to be used to guide decisions, and:

include at least the relevant national guidelines for pigs and for cattle feedlots

refer to this clause in the Decision guidelines in the Farming Zone, Rural Activity Zone and Green Wedge Zone.

Remove the 1992 Piggeries Code as an incorporated document.

6.3 Constructing Codes of Practice

The Committee examined the structure and language of a number of different codes from different jurisdictions.

The Victorian planning system is built on a performance‐based approach where objectives are specified and standards or strategies set out that will achieve those objectives.

The Broiler Code is the most up‐to‐date code in the Victorian planning system. The code was first developed in 2001 and was subsequently updated in 2009.


Page 53 of 97

The Broiler Code covers six best practice elements of Broiler farm siting, design and operation against which all applications are assessed. These elements are:

Location, siting and sizing



Landscaping

Waste management

Farm operation and management.

This forms a solid basis for all new codes, but would need to be expanded to include:

proximity to and impact on waterways which will be relevant to some animal production systems

animal welfare requirements where these impact on the physical layout of the operation, by reference to relevant regulations, animal welfare standards or model animal welfare codes applying in Victoria.

Criteria for the categorisation of intensive animal industries based on levels of off‐site impact management as recommended in Section 6.1 would also need to be included.

For each element the Broiler Code sets out:

An objective that describe the desired outcome to be achieved from the completed development and operation of the Broiler farm. All permit applications must satisfy the objectives for each element.

A standard contains the requirements to meet the objective. In most cases, a standard is expressed as a design or operational requirement. All permit applications must comply with all relevant standards.

An approved measure is an approach, action, practice or method that permit applicants should incorporate into their development proposal to comply with the standard. Where the development proposal adopts all the approved measures for a standard, the application is deemed to comply with the standard.

A permit application may propose an alternative measure(s) as long as the applicant can demonstrate to the responsible authority’s satisfaction that the relevant code objectives and standards can still be met with equivalent or superior performance.

The Committee was also provided examples of existing processes set out in the Feedlot Code not being followed. Section 3.1 of the Feedlot Code requires, for feedlots where there are between 50 and 1,000 head of cattle, that proponents prepare a proposal and send it to the responsible authority (Council) who must then send it to the Minister for Agriculture for checking. Section 3.2 of the Feedlot Code outlines the ‘recommended approval process’ in this process. From the examples provided to the Committee it appears that this process is not routinely followed by any of the parties. In order for the Code of Practice system to work effectively, it is critical that there is a clear and transparent process that all parties are aware of and follow.

It would assist decision makers if a consistent approach to drafting Codes of Practice were established. One approach would be to develop a ‘master code’ that could be used to develop codes specific to each animal production system.



Page 54 of 97

Develop a consistent approach for drafting Codes of Practice.

The consistent approach to drafting Codes of Practice include following elements in codes:

Location, siting and sizing, including separation distances from sensitive uses where necessary

Proximity to and impact on waterways



Landscaping

Waste Management

Farm operation and management

Animal welfare requirements where these impact on the physical layout of the operation, by reference to relevant regulations, animal welfare standards or model animal welfare codes applying in Victoria.

Criteria for the categorisation of intensive animal industries as Full‐scale, Full‐scale contained, Mid‐scale or Small‐scale.

The consistent approach to drafting Codes of Practice present Objectives, Standards and Approved Measures for each element, and allows alternative measures as long as the applicant can demonstrate the objectives and standards can still be met with equivalent or superior performance.

6.4 Recognise industry codes and assurance schemes

Many industries have developed on‐farm quality assurance schemes based on national standards, and which have a regular independent third‐party audit to ensure ongoing compliance and continuous improvement. Examples include the Australian Pork Industry Quality Assurance Program (APIQ), the National Feedlot Accreditation Scheme (NFAS), Chicken Care and Egg Corp Assured. These industry programs are strongly supported by industry peak bodies, and provide direct assistance and advice to program participants.

The Committee heard from DEDJTR and several industry bodies that, for the pig and cattle feedlot industries particularly, national standards and guidelines have been developed which are regularly updated to reflect changes and innovations to animal husbandry and industry practices. The national standards provide national benchmarks and are specifically intended to support planning processes associated with the development and improvement of pig farms and cattle feedlots across Australia.28

The Committee sees particular merit in Victorian codes adopting, adapting or referencing the national standards where they meet Victoria’s needs, recognising the significant national investment that goes into keeping them up to date.

The annual audits of participants in industry programs required as part of program participation provides compliance information that would be of value in planning

28 National Environmental Guidelines for Piggeries (2010) Australian Pork Limited and National Guidelines for Beef Cattle

Feedlots in Australia (2012) Meat and Livestock Australia Limited.


Page 55 of 97

applications for expansion of existing farms or in meeting permit conditions that require regular compliance auditing and reporting.

Industry self‐ or co‐regulatory schemes and programs (that adopt relevant Victorian codes and standards for planning purposes) with independent audit and verification requirements are currently not recognised in the planning system. Recognition could facilitate more timely assessments of applications in cases where all code requirements are met, and where there is (or will be) participation in an independently audited quality assurance scheme that adopts the relevant Victorian standards.


Adopt or reference national standards and codes in Victorian Codes of Practice where these meet Victoria’s needs.

Develop processes to provide for certification of Code of Practice compliance by a recognised third party, to assist Council planners and facilitate timely planning decisions for code‐compliant applications.

Formally recognise industry quality assurance programs that adopt all relevant elements of a Victorian Code of Practice and are independently (third party) audited. Extend this to recognising audits as evidence of code compliance.


Page 56 of 97

7 Issue 4 – Separating uses

7.1 A consistent approach to separation distances

The idea of a separation distance is simple: the more animals, the greater the distance the Intensive animal husbandry needs to be separated from a sensitive use. The use of appropriate separation or buffer distances is a well‐established and widely recognised means of mitigating the impacts on amenity that arise from odour, dust, noise and other emissions.

The obvious issue arises of ‘how far for how many animals’, but more technical issues arise:

What is the mathematical relationship between the number of animals and the distance?

Is there a minimum distance?

What adjustments should be made for the type of sensitive receptor?

What adjustments should be made for topography, vegetative cover and wind direction?

One might imagine that there would be some consistency between Codes of Practice on these issues – after all, the smell of 1,000 beef cows does not behave differently to the smell of 30,000 broiler chickens, but published codes and guidelines take different approaches. The Committee cannot see the logic of this. This section addresses this issue.

There would be benefit in developing a standard methodology for calculating separation distances that treated the odour of all animals in the same way. Many of the issues raised in relation to the Broiler Code may well be addressed by adopting a more sophisticated approach.

For separation distances to be effective in decision making they need to be given statutory effect.


Develop a standard methodology for determining the separation distances of different production systems as part of developing a consistent approach to drafting Codes of Practice.

Include a new specific clause in the Victoria Planning, or an incorporated document, setting out the methodology for separation distances and separation distances for specific production systems.

Include separation distances in Codes of Practice.

How accurate are separation distances? 7.1.1

The National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (Feedlot Guidelines) presents a detailed treatment of separation distances in its Appendix B. The Broiler Code also sets out separation distance requirements. The Feedlot Guidelines take a far more sophisticated approach to odour:

Intuitively, emission rates, and hence the required separation distances, would be expected to have a direct relationship with the scale of the activity (that is


Page 57 of 97

the number and type of feedlot cattle on hand). However, the inverse square law requires some additional modification to account for site‐to‐site and time‐to‐time variations in the following factors:

feedlot design and management (in particular manure management)

climatic and meteorological conditions

the vegetation cover and topography of the intervening terrain (that is the aerodynamic or surface roughness)

the risk of downslope or katabatic drainage.

It is useful to understand what this difference means in practice.

The key difference is that the Feedlot Guidelines adopt a site specific adjustment factor that can increase the separation distance by over three times – these factors are discussed below. The Broiler Code adopts a fixed factor that is not adjusted for site conditions.

Table 1: Differences in separation distances of the National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (third edition) and the Broiler Code

Formula for separation distance in Beef Cattle Feedlot Guidelines

Formula for separation distance in Broiler Code

D = N× S OR D = N0.5× S D = 250 or N0.54 × 27 whichever is greater

This equation states that the required minimum distance (D) is equivalent to the product of the square root of the feedlot capacity, and a site‐specific composite factor, S.

This equation states that the required minimum distance (D) is equivalent to the product of the 0.54 power of the broiler farm capacity, and a fixed factor of 27 with a minimum distance of 250 metres.

D = required minimum separation distance (m)

N = feedlot capacity in standard cattle units (SCU)

0.5 = square root

S = composite site factor

D = required minimum separation distance (m)

N = broiler farm capacity in 1,000s of birds

0.54 = approximately the square root

27 = fixed factor

Is there a minimum distance? 7.1.2

The Broiler Code sets a minimum separation distance of 250 metres, the Feedlot Guidelines do not set a minimum distance. The Committee thinks that there is merit in setting a minimum separation distance to sensitive uses. The minimum distance would apply to small scale operations that may occur in more densely settled areas or as part of a ‘hobby farm’. The minimum distance would not apply to larger scale commercial operations because they would be large enough that a separation distance larger than the minimum would be required. Providing extra separation for small scale operations would help ensure these smaller operations that may not be subject to the same quality assurance programs as larger commercial operations do not adversely affect their neighbours.

The Committee heard submissions from people adversely affected by an intensive farming operation adjacent to their land (that is, with no separation distance). The Committee accepts that an intensive farming operation immediately adjacent to another property could adversely impact the amenity of the adjoining property to such an extent that working in


Page 58 of 97

that particular paddock was unpleasant, but the Committee thinks that a working farm paddock does not have to be protected from odour to the same degree as a Dwelling, or other sensitive use. Achieving an acceptable standard on adjoining properties could be achieved by specifying boundary setbacks for Intensive animal husbandry uses.


The proposed standard methodology for determining the separation distances of different production systems:

include minimum separation distances to sensitive uses

include a minimum setback from boundaries for intensive animal operations.

What is the mathematical relation between the number of animals 7.1.3and the distance?

In the Feedlot Guidelines the separation distance is proportional to the square root of the number of cattle (a power of 0.5):

A fundamental principle applied in determining the separation distances applicable to fugitive emissions is that they tend to radiate out from a source, and be diluted. This applies particularly to the major airborne emissions from feedlots. Averaged over the longer term (for example a year or more), during which winds will to some extent blow from all directions, the concentration of an emission arriving at a receptor will broadly be a function of the inverse square law. That is, the dilution or dispersion will be proportional to the square of the distance between the receptor and the source.

The Broiler Code does not use the square root; it uses the power of 0.54. The difference between using the square root in the Feedlot Guidelines and a power of 0.54 in the Broiler Code has little effect in practice; if the same separation distance were maintained for the larger farms adopting the square root it would make separation distance for midsized farms about 5 per cent less. This variation is negligible compared with the effects of local topography and wind direction that the Feedlot Guidelines account for, but the Broiler Code does not. The Broiler Code separation distance might be precise, but it is not always effective as it uses a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

Using the power of 0.54 in place of the square root just makes the calculations more difficult for people to understand, and some submitters commented on the difficulty in using the formula.



make the separation distance proportional to the square root of the number of animals.

What adjustments should be made for the type of sensitive receptor? 7.1.4

The Feedlot Guidelines make adjustments to the separation distance based on the nature of the sensitive receptor. This approach is set out in Table 2. The Broiler Code essentially adopts a single rural Dwelling as the basis of calculations, the Feedlot Guidelines adopt a small town or rural residential development as the ‘base case’.


Page 59 of 97

Table 2: Adjustment of separation distance for different sensitive uses in the National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (third edition)

Sensitive Use Adjustment factor presented in Feedlot Guidelines

Adjustment factor relative to a single farm dwelling

Large town (>2,000 persons) 1.6 5.3

Medium town (>500–2,000 persons) 1.2 4.0

Medium town (>125–500 persons) 1.1 3.7

Small town (>30–125 persons) 1.0 3.3

Small town (>10–30 persons) 0.6 2.0

Rural residential development (<1 ha lots) 1.0 3.3

Rural residential development (>1 ha lots) 0.7 2.3

Single rural or farm dwelling 0.3† 1.0

Rural school (not located in a town) 0.3 1.0

Rural church or hall (not located in a town) 0.2 0.7

Low‐use public area 0.05 0.2

† Note: this does not mean that the Feedlot Guidelines set a lower standard for dwellings. The actual separation distance depends on other factors that would compensate for this reduction factor.

A sensitive Accommodation uses in an agricultural context may include:

Dwellings on farms which directly support agricultural activities and production on the land

Dwellings on large single ‘hobby farm’ or ‘tree changer’ lots

Dwellings on rural lot excisions whereby the original Dwelling is excised from the original farm (and sits on a smaller lot of usually 1 to 2 hectares). The farmer may choose to remain in the original house and in future sell the Dwelling and its small lot

Dwellings on the periphery of townships or the city fringe (including strategic growth areas)

Tourism Accommodation and Host farms.

The Committee did not receive detailed submissions on this issue. As the Committee understands it, the Victorian system (including the Broiler Code) is based on the impacts to a single Dwelling and the various factors that go into calculating a separation distance should be based on this; that is there is no adjustment of the separation distance for a single Dwelling.

There may be merit in increasing the separation distance to towns or rural settlements or township growth plans, but the Committee has not had the benefit of submissions on this issue.


Page 60 of 97



base the separation distance on the impact on a single rural dwelling

clarify whether the separation distance should be increased to require greater separation from towns and settlements.

What adjustments should be made for design and management? 7.1.5

The Committee accepts that different design and management systems will affect the separation distance for some production systems – these differences should be accounted for.



account for different design and management approaches typical in the production system.

What adjustments should be made for topography, vegetative cover 7.1.6and wind direction?

A number of submissions raised concerns that separation distances in the Broiler Code did not cater for local conditions. The Feedlot Guidelines provide a clear explanation of the affect topography, vegetative cover and wind direction. This discussion draws heavily on those guidelines.

Terrain is known to affect the spread and concentration of odours. A phenomenon known as katabatic drainage is one example; it typically occurs at night when rapidly cooling air near the ground becomes denser (and heavier), and slowly sinks. Where the local terrain slopes, this sinking results in the air draining down the slope (in much the same way as rainfall runoff) while tending to follow natural drainage lines.

Katabatic drainage will trap any odours emitted from ground level sources. Due to the low wind speeds and the stable atmospheric conditions that typically prevail at night there is limited mixing or dispersion of odour trapped in katabatic flows. Thus, nuisance odour might be encountered further from the source than would be the case under neutral or unstable daytime conditions. Table 2 shows the factor by which a separation distance might be increased or decreased to account for different terrain.

Where odour is being emitted from a relatively large area the convergence of katabatic flows into natural drainage lines can increase the distance required for dilution and dispersion to occur – the more confining the drainage line or valley, generally the further downstream the odour extends. Katabatic effects are generally more pronounced under clear conditions in winter.

As katabatic drainage generally follows the natural drainage system, a receptor located lower than the intensive animal industry, but not within the same sub‐catchment, would not normally be exposed to odour associated with katabatic flows. A receptor located upslope of an intensive animal industry will not be affected by odour from katabatic drainage from a


Page 61 of 97

source downslope. Relatively rough terrain between a receptor and a downslope source of odour will reduce the likelihood of odour problems.

Where a receptor is located at a similar elevation to an odour source the effects of katabatic drainage will be greatly reduced where they are separated by undulating terrain, for example, a series of rolling hills and rises.

Table 3: Adjustment of separation distance for terrain factors in the National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (third edition)

Terrain Factor

Confining valley 2.0

Katabatic drainage area – slope >2% 1.2

Outside sub‐catchment – downslope 1.0

Flat terrain

Undulating low‐relief terrain 0.9

High‐relief terrain with receptor upslope 0.7

Vegetation

Vegetative cover is a major factor in the drag that the earth’s surface exerts on air moving over it. Generally, the rougher the surface, the more turbulent the air flow, and the more mixing of air and dilution of the odour. The drag exerted by vegetation is related to the height, shape and spacing of obstacles or ‘roughness elements’ (for example buildings and trees). While height is a major factor, maximum turbulence occurs when the surface is a mixture of various sized obstacles of various heights. Thus, the surface roughness of a typical eucalypt forest, where cover is not uniform and tree heights vary significantly, will be greater than that of a pine plantation or rainforest with their more uniform height and closed canopy.

Table 4: Adjustment of separation distance for vegetative cover in the National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (third edition)

Vegetative Cover Factor

Crops only (no effective tree cover) 1.0

Open grassland (few trees, long grass) 2 0.9

Woodland 0.7

Open forest 0.6

Forest with significant mid and lower storey vegetation 0.5

Wind direction

Wind direction has the potential to increase the exposure of a receptor located in the downwind path. While most areas have some form of prevailing wind, it is unlikely that it will blow from that general direction (±40° of the direct line) for most of the time (more than 60 per cent).


Page 62 of 97

Sites that experience a regionally‐dominant wind are often located near the coast, or on very exposed sites (for example atop a mountain range), or at latitudes near the path of mid‐latitude high pressure cells crossing the continent. Locally‐dominant wind directions can occur where sites are located in terrain that restricts the directions from which the wind blows – a confining valley, or at the foot slope of a major range.

Table 5: Adjustment of separation distance for wind direction in the National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (third edition)

Wind Direction Factor

High frequency towards a receptor 1.5

Normal wind conditions 1.0

Low frequency towards a receptor 0.7

Recommendation



set adjustment factors which increase or decrease separation distance based on terrain, wind direction and vegetation cover.

7.2 Separation distances on adjoining land

Who should own the separation distance? 7.2.1

There is a requirement in Codes of Practice to separate farming operations from sensitive uses; this is often conceived of as a ‘buffer distance’. Maintaining a separation distance can be achieved in two ways:

keeping the farming operation away from Dwellings (or other sensitive uses)

keeping Dwellings (or other sensitive uses) away from the farming operation.

A number of submitters felt that the buffer distance should be contained entirely on the land associated with the Intensive animal husbandry use. The Committee does not support this approach. Separation distances can equally be considered a ‘buffer’ emanating from the sensitive uses and these buffers can extend onto the land that hosts the Intensive animal husbandry. Figure 11 and Figure 12 show this diagrammatically. The Committee was shown the documentation for an application for a Broiler farm with the separation distance drawn as in Figure 11 which implies encroachment onto adjoining property; neighbouring properties felt aggrieved that the buffer encroached onto their land. Representing the separation distance as in Figure 12 would have been a more accurate depiction of how the planning system was managing the separation of the Broiler farm from sensitive uses, as the new Broiler farm must locate itself away from the adjoining sensitive uses. Looking at the issue in this way highlights the impact that Dwellings and other sensitive uses have in limiting potential development opportunities on neighbouring farm land, even though this land may be in a Farming Zone.


Page 63 of 97

Figure 11: Separation distance conceived as a ‘buffer’ around intensive animal husbandry that impacts on adjoining land

Figure 12: Separation distance conceived as a ‘house protection buffer’ that limits opportunities on adjoining land

Drawing the separation distance as a buffer from an Intensive animal husbandry use, shown as , implies that the ‘buffer’ encroaches on to neighbouring properties.

Drawing the separation distance as a buffer from existing dwellings, shown as , implies that the ‘buffer’ encroaches on to the property proposing the Intensive animal husbandry.

In those cases where the separation distance is contained wholly within the land on which the intensive animal industry is proposed a simpler planning permit approach is justified; this happens already with Broiler farms where a Class A farm, which contains its own buffer, is exempt from notice and appeal. This approach could be expanded to apply to all intensive animal industries and is recommended in section 6.1. It could also apply where the owner of the land covered by the separation distance agrees to the proposal. This would provide an incentive for proponents to talk to their neighbours earlier.

Recommendations


Extend the simplified planning processes that apply when separation distances are contained on the applicants land to cases where an agreement has been reached with adjoining land owners.

Affecting the development potential of adjoining property 7.2.2

Where a separation distance overlaps a neighbouring property the potential for a Dwelling on that property can be reduced; similarly, a new Dwelling can impact on the ability to establish an Intensive animal husbandry use.

Standard E1 S5 of the Broiler Code addresses the siting of Broiler sheds so that offensive odour, dust and noise emissions:

… will not adversely impact the orderly and sustainable use and development of land located beyond the farm property boundary, including the ability to establish a dwelling (excluding a bed and breakfast or caretaker’s house) on a vacant property, having regard to:


Page 64 of 97

the existing and likely future use and development of the land including any approved sensitive uses

the existing physical and environmental characteristics of the land

the purpose and requirements of the zone applying to the land

any applicable land use decision guidelines, policies and strategies in the planning scheme.

To comply with this standard, approved measure E1 M5.1 specifies that the minimum distance should not cover more than 50 per cent of the area of a property located beyond the Broiler farm property boundary. On the face of it this seems to be a measure specifically aimed at maintaining the development potential of adjoining land.

Where a property located beyond the Broiler farm property boundary is not currently developed with a Dwelling, approved measure E1 M5.2 specifies that the remaining area of the property (unaffected by the separation distance requirement) is capable of providing a 20 metre x 30 metre building envelope for a Dwelling taking into account the following siting considerations29:

any applicable planning scheme requirements including zoning considerations and any setback requirements for buildings not requiring a planning permit under the applicable zoning provisions

whether the land is encumbered by steep terrain, native vegetation, off‐site impacts of an existing intensive animal industry or any other significant topographic, environmental or land use characteristic that may significantly limit the ability to establish and use a dwelling

whether the land is identified in the planning scheme as being subject or susceptible to flooding (both river and coastal inundation), landslip or any other form of hazard that may limit the ability to establish and use a dwelling. However, the remaining land does not need to be capable of providing a building envelope if the land covered by the minimum separation distance requirement is equally unacceptable in terms of providing the building envelope having regard to the siting considerations listed above.

Concerns have been raised in recent applications that ‘property’ has been taken by VCAT to mean the whole farm property and not an individual lot. This can mean that a lot on which a Dwelling could be built without a permit is now totally within the separation distance. Figure 13 shows how the separation distance from a proposed broiler shed can completely cover a lot compromising the future amenity of a potential house site even though the separation distance does not cover all of a farm.

29 Footnote 9 in Code: Applies to both as‐of‐right to establish a Dwelling and where a permit is required for the

establishment of a Dwelling. See also ‘Strategic and Land Use Planning Considerations’ section of this Code.


Page 65 of 97

Figure 13: ‘Buffer’ sterilising a development opportunity

When the separation distance from an Intensive animal husbandry use, shown as ,covers all of an adjoining lot on a larger farm holding, shown as , the opportunity for a new Dwelling, shown as , can be sterilized.

The Committee was told that many farmers finance their farm operations with mortgages tied to individual lots within a broader farm holding. If one of these lots that had a potential house site is compromised by being within the separation distance of a Broiler farm this can affect financing operations. The Committee is not persuaded by this view; it is not clear that the need to finance farming operation on the basis that some of the farm land is suitable for future residential development is a common issue, or indeed a sensible basis for investment in agriculture.

Planning schemes do not typically ration development potential evenly over all land. There is an element of ‘first in, best dressed’ where people who make an investment reap the rewards, even if this closes off development opportunities for others. The exception to this is where a detailed plan for an area is developed that can take account of all potential investment decisions.

The Committee does not see the net community benefit in restricting investment in new intensive farming operation simply to preserve the opportunity of neighbouring properties to create more Dwellings in the Farming Zone.

7.3 Dwellings in the Farming Zone

Since the introduction of the Victoria Planning Provisions in the late 1990s, the rural zones have undergone a series of changes. At first there was a single Rural Zone that was very liberal in what it allowed. This changed to a suite of rural zones including a much more restrictive Farming Zone, and then changed back to a more flexible Farming Zone in 2012 with a broad range of purposes. While the Farming Zone currently seeks to support agricultural production, it also expressly seeks to increase population and employment opportunities.

Two of the purposes of the Farming Zone are:

To ensure that non‐agricultural uses, including dwellings, do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture.

To encourage the retention of employment and population to support rural communities.


Page 66 of 97

These purposes are contradictory; one encourages increased population the other seeks to retain productive agricultural land.


Strengthen the purpose of the Farming Zone to promote agriculture activity as the priority activity and remove reference to encouraging Dwellings as a means of promoting population growth.

Require a permit in the farming zones for Dwellings within the buffer distance of intensive animal operations.

The Farming Zone allows a Dwelling to be constructed and used without a planning permit on lots of a minimum size specified in the schedule to the zone. In addition, on these lots, no planning permit is required to construct a Dwelling provided minimum setbacks are achieved from the side boundaries, roads and from a Dwelling not in the same ownership. No specific requirements exist to prevent Dwellings being built next to locations being used or suitable for Intensive animal husbandry. A Dwelling may therefore be constructed as of right irrespective of whether an intensive animal industry (or a farm transitioning from extensive to intensive) is located on nearby land.

The Committee has been told that the locations of dwellings, in particular, without the requirement for a planning permit, are compromising the expansion and establishment of intensive animal industries. Not everyone thinks there is a need to limit dwellings, one submitter argued:

An alternative would be to adopt some of the practical and sensible ‘right to farm’ policies found in most states of the United States of America (and with some in Canada as well). Basically any agricultural or farming activity being carried out in accordance with the normal or usual practices for that activity should be deemed to not be causing any nuisance and no complaint should be able to be made about that activity. Then it would not matter how many people resided in the Farming Zone or Green Wedge Zone as they would not be able to inhibit normal farming activities as they do at present in Victoria.

The Committee does not support this approach: saying people can’t complain does not stop them complaining and this approach to a ‘right to farm’ seems to be a recipe for undermining farming operations. Indeed a closer look at the ‘right to farm’ policies and legislation in the USA shows that this is more accurately termed ‘the right to farm right’, as those rights are linked to compliance with various standards and good practice guidelines for farming.

Every new Dwelling in the Farming Zone has the potential to restrict the development of farming operations on adjoining land. The application of separation distances will restrict opportunities for new Animal husbandry uses.

There is a current case where neighbours to a proposed Broiler farm erected Dwellings under as‐of‐right provisions while the application was waiting to be heard by VCAT.30 The Committee understands the legal implications of this are yet to be fully resolved.

30 Vukadinovic v Mt Alexander Shire Council VCAT 1164 (11 August 2015)


Page 67 of 97

Locating a new Dwelling near to an existing Dwelling reduces the potential for the new Dwelling to limit opportunities for Animal husbandry uses on adjoining land – any separation required would be required from the existing Dwelling. Where a farm consists of several lots it makes sense to allow any new Dwelling that might be required for farm operations, or to allow an existing farmer to stay on the land when they stop farming, to be located in the best location on the farm considering the impact on adjoining farming operations and where the best house sites are.

Planning schemes in other jurisdictions allow for ‘transferable development rights’ where the development that is prohibited on one site, say because of heritage protection, can be ‘transferred’ and constructed on another site. This approach could be used to provide flexibility for better locations of Dwellings in rural zones without restricting anyone’s rights to the number of Dwellings permitted on their land.


Require a permit for new Dwellings in the Farming Zone:

For land that currently meets minimum requirements for a Dwelling, make the sole decision criteria the need to provide separation distances from intensive animal husbandry operations

Provide flexibility on the location of the Dwelling so it can be located on other land within a larger farm holding by way of a ‘transferable development right’.


Page 68 of 97

8 Issue 5 – Improving permit applications

8.1 Better information

Proposals are being developed and applications are being assessed without ready access to technical data around soil health, water catchments and the capacity of land to sustain operations. While some intensive systems do not require any access to soils and are not dependent on land, other intensive systems have potential environmental impacts such as high nutrient loads and other impacts.

The Committee initially considered that the requirement for a permit for animal industries be based on the potential environmental and amenity impacts of the operation to be derived from an assessment with an online tool.

Few submissions supported the use of an online tool as a decision making mechanism, but there was good support for the use of an online tool or ‘planning portal’ to support Animal husbandry planning considerations for farmers and stakeholders.

Submissions identified that while improving access to information to assist planners and proponents is essential, there are shortfalls in relying on an online tool for determining whether a permit is required or making decisions on applications.

The MLA Stocking Rate Calculator31 provides guidance around stocking rates factoring in pasture conditions, size of paddock and proportion of feed sourced from off the farm. A similar tool with additional inputs such as geographic region, distance from waterways and drainage lines, distance from Dwellings not in the same ownership, access to transport, and the like would assist in strategic decisions for operators, preparation of farm plans and ultimately planning permit applications.

While not a decision making tool, an online portal could provide a whole‐of‐Victorian government ‘one‐stop‐shop’ for potential applicants and stakeholders to obtain important information, access to Codes of Practice and standards and a means to self‐assess against them.

A planning portal may also provide links to other important considerations beyond planning such as biosecurity and animal welfare requirements. The Committee notes that the Broiler Code can only be downloaded in parts and the complete code cannot be downloaded with one click.

The Committee also notes that the location of Declared Potable Water Catchment areas (and the catchments listed in Appendix 2 of the Feedlot Code) are not readily available online, though this information is of critical importance in assessing some applications. Where it is online it is not as a GIS file, sometimes it seems to be scans of hand drawn maps. This data should be linked to property data.

31 http://www.mla.com.au/Extension‐and‐training/Tools‐and‐calculators/Stocking‐rate‐calculator


Page 69 of 97


Make more information available online to assist farmers, members of the public and responsible authorities and referral authorities.

Include Declared Potable Water Catchment areas and the catchments listed in Appendix 2 of the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots on property reports through the Victorian government Land Channel (land.vic.gov.au).

Develop an online planning portal to provide a whole‐of‐Victorian‐government ‘one‐stop‐shop’ for access to information on animal husbandry‐related planning provisions, that includes:

relevant Codes of Practice, standards and requirements

a tool for ‘pre‐application’ self‐assessment against codes and standards

links to other relevant Victorian government agencies

links to relevant industry quality assurance schemes that adopt Victorian codes or standards.

8.2 Better applications

For applications to use land, the suite of rural zones do not require any minimum or suggested application requirements to be submitted – with the exception of an application for a Dwelling. The Committee considers that, unlike most other zones within the VPP, there is currently very little guidance to applicants or planners in this regard.

The Discussion Paper suggested strengthening planning application requirements. Most submissions supported this policy idea, with a number highlighting the difficulty Councils face in receiving applications which do not contain the necessary information to provide notice and make a decision. In addition, the lack of guidance around this matter in the first place makes it difficult for applicants to know what to provide and can lead to significant time delays in progressing the application.

A number of Councils have developed their own checklists. Planning Practice Note 63 Applying for a Planning Permit for farm chickens, June 2015 considers both applications under the Broiler Code and free range chickens – called up under the broader definition of Intensive animal husbandry. While the Broiler Code provides guidance regarding information to be submitted, the Practice Note 63 provides little guidance for other enterprises regarding application requirements for Intensive animal husbandry.

The Committee has identified that improving the quality and relevance of information submitted with applications will assist all parties in progressing the application. While the information required to be submitted with an application will vary depending on the nature and complexity of the proposal, providing guidance within the scheme will facilitate a consistent approach. An example of application requirements that could be inserted into the rural zones is included in Appendix D.

In addition the decision guidelines in the zones should include a requirement to consider any relevant Codes of Practice or identified national guidelines.


Page 70 of 97


Include application requirements in the Farming Zone, Rural Activity Zone and Green Wedge Zone for the use of land for Intensive animal husbandry, Animal keeping and Rural industry and for buildings and works, to improve the quality of planning permit applications and reduce the need for further information.

Refer the recommended new clause in the Victoria Planning Provisions listing incorporated codes and relevant national industry standards in the Decision guidelines in the Farming Zone, Rural Activity Zone and Green Wedge Zone.

8.3 Better agency input

Councils often lack the technical resources required to properly assess and enforce animal industry applications. This lack of expert resources is becoming more pronounced as farming enterprises become more complex, communities continue to expect a high level of amenity, and potential environmental impacts of more intensive operations need careful consideration.

(i) Current input from agencies

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 provides for three types of input for third parties to planning permits:

‘Determining referral authorities’ to whom a Council must send a copy of a permit application and who have veto power.

‘Recommending referral authorities’ who also must be sent an application but provide recommendations only.

Affected persons who are sent a notice about the application. This is typically neighbours, but can be agencies or other entities specified in the scheme for certain applications.

Clause 66 of the VPP outlines types of permit applications which must be sent to referral authorities or for which notice must be given.

In all cases, section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act provides that Council may provide notice to any party (including agencies) if it considers the grant of a permit may cause material detriment to them. For example, if Council considered a potential permit may affect implementation of state policy they could notify the relevant agency. A number of agencies currently have input into planning permit applications.

Minister for Agriculture

The Minister for Agriculture (administered through DEDJTR) is a determining referral authority for any application to use or develop land for a Cattle feedlot. Beyond Cattle feedlots, there are no formal requirements for DEDJTR to be a referral authority for Intensive animal husbandry applications.

Environment Protection Authority

The EPA currently has a role in planning permit applications as well as under its own legislation, the Environment Protection Act 1970. In planning schemes the EPA is a determining referral authority for planning permit applications for:


Page 71 of 97

any use or development requiring a works approval, licence or licence amendment under the Environment Protection Act

any use listed in the table to Clause 52.10 to the Victoria Planning Provisions shown with Note 1 or if the threshold distance specified in that clause is not met (includes Abattoir, Poultry processing works)

cattle feedlots if the number of cattle is 5,000 or more.

Clause 52.31 of the VPP requires notice of certain Broiler farm applications to be provided to the EPA under section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act.

The EPA also provides advice on the environmental risks of a broader range of planning permit applications, in response to notices that Councils may send it.

In providing advice on planning permit applications the EPA draws on a number of policies and guidelines such as:

SEPPs (statutory instruments under section 16 of the Environment Protection Act)

Guidelines on recommended separation distances for industrial residual air emissions (EPA Publication 1518)

The Committee understands that a review of the Scheduled Premises Regulations is currently underway which is considering current categories and their thresholds as well as potential new activities, including Intensive animal husbandry. EPA’s submission advised that any changes would automatically be brought into the planning scheme referral requirements through an amendment to Clause 66.02.

Catchment management and water authorities

If a proposed site for the use and development of a Cattle feedlot is in a special water supply catchment, the relevant water authority under the Water Act 1989 and the Secretary of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning are determining referral authorities. Similarly, if the application is to construct a building or carry out works generally within a special water supply catchment the relevant water board or water supply authority is a determining referral authority.

(ii) Improving referrals

Although there are some discrete instances where referral to another agency is required by the planning scheme, in the majority of cases for Intensive animal husbandry applications it is up to the discretion of the Council and the planning officer’s assessment of the potential for material detriment. This results in inconsistent consultation with agencies for planning applications across the State, increases uncertainty for applicants, and could result in unintended consequences for the environment or neighbouring properties. In this context the Committee sought submissions on strengthening referral arrangements for animal industry applications and how this may be implemented.

Submissions expressed strong support for improving referral arrangements. A key advantage was that applications for Intensive animal husbandry would be considered consistently and with expert input.

The potential for a referral role for an expert body was also raised by some submissions as a way to support local decision makers.


Page 72 of 97

There is a need for greater formal technical input and advice in the consideration of intensive animal industries permit applications. While Cattle feedlots are referred to DEDJTR, the Committee considers that all applications for Agriculture which require a planning permit ought to be referred to the Minister for Agriculture (DEDJTR) as a determining referral authority. While it is acknowledged that there will be a workload implication for the Department, the benefit to the industry, community and Councils in receiving this expert technical input and assessment against the standards in the respective codes will mean applications should be more expertly and consistently considered and relevant permit conditions applied.

The RSPCA submitted that they ought to be a referral authority to consider animal welfare issues in relation to planning permit applications. The Committee understands that a Memorandum of Understanding is in place between DEDJTR and the RSPCA to the effect that animal welfare matters with regard to livestock are the responsibility of DEDJTR. RSPCA has responsibility for companion and domestic animals. The Committee is satisfied that (as per the recommendations of this report), as a determining referral authority DEDJTR will consider animal welfare requirements which relate to the physical layout of the enterprise.

Although the EPA currently receive referrals under section 52(a) of the Act for applications as Councils see fit, the Committee considers that the EPA should be listed as a formal recommending referral authority under Clause 66.01‐2 for Agriculture uses that require a planning permit to consider potential odour, waterway impacts, etc. As with DEDJTR this advice will assist Councils as the EPA has the technical expertise to consider these matters and provide advice and recommend conditions to Councils. Likewise, water authorities and catchment management authorities ought to be recommending referral authorities for these applications.

In this context, the Committee considers that Agriculture should be listed in Clause 66.02 and relevant referral authorities be listed accordingly.


List Agriculture in Clause 66.02 of the Victoria Planning Provisions and make the Minister for Agriculture a determining referral authority and the Environment Protection Authority, water authorities and catchment management authorities recommending referral authorities for intensive animal production systems that require a planning permit.

8.4 Better permit conditions

The Committee makes the observation that model conditions would be useful for Councils and referral authorities to assist drafting planning permits.

While not all of the model conditions may be relevant for every application, they provide a prompt for planners as they draft permits and would promote a more consistent approach for Animal husbandry permits. Examples of standard conditions are included in Appendix E


Page 73 of 97

Recommendation


Develop model permit conditions to address common issues for Intensive animal husbandry and include them in the ‘Writing Planning Permits’ standard conditions manual to assist decision makers.

8.5 Planner training

Although not specifically raised in the Discussion Paper, a number of submissions and reference group stakeholders raised the issue that more support and training for Council planners in relation to Animal husbandry applications, particularly as these applications are infrequent, technical and time consuming, in particular for smaller rural Councils who have of one two planners. This can lead to delays, high workload (taking away from other applications that still require assessment) and a lack of clear advice to proponents and the community.

Improved training for rural and regional planners about the controls over farming operations ought to be delivered. This could be in the form of a PLANET32 course which could consider strategic rural planning matters as well training on applying the codes and examining case studies.

Recommendation


Develop and make available a short course through the PLANET program on strategic rural planning matters, applying the animal industries codes and case studies as a collaboration between the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources; the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; the Environment Protection Authority and the Victorian Farmers Federation.

32 The PLANET program is administered by the Planning Institute Australia. PLANET provides core learning programs and

keeps planners up to date with legislative, regulatory and policy changes in planning.


Page 74 of 97

9 Issue 6 – Strengthening enforcement and compliance of animal industries

9.1 Clarify existing use rights

The Committee received various submissions in relation to existing use rights and the ‘right to farm’. There appears to be general confusion in the community as to what constitutes existing use rights and the relevance, if any, of the phrase ‘right to farm’ to those existing use rights.

The concept of a ‘right to farm’ is essentially the process by which some jurisdictions set appropriate amenity levels in rural areas. It is not clear that any jurisdiction gives an unfettered right to farmers to cause nuisance to their neighbours. Put simply, it is the ‘right to farm right’ that meets both community and industry interests and needs.

Planning Schemes control the change in use or the development of land. It is a generally accepted principle that a person can continue to do what they have always done on their land prior to any contradictory planning controls coming into force. This ‘right’ to continue existing practices is called ‘existing use rights’. Certain criteria need to be met in order for a person to be able to claim existing use rights.

Under Clause 63 of the VPP if a person can demonstrate the ongoing use of land for a period of 15 years that person can claim existing use rights and can continue what may otherwise be a prohibited use under the new planning controls. These existing use rights are not extinguished by the issue of a planning permit.

Two important principles underpin existing use rights:

Changes in the intensity of a use is not a change in the use. This has important implications where a farm may be more intensively farmed, by increasing supplementary feeding.

The definitions in the planning scheme are not used to determine what the existing use is.

In the context of Animal husbandry there is the potential for a farmer to claim that an intensive farming operation has existing use rights and avoid the application of more recent planning controls. This could arise if the farmer has been supplementary feeding for over 15 years but this feeding now increases to more than 50 per cent of the animals’ feed. It is by no means clear that this change would trigger the need for a permit. If a farmer has used land as a feedlot for more than 15 years there may be no planning controls over increasing the number of cattle on the feedlot.

The Committee heard about situations where existing use rights, and a lack of clarity about their application, had produced unsatisfactory outcomes. One example involved intensification of cattle feeding over time that largely escaped adequate planning controls and created significant amenity impacts for surrounding farmers.

The Committee thinks that it is not in the interest of the livestock industries or the community for Extensive animal husbandry operations to change to Intensive animal


Page 75 of 97

husbandry operations without planning controls, simply because of the application of existing use rights.

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 includes a provision to curtail existing use rights in certain circumstances. Subsection 6(4A) of the Act says a planning scheme may require a use that has existing use rights to comply with:

(a) a Code of Practice which has been incorporated or adopted in accordance with section 39 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 ; or

(b) a Code of Practice approved or ratified by Parliament under an Act.

Similarly, Clause 63.07 of the VPP provides:

Compliance with Codes of Practice

A use for which an existing use right is established must comply with any relevant Code of Practice incorporated in this scheme if either:

The Code of Practice has been incorporated or adopted in accordance with section 39 of the Conservation Forests and Lands Act 1987.

The Code of Practice is approved or ratified by Parliament under an Act.

Mere incorporation of the current animal industries Codes of Practices into the VPP is not sufficient to curtail the existing use rights without ensuring those Codes of Practice have been approved or ratified by Parliament under an Act. Clause 63.07 of the VPP is consistent with the legislative requirements. To ensure the current – and any future – animal industries Codes of Practice apply to all changes in farming operations, these Codes of Practice must be approved or ratified by Parliament under an Act.

If the codes are not ratified many operations could move to intensive farming with significant off‐site effects and not be subject to planning control. This is inconsistent with the current controls over new operations. Small feed lots of say 100 cattle could morph into feedlots of 2,000 head without a planning permit – or with a complex and costly argument about whether a permit was needed.

Recommendation


Parliament approve or ratify the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 and the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots, August 1995 pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and approve or ratify new codes as they are introduced.

Amend Clause 63.07 of the Victoria Planning Provisions to list the date when relevant Codes of Practice were approved or ratified.

9.2 Enforcement

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 and planning schemes set out who is the responsible authority for administration and enforcement of the relevant planning scheme. A responsible authority has the duty to efficiently administer and enforce a planning scheme. In most cases, the responsible authority will be the local Council.


Page 76 of 97

If a landowner fails to apply for a planning permit when one is needed, this is a contravention of the planning scheme and it generally falls to the local Council to enforce. Typically an application will be made for the use to see if it can be ‘legitimised’.

Once a planning permit is in place, the planning permits themselves may include specific conditions which specify which agency is responsible for enforcement. If not specified, the Council is generally responsible.

The Committee sought submissions on how effective the following policy directions might be and how they might be implemented:

Create a single point of contact for all enforcement actions whose role it is to oversee enforcement activities;

Increase the role of the EPA as an enforcement body.

There are a number of enforcement action avenues by a number of statutory authorities or government departments that are similar to enforcement proceedings under the Planning and Environment Act.

The Committee was told that where action has been taken under the Planning and Environment Act, Councils have not always been able to obtain EPA’s complaints data to assist in making the case that a breach of conditions has occurred.

Separate from requirements under the Planning and Environment Act, the EPA has wide powers and is responsible for enforcing and prosecuting pollution and discharges to land, air and water under its enabling legislation and policies. The Committee received submissions that the breadth, strength and in some instances comparative ease of enforcement of EPA’s powers, means that the Committee should consider having the EPA as the single enforcer. The countervailing view was that the spread of EPA officers makes timely observation of potential breaches difficult in practice.

The EPA undertakes its regulatory role on a risk‐based approach as set out in its Compliance and Enforcement Policy (EPA Publication 1388.1). In EPA’s submission any increase in their enforcement role for intensive animal industries alone (as against all other industries) “would need to be justified by a demonstrated need and evidence of environmental impacts”. The EPA submitted that additional considerations such as resourcing and balancing other duties under the Environment Protection Act would need to be considered. The Committee was informed that “such matters are currently being considered by the Independent Inquiry into the EPA established by the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water”.

The Committee received submissions that the overlapping controls and responsibilities for enforcement can create difficulty in determining who is the responsible agency to act on an issue. This can result in inaction or reluctance to act. The Committee agrees there could be better collaboration between the various enforcement agencies and legislation to provide a clearer and more cohesive enforcement framework for the EPA and Councils.

One possibility is that Council officers take on delegated powers from the EPA. The Committee understands that this is legally possible. The EPA could develop a protocol to formalise how such delegation might be achieved. When this was raised in the Hearings some Councils saw it as potential cost shifting, other saw it as an opportunity to improve their enforcement capability.


Page 77 of 97

A common issue was the lack of EPA involvement in enforcement. Greater resources are likely to be required to effect timely enforcement, when this is required.

Recommendation


Release Environment Protection Authority complaint data to Councils to allow Councils to incorporate any relevant complaint data into monitoring or enforcement proceedings.

The Environment Protection Authority establish a protocol for delegating certain powers under its enacting legislation to Council environmental health officers to allow Council officers the opportunity to conduct enforcement action with a wider range of powers when requested by Council.

Ensure Environment Protection Authority has appropriate capacity to conduct enforcement action where needed.


Page 78 of 97

Appendix A Terms of Reference


Page 79 of 97


Page 80 of 97


Page 81 of 97

Appendix B Consultation process

B.1 Notice about the Discussion paper

Public notification seeking submissions was placed in the following newspapers in December 2015 and again in January 2016:

Herald Sun

Weekly Times

Geelong Advertiser

Albury‐Border Mail

Ballarat Courier

Bendigo Advertiser

Latrobe Valley Express

Shepparton News

Mildura Sunraysia Daily

Warrnambool Standard.

Direct notification was provided by email to all regional Councils via the State Planning contact list and to general stakeholders who registered their interest with Planning Panels Victoria prior to the publication. In addition, an advertisement was included in the Department’s weekly newsletter ‘Planning Matters’.


Page 82 of 97

B.2 Submitters

Identifier Name Organisation Heard? ANI001 Neil Repacholi Goulburn Murray Water No

ANI002 John Scott Yes

ANI003 Peter Dahlhaus Centre for eResearch and Digital Innovation, Federation University Australia

No

ANI004 Tracey Healand No

ANI005 Teresa Hepburn No

ANI006 Kim Ross Edgars Mission No

ANI007 Elaine Haydon No

ANI008 Amelia King No

ANI009 Anthony Kapolitsas No

ANI010 Naomi Smith No

ANI011 LisaAnne McLean No

ANI012 Bianca Sobral No

ANI013 Nikolai Kutuzov No

ANI014 Mellita Jones No

ANI015 Anna White No

ANI016 Dianne No

ANI017 Charles Peter Frederick No

ANI018 Sandie Horton No

ANI019 Patrick Francis Yes

ANI020 David Bruce Sutcliffe Central Goldfields Shire Yes

ANI021 Claudette Fahy Yarra Ranges Council No

ANI022 Darren Camilleri No

ANI023 Robyn Anne Walsh Grey Areas of Farming along the Goulburn River

No

ANI024 Eileen McGhee Committee for Miners Rest Yes

ANI025 Karen O'Reilly‐Briggs No

ANI026 Judy de Groot No

ANI027 Jessie Holmes Buloke Shire Council No

ANI028 Jenny Hughes No

ANI029 Yvonne Millar No

ANI030 Michael Delahunty Yes

ANI031 Tara Callingham Goulburn Valley Water No

ANI032 Lee Cousins No

ANI033 Susan Buckland No

ANI034 Gordon Hamilton Rural Action Supergroup Inc. Yes

ANI035 Tanya Hadfield No

ANI036 Kim Davies No

ANI037 Cheryl Luckhardt No

ANI038 Andrew Cowin Shire of Campaspe No

ANI039 Paula Lawrence Peri urban Group of Rural Councils Yes

ANI040 N Richard No

ANI041 Fiona Weigall East Gippsland Shire Council Yes


Page 83 of 97

Identifier Name Organisation Heard? ANI042 Joan Leoni Donovan No

ANI043 Lori Scinto No

ANI044 Allison Jones Bass Coast Shire Council Yes

ANI045 Mhairi Roberts RSPCA Yes

ANI046 Craig and Samantha Gloury Yes

ANI047 Ralph Kenyon Wimmera Development Association No

ANI048 Bruno and Josie Andreetta No

ANI049 Patti Mulhall No

ANI050 Kenneth Millar No

ANI051 Matthew Berry Glenelg Shire Council No

ANI052 Rebecca Stockfeld Mount Alexander Shire Council No

ANI053 Barry Floyd Coliban Region Water Corporation No

ANI054 Lee McCosker PROOF ‐ Pasture Raised On Open Fields

No

ANI055 Linda Martin‐Chew Plan‐it Rural Pty Ltd No

ANI056 Lill Roberts Yes

ANI057 Phil Howard Strathbogie Shire Council Yes

ANI058 Tim Waller Golden Plains Shire Council No

ANI059 Shivaun Brown Murrindindi Shire Council Yes

ANI060 Andrea Brough No

ANI061 John Hannagan Stephen Handbury Yes

ANI062 Anne Wallace No

ANI063 Sue Bond No

ANI064 Andrea Brough No

ANI065 Nathan Misiurka Latrobe City Council Yes

ANI066 Tracey Healand No

ANI067 Jo McKell No

ANI068 Gail Canning No

ANI069 Ben Dingle Nuchev Pty Ltd Yes

ANI070 Maria Velardo No

ANI071 Michelle Grainger Moyne Shire Council Yes

ANI072 Toni Darlow No

ANI073 Cathy Schafer No

ANI074 Graeme McElligott No

ANI075 Kaye Baillie No

ANI076 Michael J Bettanin Barwon Water No

ANI077 Linda Mira‐Bateman No

ANI078 Chris Norman Goulburn Broken CMA No

ANI079 Tessa D’Abbs Environment Protection Authority Victoria

Yes

ANI080 Colin Kalms Greater Shepparton City Council No

ANI081 Kasia Kinsky No

ANI082 Elizabeth Ryan Yes

ANI083 Laura Tierney Rural City of Wangaratta No

ANI084 Christine Ross No

ANI085 Ted Parish Regional Infrastructure No

ANI086 Gareth Hately Municipal Association of Victoria Yes

ANI087 Rosemary Moore No


Page 84 of 97

Identifier Name Organisation Heard? ANI088 Brian Gould Bendigo Manufacturing Group No

ANI089 Angela Walch No

ANI090 Andre Schmid City of Greater Geelong No

ANI091 Janet Barker No

ANI092 Paul Stampton South Gippsland Shire Council Yes

ANI093 Teresa Hazendonk City of Casey No

ANI094 Bridget Peachey Australian Lot Feeders' Association No

ANI095 Leanne Khan Baw Baw Shire Council Yes

ANI096 Alisin King No

ANI097 Jessica Dunn No

ANI098 Mr Greg Hayes Corangamite Shire No

ANI099 Tammi Jonas Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance Yes

ANI100 Kerry Chaplin No

ANI101 Pam Ahern Edgar's Mission Yes

ANI102 David Proctor Yes

ANI103 Sophie Segafredo Macedon Ranges Shire Council Yes

ANI104 Robyn Tucker Livestock Environmental and Planning

No

ANI105 Jessie Keating City of Ballarat ‐ Officer Submission No

ANI106 Jessica Wrench No

ANI107 Emma Amos Agribusiness Yarra Valley Yes

ANI108 Ms Paula Ewington No

ANI109 Kristen Balzer No

ANI110 Sarah Collins No

ANI111 Julie Butler No

ANI112 Rahnie Tranter No

ANI113 Diane Taylor No

ANI114 Patty Mark Yes

ANI115 Dean Thompson No

ANI116 Stuart Strachan No

ANI117 Chris Turner VCMC No

ANI118 Julie Waters No

ANI119 G. Lance Blake Yes

ANI120 Jorine Bothma Moira Shire Council No

ANI121 Leanne Atkinson Wellington Shire Council Yes

ANI122 Richard Rayner Specialised Breeders Australia Pty Ltd

No

ANI123 Annemaree Docking City of Whittlesea No

ANI124 Glenys Oogjes Animals Australia No

ANI125 Alan Miller No

ANI126 Kim Molina No

ANI127 John McGoverne Australian Pork Limited Yes

ANI128 Cathy McCallum Yes

ANI129 David Pietsch Gannawarra Shire Council No

ANI130 David John Blackmore Yes

ANI131 Carolyn Stewart No

ANI132 John Peter Skilbeck Yes


Page 85 of 97

Identifier Name Organisation Heard?

ANI133 Emmanuel Giuffre Joint submission of Voiceless, the animal protection institute and the Animal Law Institute

No

ANI134 Allan Cowley Mornington Peninsula Shire Council Yes

ANI135 Ms Alison H Teese OAM Yes

ANI136 Tracey Anton No

ANI137 Trevor Budge City of Greater Bendigo Yes

ANI138 Emily Waters Victorian Farmers Federation Yes

ANI139 Ronald Murcott No

ANI140 Shane O'Laughlin Yes

ANI141 Donald Coventry Yes

ANI142 Frances Wade AIAC No

ANI143 Chris Schulz Yes

ANI144 Madelaine Lewis‐MacDonald No

ANI145 Rosemary Cousin Yes

ANI146 Joanne Stritch No


Page 86 of 97

B.3 Appearances at Hearings

Submitter Represented by

Stephen Handbury John Hannagan of Harwood Andrews and called expert evidence from:

‐ Glenn Marriott on Agriculture ‐ Ian Temby on Human/wildlife conflict

resolution

Moyne Shire Council Michelle Grainger

Elizabeth Ryan

Michael Delahunty

G. Lance Blake

Rural Action Supergroup Inc Gordon Hamilton

Strathbogie Shire Council Darren Wong of Maddocks instructed by Phillip Howard

Central Goldfields Shire Council David Sutcliffe

Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance Tammi Jonas and Chris Balazs

John Scott

Alison H Teese

Cathy McCallum

Shane O’Laughlin

City of Greater Bendigo Andrew Cockerall

Committee for Miners Rest Grant Tillet

Environment Protection Authority Victoria Dan Keely

Macedon Ranges Shire Council Sophie Segafredo

Murrindindi Shire Council Shivaun Brown

Peri‐Urban Group of Rural Councils Cr Jennifer Anderson and Paula Lawrence

Municipal Association of Victoria Gareth Hately

Agribusiness Yarra Valley Clive Larkman

Nuchev Pty Ltd Ben Dingle

Victorian Farmers Federation Peter Tuohey, Peter Huddle, Ashleigh McKinnor and Emily Waters

Chris Schulz

Edgars Mission Pam Ahern

Australian Pork Limited Deb Kerr

Craig and Samantha Gloury


Page 87 of 97

Submitter Represented by

David Proctor

Patrick Francis

Animal Liberation Victoria Patty Mark

RSPCA Mhairi Roberts

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council Allan Cowley and Gillian Stewart

David John Blackmore

Josie Andreetta

Bass Coast Shire Council Allison Jones and Chris Peckett

Latrobe City Council Jason Foreman, Keisha Jones, Nathan Misiurka, and Daniel Simpson

South Gippsland Shire Council Paul Stampton

Rosemary Cousin

East Gippsland Shire Council Nicole Reynolds

Baw Baw Shire Council Darren Wong of Maddocks

Lill Roberts

Donald Coventry Winston Price

Wellington Shire Council Joshua Clydesdale


Page 88 of 97

B.4 List of Reference Group members

Name Organisation

Cr. Jenny Blake Golden Plains Shire Council Peri Urban Group of Rural Councils

Trevor Budge City of Greater Bendigo

Debbie Chenoweth Individual – dairy farmer

Martin Chenoweth Individual – dairy farmer

Melissa Crane Murrindindi Shire Council

Tessa D’Abbs Environment Protection Authority

Claudette Fahy Yarra Ranges Shire Council

Michelle Grainger Moyne Shire Council

Barry Green Rural City of Wangaratta

Paul Griffin Individual – agribusiness and project development

Greg Hately Municipal Association of Victoria

Jessie Holmes Buloke Shire Council

Peter Hunt Victorian Farmers Federation

Colin Kalms Greater Shepparton City Council

Jessie Keating City of Ballarat

Paula Lawrence Peri Urban Group of Rural Councils

Marg Lewis Individual – community

David Maconochie Hopkins River Beef

Sandy Maconochie Hopkins River Beef

Charles McElhone Dairy Australia

Dr Greg Parkinson Livorno Consulting

Chris Peckett Bass Coast Shire Council

Janine Price Australian Pork Limited

Neil Repacholi Goulburn Murray Water

Peter Robinson Individual – crop farmer

Lauren Schneider Warrnambool City Council

Cr Margot Smith Surf Coast Shire Council

Chris Turner Victorian Chicken Meat Council

Emily Waters Victorian Farmers Federation

Cr John Walsh Murrindindi Shire Council


Page 89 of 97

B.5 Document List

No. Date Description Presented by

1 22/02 Written submission John Hannagan for Stephen Handbury

2 22/02 Statement of evidence on Agriculture Glenn Marriott

3 22/02 Statement of evidence on Human/wildlife conflict Ian Temby

4 22/02 Minutes of Murrindindi Shire Council meeting 24 June 2015

John Hannagan

5 22/02 Extract of Planning Permit Application John Hannagan

6 22/02 Written submission and extracts from Colac Herald Elizabeth Ryan

7 23/02 Living together in Victoria’s Rural Areas John Scott

8 23/02 Written submission Alison Teese

9 23/02 Map of tourism and services in the Baringhup area Cathy McCullum

10 23/02 Map of bird flyway migration Cathy McCullum

11 23/02 Waterbirds Field Guide, NCCMA Cathy McCullum

12 23/02 Internet references Cathy McCullum

13 23/02 Written submission Shane O’Loughlin

14 23/02 Draft Climate Change Adaption Plan, NCCMA Shane O’Loughlin

15 23/02 Extract from Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan Greater Bendigo City Council

16 23/02 Map of industries buffers within City of Greater Bendigo Greater Bendigo City Council

17 23/02 Map of zones within Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Greater Bendigo City Council

18 23/02 Written submission Committee for Miners Rest Inc

19 24/02 EPA Submission EPA

20 24/02 Nuchev submissions and presentation Nuchev Pty Ltd

21 24/02 Written submission and map Chris Schulz

22 24/02 HSUS report – A comparison of welfare of hens in battery cages and alternative systems

Edgars Mission

23 24/02 HIS Report: the Welfare of Animals in the Pig Industry Edgars Mission

24 25/02 Letters from Cardinia Shire Council David Proctor

25 25/02 Letters from Mornington Peninsula Shire Council David Proctor

26 25/02 Broiler Code David Proctor


Page 90 of 97

No. Date Description Presented by

27 25/02 VCAT 2000/71573 – 95 Dandenong‐Hastings Road, Somerville

David Proctor

28 25/02 Letters of support David Proctor

29 25/02 Odour modelling for 10 Boes Road, Hastings David Proctor

30 25/02 Extracts from Michigan Right to Farm Act 1981 David Proctor

31 25/02 Letter of complaint David Proctor

32 25/02 PowerPoint slides Patrick Francis

33 25/02 Written submission, DVD ‘Cowspiracy’, USB short films and brochures

Animal Liberation Victoria

34 26/02 Written submission Latrobe City Council

35 26/02 Written submission East Gippsland Council

36 26/02 Written submission Rosemary Cousin

37 26/02 Finger limes Lill Roberts

38 26/02 Written submission Lill Roberts

39 26/02 Written submission Donald Coventry


Page 91 of 97

Appendix C Proposed definitions

C.1 Land use definitions

Land use term Definition Includes Included in Agriculture Land used to:

a) propagate, cultivate or harvest plants, including cereals, flowers, fruit, seeds, trees, turf, and vegetables; b) keep, breed, board, or train animals, including livestock, and birds; or c) propagate, cultivate, rear, or harvest living resources of the sea or inland waters.

Animal husbandry Aquaculture Crop raising

Animal husbandry

Land used to keep, breed, board, or train animals, including birds.

Animal keeping Animal training Apiculture Commercial animal production Extensive animal husbandry Horse stables Intensive animal husbandry

Agriculture

Animal keeping Land used to: a) breed or board domestic pets; or b) keep, breed, or board racing dogs.

Animal boarding Dog breeding Racing dog keeping

Animal husbandry

Animal training Land used to train animals. Horse riding school Racing dog training

Animal husbandry

Apiculture Land used to keep honeybee hives and to extract honey or other bee hive products.

Animal husbandry

Broiler farm Land used to keep broiler chickens which are housed permanently in sheds and reared for meat production.

Animal husbandry Poultry meat farm

Cattle Feedlot Land used to keep and fatten cattle which are restrained by pens or enclosures and intensively fed.

Intensive animal husbandry Feedlot

Commercial animal production

Land used to keep or breed farm animals, including birds.

Egg farm Extensive animal husbandry Feedlot Intensive animal husbandry Piggery Poultry breeder farm Poultry hatchery Poultry meat farm

Animal husbandry

Egg farm Land used to keep birds for egg production. Commercial animal production


Page 92 of 97

Land use term Definition Includes Included in Extensive animal husbandry


a) emergency and seasonal supplementary feeding; and

b) the incidental penning and housing of animals, including birds, for brooding, weaning, dipping, or other husbandry purposes.

Animal husbandry Commercial animal production

Feedlot Land used to keep and fatten cattle, sheep or goats which are restrained by pens or enclosures and intensively fed.

Cattle feedlot Commercial animal production


Land used to keep or breed farm animals, including birds, by importing more than 50 per cent of the animals’ energy needs most food from outside the immediate enclosure, pen or paddock enclosures. It does not include: a) an abattoir or sale yard; b) emergency and seasonal supplementary feeding if incidental to the use of land for extensive animal husbandry; or c) the penning and housing of animals, including birds, for brooding, weaning, dipping or other husbandry purposes if incidental to the use of land for extensive animal husbandry.

Broiler farm Cattle feedlot

Animal husbandry Commercial animal production

Piggery Land used to keep, breed, fatten or rear pigs. Commercial animal production

Poultry breeder farm

Land used to breed birds for Poultry meat farms or Egg farms

Commercial animal production

Poultry hatchery Land used to incubate and hatch bird eggs. Poultry meat farm

Land used to keep birds which are reared for meat production.

Broiler farm Animal husbandry Commercial animal production


Page 93 of 97

C.2 Nesting diagram


Page 94 of 97

Appendix D Possible application requirements in the rural zones

An application to use land for Intensive animal husbandry, Animal keeping or Rural industry must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate:

A plan drawn to scale which shows:

The boundaries and dimensions of the site, adjoining roads and proximity to waterways and drainage which water may be discharged from the site.

The layout of existing and proposed uses on the land.

The location of existing dwellings on the site and adjacent properties and the existing use of all other lands within 0.5 kilometres of the site.

Areas used or to be used for intensive animal raising, grazing, manure disposal and drainage disposal.

Driveways and vehicle parking and loading areas.

The purpose of the use and the types of processes to be utilised.

How land not required for immediate use is to be maintained.

A Land Use Conflict Risk Assessment including the likely effects, if any, on the area, including noise levels, air‐borne emissions, emissions to land or water, traffic, including the hours of delivery and despatch, light spill or glare.

Farm Management Plan which includes:

Environment Management Plan.

Whether a Works Approval or Waste Discharge Licence is required from the Environment Protection Authority.

Stock and feeding systems.

Odour control methods.

Bird and vermin management.

Source and capacity of water supply to the site.

Treatment and method of waste disposal including off‐site disposal of litter and waste.

Pasture and soil management.

Access to power and transport routes.

Required separation distances and setbacks from existing sensitive uses.

Landscaping and fencing.

Animal welfare requirements (where this impacts on the physical layout of the premises).

Biosecurity measures.

Any other matter within the relevant Code of Practice.


Page 95 of 97

An application to construct a building or construct or carry out works must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate:

A plan drawn to scale which shows:

The boundaries and dimensions of the site.

Adjoining roads.

Relevant ground levels.

The layout of existing and proposed buildings and works.

Driveways and vehicle parking and loading areas.

Proposed landscape areas.

External storage and waste treatment areas.

Elevation drawings to scale which show the colour and materials of all buildings and works.

Construction details of all drainage works, driveways and vehicle parking and loading areas.


Page 96 of 97

Appendix E Possible standard conditions

The Committee suggests the following standard conditions for consideration.

A. The use must be conducted in compliance with the endorsed Site Management and Amenity Protection plan (or other specified plan) unless otherwise approved with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

B. No more than xxx animals may be kept on the site at any one time unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority. All animals must be kept within the defined area as shown on the endorsed plan.

C. The use of the land must not adversely affect the amenity of the area, by way of:

Processes carried out on the land.

The transportation of livestock, materials, goods or commodities to or from the land.

The appearance of any buildings, works, materials.

The emission of noise, artificial light, smell, fumes, dust, waste water, waste products.

The presence of vermin.

The attraction of birds.

D. The operator of the use must ensure that Vermin bait stations are placed around each poultry shed and food storage areas. Bait stations must be regularly monitored with the details of monitoring recorded in a log book. The log book is to be kept and shown on request to an officer of the Responsible Authority. Bait stations must be designed to minimise risk to native wildlife gaining access to the baits and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

E. The waste produced from xxxxx must not discharge beyond the boundaries of the land, or within 30 metres of the irrigation channels or water bodies, and must be adequately treated, retained and disposed of within the boundaries of the lot to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All wastes must be retained such that there is no contamination of surface waters. Any stockpiles or compost heaps must be bunded to prevent stormwater infiltration or run off.

F. If the Responsible Authority determines that the amenity of the nearby residents is adversely affected by the emission of an unreasonable level of odour from the site, the operator must immediately and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority take such action as is required to prevent those emissions, which may include adjusting stocking density, removing litter immediately, or any other actions reasonably required to rectify the emission of unreasonable odour.

G. All manure and polluted run‐off water from any enclosures, yards or buildings used in conjunction with the permitted use, or any water otherwise contaminated as a result of such use, must be treated and disposed of, either within the boundaries of the site or in an alternative manner, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Page 97 of 97

H. Effluent runoff must not be discharged to the xxx waterway at any time. All effluent must treated on site in accordance with the relevant EPA requirements.

I. Effluent disposal for intensive animal husbandry must be in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection Authority (or include standard EPA conditions).

J. The operator of the permitted use must commission an audit every three years from a suitably qualified third‐party auditor demonstrating compliance with the [relevant Code of Practice] and [relevant industry assurance program (if applicable)] to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The audit must be made available to the Responsible Authority upon request.

Model conditions listed under General Requirements, Landscaping, Regulating Off‐Site Amenity Impacts and Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the ‘Writing Planning Permits’ guide may also apply.

planning and environment act 1987 report animal industries ... · 7.3 dwellings in the farming zone...

Documents