Grinter & Ors v Kangaroo Island Council & Oyster Cove Shellfish P/L No ERD-03-290 [2004] SAERDC 4 (22 March 2004)

Last Updated: 28 March 2004

Court

ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURT

Judgment of Her Honour Judge Trenorden, Commissioner Mosel and Commissioner Hamnett

Hearing

13/01/2004 to 15/01/2004, 02/03/2004, 22/03/2004.

Catchwords and Materials Considered

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Third party appeal against decision of the Council to grant provisional development plan consent to the construction of a large building adjacent to the wharf - oyster grading facility - whether existing use - industry use - commercial zone - whether proposed development discouraged by Principle 1 for the Zone - issues of amenity, bulk and scale, traffic and safety - provisional development plan consent granted subject to conditions.

• Environment, Resources & Development Court Act 1993 , referred to.

Representation

Appellant: KENNETH GRINTER, GABRIEL BITTAR, DEBORAH SLEEMAN, ANTHONY KLIEVE
Advocates: MR K GRINTER

Respondent: KANGAROO ISLAND COUNCI
Counsel: MR P LEADBETER - Solicitors: NORMAN WATERHOUSE

Respondent: OYSTER COVER SHELLFISH PTY LTD
Counsel: MR P LEADBETER - Solicitors: NORMAN WATERHOUSE

ERD-03-290

Judgment No. [2004] SAERDC 4

22 March 2004

GRINTER & ORS

v

KANGAROO ISLAND COUNCIL

&

OYSTER COVE SHELLFISH PTY LTD

(ERDC No. 290 of 2003)

[2004] SAERDC 4

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

1. This is a third party appeal against a decision of the Kangaroo Island Council ("the Council") to grant provisional development plan consent to the construction of a large building adjacent to the wharf which serves the township of American River.

2. Development Application No. 520/037/03 was submitted by Oyster Cove Shellfish Pty Ltd ("Oyster Cove") and received by the Council on 4 February 2003. The purpose of the proposed building is described on the development application form as "oyster grading, packaging and storage." For reasons that we shall get to, the site including the land upon which the building is to be constructed has not been accurately defined. However, the subject land can be described as being portion of Section 271, Hundred of Haines which is comprised of Crown Record Volume 5856 Folio 801. The site, within the subject land, is located in the wharf area at American River and will include all or most of Parcel B in Exhibit R2. It is a part of a reserve dedicated for Marine and Harbors purposes. That reserve is under the care, control and management of the Minister of Transport and constitutes the wharf area at American River. Oyster Cove proposes to lease the site.

3. The Council issued the consent on 25 July 2003. Its decision is subject to 14 conditions and subject as well to a number of conditions of Transport SA and the Environment Protection Authority.

4. Messrs Grinter, Bittar, Klieve and Ms Sleeman, all of whom submitted representations to the Council in respect of the proposal, were aggrieved by the decision and appealed to this Court. The conference convened pursuant to s16 of the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993 did not result in a settlement. When the matter came to hearing Mr Leadbeter of counsel, represented both the Council and Oyster Cove. Mr Grinter and Ms Sleeman represented the appellants.

5. In the presence of the parties the Court viewed the subject land. The position of the proposed building was clearly marked on the surface of the land. The Court also viewed the township of American River and viewed, from a distance, the oyster leases held by Oyster Cove.

6. The proposal and subsequent amendments are contained in Exhibit R1 (pp 86-93). The proposed building will have a floor area of 15m x 27m. Its size and orientation varies from that originally put to the Council. However, the proposal as we understand it, is essentially unchanged. The proposed building is 4.7m-6.5m distant from the existing kiosk and loading ramp, about 1-2m from the Tangara Drive boundary and 24m from another building on the wharf commonly referred to as the "Cliff Hawkins Shed".

7. In its original form, the proposal was accompanied by plans defining the boundaries of the area intended to be occupied by the proposed building and leased by Oyster Cove. The area so defined was previously leased to Raptis & Sons who might have used it for storage, in connection with their shellfish aquaculture operations. The evidence indicates that the proposed lease arrangements between Oyster Cove and the relevant Minister have been and continue to be under discussion. The amended plans do not accurately define the boundaries of the site. The failure to accurately define the boundaries of the site is less than satisfactory but in the circumstances does not preclude us from determining the appeal.

8. Oyster Cove intends to continue, in the proposed building, the functions already carried out on the subject land and within the Cliff Hawkins Shed, part of which it now rents. Broadly speaking, oysters from three leases totalling 30ha in area and located about 1-2km from the wharf will be taken to the building and either graded and returned to the leased sites or packaged for transport to retail outlets. An integral part of the business is the making and repairing of the baskets in which the oysters grow, the storage of the baskets and the storage of boats and vehicles. We will address later the question of whether that which is proposed constitutes the continuation or extension of an existing lawful use.

The Appellants' Case

9. The appellants all live in the township of American River or near environs. The evidence of Mr and Mrs Grinter, Ms Sleeman and Mr Klieve indicates their deep interest in the township and its setting and their desire to preserve and enhance the wharf as a community focal point. Their grounds of appeal are threefold. First, they contend the proposal constitutes a type of industrial use of the subject land that is not contemplated in the particular zone in which it is situated. Second, the appellants say the movement of traffic to and from the subject land will be unsafe, particularly in light of the use made of the wharf by tourists and children. Third, they say the proposal will have adverse amenity consequences by virtue of the bulk and scale of the building and the emission of odours from the grading and packaging activities.

10. The appellants' concerns were put to the Court within the context of the present operations (producing about 60 tonnes of shellfish) and the anticipated 180 tonnes once the oyster leases are fully developed (Exhibit R1).

Industry Use

11. We have given consideration to the nature of the proposed development. We have concluded that it is in the nature of an "industry" and more particularly "light industry". This was not disputed by the respondents. Schedule 1 of the Development Regulations 1993 defines an "industry" and "light industry" in the following terms:

"'industry' means the carrying on, in the course of a trade or business, of any process (other than a process in the course of farming or mining) for, or incidental to-

.....

(b) the altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, assembling, cleaning, washing, packing, bottling, canning or adapting for sale, or the breaking up or demolition, of any article, ship or vessel; ...."

'light industry' means an industry where the process carried on, the materials and machinery used, the transport of materials, goods or commodities to and from the land on or in which (wholly or in part) the industry is conducted and the scale of the industry does not -

(a) detrimentally affect the amenity of the locality or the amenity within the vicinity of the locality by reason of the establishment or the bulk of any building or structure, the emission of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, oil, spilled light, or otherwise howsoever; or

(b) directly or indirectly, cause dangerous or congested traffic conditions in any nearby road."

12. We have reached this conclusion after carefully considering the detailed and forthright evidence of Mr Willson, the oyster farm manager, in respect of the day to day operations, the machinery used, the nature and frequency of traffic movements, the storage and maintenance requirements and activities and the areas of the building allocated between the storage component and the grading/packing/adapting for sale aspects of the business.

13. In so characterising the proposal we have accepted that the amenity of the locality is not detrimentally affected by the bulk of the proposed building and the emission of odours. We have reached this conclusion after having regard to the matters raised in evidence by the appellants, and for the reasons which will be outlined later.

Existing Use

14. In presenting its case, Oyster Cove sought the benefit of the existing use of the subject land. Evidence from Mr Willson, Mr Klieve, Mr Grinter and Mr Hutchison was helpful but not sufficient for us to find that the present use of the subject land for activities connected with the oyster leases is a lawful existing use albeit that there have been activities associated with oyster farming there, for a period of up to 6 years. There has never been a development authorisation issued in respect of the use of the subject land, nor do we understand the land to be exempt from the provisions of the Development Act. In any event, the evidence indicates that the use now proposed is likely to be sufficiently different in scale and intensity so as to constitute a new use. That said, we have not ignored the fact that the wharf has been in existence for many years and has and continues to serve the finfish, tourist and shellfish industries. Accordingly it is likely that it accommodates a variety of activities, including loading and unloading of vehicles and boats, which could be expected to impact visually and otherwise upon its environs.

The Development Plan

15. The relevant Development Plan in these proceedings is the Dudley DC Development Plan dated 4 October 2001. The subject land is depicted on MAP Du/20. It is within the Commercial Zone. To the north and south-west is the Urban Coastal Zone. To the west are the Holiday House and Recreation Zones and further west again another Commercial Zone. To the east are the waters of the American River and Eastern Cove.

16. The Commercial Zone contains several provisions relevant to the assessment of the proposal. Objective 1 and Principle 1, expressed in the following terms, give direction to the broad land uses sought in the Zone, and in particular, the wharf of American River.

"Objective 1: A zone primarily accommodating local servicing, wholesaling and storage activities and light and service industry."

"Principle 1: Industrial development should not be undertaken within the Marine and Harbors Board Reserves at Penneshaw and, American River, unless it is associated with the repair, maintenance, handling, and finishing, of boats and other waterborne craft."

17. Site and building design provisions of Principle 3, 4, 5 and 6 are also relevant. They are expressed thus:

"Principle 3: New development should include adequate provision for access and the on-site manoeuvring of service vehicles, including single-unit trucks, to ensure the safety of the public and the free flow of traffic on adjoining roads.

Principle 4: Car parking, servicing and exposed storage, areas should be screened by appropriate fencing or landscaping.

Principle 5: Development should be of a high standard of design with respect to scale, external materials, colour and siting, to enhance the amenity of the locality and views from public roads, particularly when viewed from the top of the hills overlooking Penneshaw, and from the main Kingscote to Penneshaw Road.

Principle 6: Buildings should not exceed six metres in height."

18. The proposed use of land is neither complying nor non-complying in the Commercial Zone.

19. The directions established by these provisions, are supported by the objectives for American River as provided for in Objectives 1, 5 and 6, Objectives 15, 23 and 28 for Kangaroo Island and Council Wide Objectives 5, 12, 15, 16 and 27 and Principles 18, 19, 67, 76, 87, 88, 116, 118 and 133. We have taken account of these guidelines in our assessment.

20. In the broadest sense the proposed use is an on-shore component of a marine aquaculture industry. We have considered the provisions in the Development Plan under the heading of "Coastal Development" and "Coastal Areas" and consider the following provisions are those most relevant:

"Objective 36: Development of the marine environment and in particular the marine aquaculture industry:

....

(g) so that onshore support facilities and activities are appropriately designed and located;

(h) to maintain public access to the foreshore and coastal waters;

(i) to minimize adverse impact on the visual amenity of the coastal environment, and unspoilt views adjacent to the coast. ..."

"Principle 114: Marine aquaculture access, launching and maintenance facilities wherever possible should be developed co-operatively, and co-located to serve the needs of the industry and community as a whole, and where necessary may be located on the foreshore."

The Zone Objective

21. We agree with Mr Grinter's proposition that the proposed use appears to be inconsistent with Principle 1 for the Commercial Zone. Principle 1 appears to qualify Objective 1 in that it discourages industrial development unless it is associated with boats and other waterborne craft. Although the evidence of Mr Willson indicates the proposed use will incorporate some elements of boat maintenance, we are not able to conclude that this component characterises the proposed use. Thus, it would not be consistent, at face value, with the objective for the Commercial Zone within which the subject land is situated. However, that is not the end of the matter. What is the strategic intent of the Development Plan for the wharf area of the Commercial Zone? Objective 1 would have the land included in the Commercial Zones used primarily for, inter alia, light industry. There are two Commercial Zones in American River; one of which includes the wharf. However, Principle 1 strongly suggests that industry at the wharf at American River should only be that associated with boats and waterborne craft.

22. Ordinarily the loading and unloading of waterborne craft, the traditional reason-for-being of wharves, would not constitute industrial development. If the work associated with the oyster farm involved only the loading and unloading of the oyster barges, then it would not be industry. As it necessarily includes sorting, grading and packing the oysters, as well as loading and unloading the oyster barge, the proposed use includes both an industrial use and a traditional or conventional wharf area activity. There is also a storage element of the proposed use. That element has also traditionally been a wharf area use.

23. What is the kind of development which Principle 1 for the zone seeks to discourage? Objective 1 and Principle 1 when read together, lead to the conclusion that local servicing, wholesaling and storage activities, and light and service industry associated with boats and other waterborne craft are the kinds of development envisaged in the wharf area at American River. We do not see that the likely impacts of the proposed light industry use constituted by the process of grading and packing oysters for sale (even when the leases are fully developed), would be greater in the circumstances, than those of a wholesaling and storage activity on the same site. Indeed the industrial component of the proposal would be likely to have far less impact, on the evidence, than a light or service industry use that comprised the repair, maintenance, handling or finishing of boats or other waterborne craft.

24. In this instance the proposed use of land is an essential component of an oyster aquaculture operation, the "farm" part of which is 30ha in area, located within Eastern Cove some 1-2km north of the subject land. The boat ramp used by Oyster Cove is some 200m distant from the subject land and connected to it by a public road. Overall, the proposed use has a direct association with the immediate marine environment. It is in this context that the proposed use could not be regarded as inconsistent with the overall intent and purpose of Objective 1 and Principle 1 when read together and reasonably applied. It remains for us to assess the proposed development against other relevant provisions of the Development Plan.

25. In passing, we note that it may be the case that the proposed use could function equally as well in the Commercial Zone located about 1km south-west of the subject land. However, whether one site or another is best suited, in planning terms, for the proposed use is not a question for this Court to address. Our role is to assess the proposed development, on the subject land.

The Likely Impacts

26. The volume and circulation pattern of traffic associated with the proposed development are relevant considerations. Principle 3 for the Commercial Zone applies and should be read with the more general traffic engineering provisions such as Objective 28 for Kangaroo Island and Council Wide Objectives 5 and 27 and Principles 18 and 67.

27. The evidence of Mr Willson indicates the operations now and at full capacity will generate between 8 and 12 movements per day. The vehicles/boat move from the boat ramp to the subject land via Tangara Drive and return to it via the open driveway/parking areas associated with the wharf. In common with other coastal wharf areas the circulation system here is not formalized.

28. The appellants argued that the proposed location of the building would compromise if not prevent car parking by local people and tourists on an area of land adjacent to the sea, often used. We agree. However, we do not think this will compromise the integrity of the wharf area generally or the vehicle circulation pattern. The car parking facilities available within the wharf precinct are plentiful and there was no evidence to suggest that the public usage of and access to the wharf would be unreasonably affected. Furthermore, the availability of space for public car parking will be determined by the Minister of Transport from time to time. Although we do not consider the proposal puts undue strain on public infrastructure, the appellants' concerns about the future parking and other facilities are understandable. No doubt a plan for the future development of the wharf and its environs would assist in this respect.

29. Mr and Mrs Grinter expressed their concerns about the traffic circulation requirements of the proposal, particularly in light of the use made of the wharf by children. The proximity of the eastern wall of the building to the alignment of the footpath which defines the edge of the beach was a particular concern. We have looked at their concerns very carefully having particular regard to the likely traffic volumes and movements. We do not think the operational requirements of the proposal, properly managed, are of such a scale and nature as to create unsafe conditions and therefore conflict with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. However, the distances between the building and the boundaries of the proposed lease area and the consequent nature of the interface between the lease boundary and the area of the wharf generally accessed by the public are important factors in the management of traffic to and from the subject land and the relationship between the proposed operations and the wharf area generally. These are matters on which the Court would require further information, before handing down its final decision.

30. We now address the issue of visual amenity. When assessing the visual impact it is appropriate for us to consider the purpose and intent of the Zone. As already noted, it is a Zone intended to accommodate local servicing, wholesaling and storage activities and light industry associated with the repair, maintenance, handling and finishing of boats. The Zone extends along Tangara Drive for a distance of about 250m and embraces all of the land under the care and control of the Minister of Transport. Within it there is a "working wharf" and it includes boat ramps, fishing vessels and old buildings. The amenity of that part of the adjacent Holiday House Zone opposite the subject land, across Tangara Drive (within which Lots 342, 343, 344 and 348 are located) is not particularly high. It is marred by the presence of a boat under construction in the front yard of one property and the general unkempt appearance of some buildings. It is within this context that the visual impact of the proposed building is to be assessed.

31. Zone Principles 3, 4, 5 and 6 set out the provisions in respect of the design for buildings. We have given careful consideration to the evidence of Messrs Grinter, Klieve and Ms Sleeman, all of whom expressed concern about the impact the building will have on the visual amenity and the views to American River generally. We are of the opinion that the extent to which the visual amenity is affected and the subject of assessment is mainly in respect of the properties situated at Lots 342, 343, 344 and 348 Tangara Drive. This is not to say that the building would not be visible or have no impact when viewed from the waters of American River or parts of the township proper. We note also that the Zone provisions do not express an intention to keep the wharf area free from building development. Indeed, the relevant Objective for the Commercial Zone gives rise to the prospect of buildings within it, along with open storage uses, all of which would result in visual impacts.

32. Overall we have concluded that when reasonably applied to the circumstances, including the strategic intent for the Zone, those provisions that seek to maintain and enhance amenity are not offended to an unacceptable extent. We have taken into account that the height of the proposed building (5.8m) does not offend Principle 6, but we will want to ensure that this is so, having regard to the slope of the land. The proposed height of the building has not been referenced against the floor level as required to determine whether there would be conflict with Principles 116 and 118. Our findings in respect of the impact on the visual amenity assume the top of the building being no higher than 5.8m above the highest ground level of the marked out building envelope. It is in this respect that we note Condition 14 leaves open the possibility of a building having a height greater than 5.8m above the lowest point of the site. A fully detailed survey plan showing existing and finished floor levels is necessary before our final decision is handed down.

33. The proposed colour and orientation of the building is acceptable, and we are satisfied that the spaces around the building are adequate for the provision of landscaping to enhance the amenity of the proposed development. We acknowledge that landscaping would be unlikely to screen the building.

34. In reaching this conclusion we have not ignored the setback requirements in Principle 87. In this respect we agree with the approach taken by Mr Hutchison who took into account the position of the Cliff Hawkins Shed when assessing the appropriateness of the setback of between 1-2m and generally the guidelines provided for in Principle 88. However, the precise setback distance from the boundary of Tangara Drive has not been defined. On the view the setback appears to be 1-2m. Mr Hutchison agrees. A more detailed site plan must be prepared to satisfy us that our assumptions about the position of the building in relation to the road boundary and our subsequent conclusions are properly based.

35. We now address the matter of odour emission. We had the benefit of experiencing the odours emitted from baskets after they had been out of the marine environment for some time. The odour was noticeable but not offensive. We do not doubt that the odour may be more noticeable from time to time, especially when the baskets have been freshly removed from the sea, but there was no evidence to suggest that the proposed use would be inconsistent with Council Wide Objective 23 or that it would be incompatible with its neighbours in this respect.

Conclusion

36. For the foregoing reasons we have concluded, subject to the Court being satisfied in respect of more accurate definition of the subject land, lease boundary/operations interface with the wharf generally, the setback distance from Tangara Drive and natural and finished floor levels, that the proposed use sufficiently complies with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The parties are also invited to put further submissions to us in respect of the conditions of consent. All further written material should be submitted to the Court by 27 February 2004.

37. The Court heard further from the parties on 2 March and 22 March 2004, and received further evidence as follows:

•	Exhibit R6: Identification, Detail and Level Survey Plan of portion of Section 271 Hundred of Haines, American River prepared by Weber Frankiw and Associates Pty Ltd dated 23 February 2004, showing the precise location of the proposed building, together with spot natural ground levels across the site.
•	Exhibit R7: A letter from the solicitor for the respondents, Norman Waterhouse, dated 27 February 2004 to the Court containing submissions with respect to the matters raised by the Court in paragraph 36 of these reasons, and draft list of conditions.
•	Exhibit R8: Copy of a letter from Transport SA to the solicitors for the respondents dated 19 March 2004, including an advice that Transport SA "agrees in principle to lease portion of the Harbors Board Reserve (portion of Lot 271 in the Hundred of Haines) at American River Wharf to Oyster Cove Shellfish Pty Ltd" together with a survey plan showing the proposed leased area.
•	Exhibit R9: A set of plans and specifications for the proposed building, dated August 2002.
•	Exhibit R10: A plan identifying the dimensions of the proposed lease area.

38. We are now satisfied with respect to the following:

•	A lease of the proposed lease area identified in Exhibit R8 will be granted to Oyster Cove following the grant of provisional development plan consent to the proposal before us.
•	That the proposed lease area can accommodate the proposed building together with carparking for staff employed by Oyster Cove.
•	The precise location of the proposed building including that it is supposed to be set back from the Tangara Road boundary at a distance of 2.7m.
•	That the precise location of the proposed building, together with the operational requirements of the proposal, properly managed, are such as will be likely to create safe traffic conditions on the wharf area generally.
•	That the building will be limited in height to less than 5.8m above the lowest natural ground level in the lease area (1.85 AHD).
•	That there is sufficient opportunity to enhance the amenity of the building by landscaping those areas immediately adjacent to the walls of the proposed building and particularly, in that part of the lease area immediately adjacent the fence on the Tangara Road boundary.

39. We have modified the conditions originally imposed on the consent granted by the relevant authority, with a view to addressing the proposal as it now stands according to the plans and specifications and the commitments provided by Oyster Cove to the Court. A number of the original conditions were modified to reflect the newer information before the Court, and also to clarify the meaning and intent of the conditions.

Decision of the Court

40. The decision of the Court is that provisional development plan consent should be and is granted to Oyster Cove to use the lease area identified in Exhibit R8 (the subject land) for the purposes of oyster grading, packaging and storage in a building to be constructed on the site identified in Exhibit R6 (being portion of the lease area on Exhibit R9) subject to the following conditions:

1. The building herein approved must be constructed in accordance with the shed building plans and specifications dated August 2002 (Exhibit R9), on the site identified in the Identification, Detail and Level Survey Plan prepared by Weber Frankiw and Associates Pty Ltd dated 23 February 2004 for portion of Section 271 Hundred of Haines, American River (Exhibit R6).

2. A storm water management plan sufficient to ensure that storm water disposal does not either directly or indirectly adversely impact on land outside the subject land or coastal environments must be submitted to and approved by Council's technical services manager prior to the commencement of the development.

3. A storm water disposal system shall be established on the subject land in accordance with the approved storm water management plan and prior to occupation of the building.

4. All wastewater, grit, debris from the operation of the business on the subject land must be contained on site and disposed of appropriately.

5. Prior to occupation of the building an effluent management plan shall be prepared to address the disposal of wastewater, grit and debris from the operations conducted on the subject land.

6. The subject land must be kept in a neat and tidy manner at all times and no adverse impact on the amenity of the locality shall be created by way of dust, odour, pollution, noise, electrical interference or other means.

7. Subject to the terms of Condition 13, no storage of equipment, materials, goods, vessels, machinery or other equipment or products associated with the business is permitted outside the building. The external area beyond the confines of the building may only be used for landscaping, vehicle movement and car parking purposes.

8. No bulk fuel or chemical storage is permitted on the subject land without prior written approval of the Council.

9. The exterior of the building shall be clad in suitable non-reflective materials (such as Colorbond) or painted in quality finishes in an appropriate shade to blend with the natural features of the surrounding landscape. Such painting must be carried out upon completion of the construction of the shed and must be maintained in satisfactory condition.

10. No external lighting shall be installed on the site without the consent of Council.

11. No external signage shall be installed on the site without prior written consent of Council.

12. Compressors, motors and other cool room or freezer associated equipment shall be housed wholly within the building and shall be noise attenuated so as to ensure that dB(A) levels from the building do not exceed the ambient noise levels for the area as measured from the front boundary of the four dwellings located opposite the subject land on Tangara Drive.

13. All waste and rubbish generated by the business shall be contained in sealed containers that do not permit odour or other offence to the amenity of the area and the said containers shall be maintained in an area screened from view and not prone to attract wild life or bird activity.

14. An off street parking area, comprising 4 spaces at right angles to the building on its northern side and 2 spaces parallel to the building on its southern side shall be constructed and surfaced with suitable hard standing material developed and line marked within a period of 12 months from the date of planning approval and maintained to the satisfaction of Council with the parking layout and design complying with Australian Standard 2890.1.

15. Landscaping in accordance with a plan that has been approved by the Council prior to the commencement of any building work must be implemented and maintained in that area extending for a distance of 2.5m east of the fence on the Tangara Road boundary of the subject land.

16. The finished floor level of the building shall be no higher than the existing ground level at spot level "1.85" as depicted on the Identification, Detail and Level Survey Plan dated 23 February 2004 (Exhibit R6).

Transport SA Conditions

17. Separate metered services to the site must be made available from the existing service providers.

18. All activities related to the commercial use of the premises must be contained within the building. Subject to Condition 13, no storage of materials will be permitted outside the building.

EPA Conditions

1.	All roadways, entrances, load/unloading areas and other trafficked areas, used in conjunction with this facility shall be hard surfaced using either bitumen or concrete or paving bricks or other hard surface mediums.
2.	Any wastewater from the processing and storage areas shall not be allowed to contaminate any surface or underground water resources.
3.	Perm-a-pine or Copper Chrome Arsenate treated posts stored on the subject land shall be stored undercover in a bunded area suitable to prevent impact on ground and surface water and storm water run-off to the marine environment.
4.	Any chemicals or fuel stored on the site shall be contained within a bunded area with a capacity to hold a minimum of 120% of the volume of the largest container to be stored within the bund.
5.	Any wastewater from the building shall be directed to a septic tank effluent disposal scheme with the approval of the relevant authority, or contained on site in a holding tank from which it must be regularly removed by a licensed waste transporter for disposal off-site.
6.	All containers and crates used for product handling shall be stored and cleaned undercover within an area that drains to a septic tank effluent disposal scheme (if available) or, alternatively, drained to a holding tank for regular removal off-site for disposal by a licensed waste transporter.
7.	Stormwater run off from hard paved areas must be diverted into the landscaped areas, small infiltration basins over permeable soils, or stone filled trenches either open to the surface or underground.