Northern Grampians Shire councillors have knocked back a planning permit for an intensive free range egg farm at St Arnaud.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Shire staff recommended to councillors that they approve at the March meeting, with conditions, Planning Permit Application No. 5.2017.61.1
The permit would allow use and development of land for Intensive Animal Husbandry for free range layer hen farm with 50,000 birds and egg production and associated buildings and works at 357 Fitzpatrick Road, St Arnaud North.
A resolution before council included a condition that spot checks be carried out to see if permit conditions are being complied with.
Councillors denied the application because, according to a motion for refusal, that the applicant had not provided enough information about the application and concern about potential environmental effects.
Cr Murray Emerson asked for an emergency extension of speaking times beyond three minutes, which was granted by fellow councillors.
The motion to approve the planning permit was put to a vote and lost, with Cr Emerson calling for a formal division on the motion.
Crs Kevin Erwin, Karen Hyslop, and Jason Hosemans voted for the motion to approve the permit application.
Crs Emerson, Rob Haswell, Merrilee Reid and Cr Tony Driscoll voted against the motion.
Cr Emerson the moved a motion for the grounds for refusal, which included that the applicant has not supplied enough detail in the Environmental Management Plan to satisfy requirements of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework.
Councillors also moved that “the proposed use and development is contrary to the objectives sought by State Planning Policy Framework and in particular: Clause 11 – Settlement (orderly planning); Clause 13.03-2 Erosion and landslip; Clause 14.01-2 Sustainable agricultural land use; Clause 14.02-1 Catchment planning and management; Clause 14.02-2 Water quality; Clause 14.02-3 Water conservation; Clause 19.03-2 Water supply, sewerage and drainage.”
The motion also stated that “the proposed use and development would be detrimental to waterways and has the potential to contaminate water quality downstream” and requirements for “protection of the environment”.