NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

 

 

AGENDA                                                                                                   Page

 

1        APOLOGIES

2        DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

3        DELEGATIONS—Motion to hear Delegations

4        Director Environment and Planning Report

8.1     Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031    


 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

          (name)

 

 

 

 

Pecuniary – must leave chamber, take no part in discussion and voting.

 

 

 

Non Pecuniary – Significant Conflict – Recommended that Councillor/Member leaves chamber, takes no part in discussion or voting.

 

 

Non-Pecuniary – Less Significant Conflict – Councillor/Member may choose to remain in Chamber and participate in discussion and voting.

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s Email Address – council@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

 

Council’s Facsimile Number – (02) 6568 2201

 

(Instructions and definitions are provided on the next page).

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

Pecuniary – An interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

A Councillor or other member of a Council Committee who is present at a meeting and has a pecuniary interest in any matter which is being considered must disclose the nature of that interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

 

The Council or other member must not take part in the consideration or discussion on the matter and must not vote on any question relating to that matter. (Section 451).

 

 

Non-pecuniary – A private or personal interest the council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Act (for example; a friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

 

If you have declared a non-pecuniary conflict of interest you have a broad range of options for managing the conflict.  The option you choose will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of your interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with.  You must deal with a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in at least one of these ways.

 

·        It may be appropriate that no action is taken where the potential for conflict is minimal.  However, council officials should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

·        Limit involvement if practical (for example, participate in discussion but not in decision making or visa-versa).  Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

·        Remove the source of the conflict (for example, relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict or reallocating the conflicting duties to another officer).

·        Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions in section 451(2) of the Act apply (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest).

 

         


Special General Purpose Committee

14 December 2009

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 8.1      DA2010/031      141209         Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Arthur Tsembis, Manager Planning and Assessment         

 

Summary:

 

Council at its 3 December 2009 Ordinary Meeting when dealing with the report on Outstanding Development Applications resolved:

 

That Council conduct a Special General Purpose Committee meeting to inspect DA2010/031.

 

The next available day was Monday 14 December 2009 commencing at 12.30pm in the Council Chambers heading to the site for a 1pm inspection.

 

The applicant and all persons making submissions have been advised of the meeting date and time and Council will first be meeting with the opponents to the proposal a 1pm, then with the applicant at 1.30pm.

 

Mr Geoff Goesch has extended an invitation to all Councillors and Staff to enter their property as it provides a good vantage point over the subject property. The applicant however, has denied access onto their property and Council will need to meet in front of their property within the Irvines Road, road reserve which provides a good view of the property. As a consequence of the applicant denying access to their property, Mr Goesch has subsequently not extended their invitation to the applicants

 

The applicants wrote to Council on 23 November 2009 advising that they are withdrawing the development application as follows:

 

I refer to the above Development Application (‘DA’).  Please be advised that the DA is withdrawn.  This is pursuant to the legal advice obtained by Council and now on the public record.  It is also consistent with our own advice.  As Council and Councillors are well aware Deacons is one of the major law firms specialising in local government law.  We have no reason to question their advice to Council.

 

The applicant was subsequently advised that as Council has not yet accepted the Legal Advice from Deacons and until such time it does, the Development Application for the proposed Intensive Livestock Keeping Establishment is required.

 

Council should also be aware that several adjoining and nearby landowners are seeking their own legal advice in regard to State Environmental Planning Policy 30 – Intensive Agriculture due to the stated Aims of the SEPP  and in particular clause 2(1)(a) which states "to require development consent for …piggeries having a capacity to accommodate 200 or more pigs or 20 or more breeding sows" (The bolding and underline is my emphasis).

 

The adjoining and nearby residents have relied upon the Statement of Environmental Effects and public comments by the landowners that the land is capable of accommodating more than 200 pigs or more than 20 sows.

 

The following is a reproduction of the report presented to Council at the 19 November 2009 Ordinary meeting with a slight change to recommendation 1 which clarifies the number of pigs and sows to be kept to "less than 200 pigs, including less than 20 breeding sows"

 

Applicant:                      Mrs K Henderson

 

Proposal:                       Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment and Rural Shed

 

Property:                        Lot 516 DP 632883, 266 Irvines Road, Tewinga

 

Zoning:                           1(a2) Rural

 

DA 2010/031 for an ‘animal establishment’ and 'rural shed', was lodged on 25 August 2009. The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) stated that there would be a maximum of 20 breeding sows and a total of 240 pigs on the property at any given time. The rural sheds were subsequently removed from the application as the applicant had already commenced with their construction and are being dealt with under the Building Certificate process (if they are not Exempt Development)

 

The applicant by letter dated 14 September 2009 advised that it was her intention to never have more than 20 breeding sows and never exceed 200 pigs in aggregate. As such, the applicant contended that the operation was ‘agriculture’ and did not now require development consent. The applicant therefore intended to withdraw the development application.

 

Following a meeting with the applicant and others on 15 September 2009 it was agreed that Council will obtain a legal opinion to determine if the land use is defined as ‘agriculture’ pursuant to Nambucca Local Environmental Plan 1995, which does not require development consent.

 

Deacons by letter dated 19 October 2009, advised that the proposal would most likely be characterised as ‘agriculture’ under the LEP and is accordingly permitted without development consent under the LEP. Deacons also provided advice on the correct procedures to be followed in the event the operation of the piggery created unacceptable environmental outcomes such as odour emissions or other offences.

 

NOTE: This matter requires a “Planning Decision” referred to in Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requiring the General Manager to record the names of each Councillor supporting and opposing the decision.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1          That the applicant be advised that she is entitled to withdraw DA 2010/031 and development consent is not required providing the operation comprises less than 200 pigs, including less than 20 breeding sows.

 

2          That the applicant be requested to confirm, in writing, that the number of pigs will not exceed the prescribed threshold that would otherwise require development consent under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 30 – Intensive Agriculture.

 

3          That all persons who lodged written submissions to DA 2010/031 be advised in terms of Council’s legal advice that development consent is not required.

 

4          That all persons who lodged objections be advised that upon receipt of any further complaints regarding noise, odour or other pollution events, Council may not necessarily pursue the matter and it may be up to individuals to gather evidence and/or institute their own common law action.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

In light of Deacons advice Council may consider seeking an opinion from as Barrister on this matter before making its final decision.

 

 


DISCUSSION:

 

Following receipt of several complaints about a "piggery" operating from the subject premises, Council’s Senior Town Planner undertook a site inspection. The owner of the property was advised, by letter dated 22 July 2009, in terms of the following:

 

Reference is made to my recent site inspection of your property and our discussions regarding the keeping and breeding of pigs.

 

The purpose of the meeting was to convey a number of concerns which had been raised by adjoining landowners in relation to the activity and its impacts on their amenity, primarily arising from noise and odour and disturbance to the natural environment. I appreciate that you are aware of these issues and are taking measures to reduce the impacts of the activity.

 

As discussed, the zoning of the land and the characteristics of the locality determine the permissibility and scale of land use activities. The keeping and breeding of pigs is an intensive activity that is permissible in the rural 1(a2) zone which applies to your land, however the close proximity of rural residential development and the requirement for buffers to adjoining land, will have the affect of limiting the scale and intensity of the activity. Should you wish to continue the activity you are required to submit a development application to Council, seeking approval to operate an intensive livestock keeping establishment. Council will be particularly concerned with how you intend to limit the scale of the activity and minimise the impacts to neighbours and the natural environment.

 

The owner subsequently lodged a development application (DA) on 25 August 2009. The DA included a Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) which described the operation as an ‘animal establishment’. However, in accordance with Nambucca Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1995, it was considered that the definition of the land use is more accurately described as an ‘intensive livestock keeping establishment’, which means:

 

a building or place in which or on which cattle, sheep, goats, poultry or other livestock are held for the purpose of nurturing by a feeding method other than natural grazing and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes:

            a        feed lots;

            b        piggeries;

            c        poultry farms; and

            d        similar land uses,

but does not include an animal establishment or the keeping of livestock or poultry intended solely for personal consumption or enjoyment by the owner or occupier of the land.

 

Various letters and e-mails were exchanged between the applicant and the Manager Planning and Assessment regarding the development application. The applicant by letter dated 14 September 2009 advised that it was her intention to never have more than 20 breeding sows and never exceed 200 pigs in aggregate. As such, the applicant contended that the operation did not require development consent as it is agriculture' and therefore she intended to withdraw the development application.

 

Following a meeting with the applicant and others on 15 September 2009, it was agreed to seek legal advice to determine if the use of the subject property as a ‘piggery’ requires development consent or the land use could be defined as ‘agriculture’ for which development consent is not required. Council’s solicitors, by e-mail dated 16 September, were advised in terms of the following:

 

On the 25 August 2009 Ms Kate Henderson (owner of the property) lodged a development application (DA) for an ‘animal establishment’ comprising 200 pigs, including 20 sows.

 

A preliminary review of the application indicated that the land use was more in keeping with the definition of an ‘intensive livestock keeping establishment’ under Nambucca Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1995. The application included sketch plans and a Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE). In accordance with Council’s DCP (Notification & Advertising) the DA was advertised, and notified to adjoining and nearby residents. Whilst not a statutory requirement, the application was also referred to Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) and the Department of Primary Industries (DPI). No comments have been received from the DECC to date.

 

The DPI, now known as Industry and Investment (I&I), has provided their comments by letter dated 15 September. I&I advised that it ‘supports regional development and small scale sustainable agricultural enterprises that can operate within the relevant environmental guideline and codes that apply’. However, it has expressed some reservations about the operation and has suggested that the proponents need to further address issues such as nutrients, soils, pasture type, water demands and water security, feed demands and supply, animal welfare, etc.’

 

Prior to receipt of the advice from I&I, Ms Henderson by e-mail dated 28 August provided further information in support of her application, which included the following advice:

 

‘Coinciding with construction of the feed and shelter shed, 25 metres of poultry manure was delivered to the farm for pasture improvement. This delivery was just prior to another significant rain event in June 2009 which prevented the pile of poultry manure from being spread on the paddock as it became soggy and cloddy and had to be left to “dry out” before it could pass through a mechanical spreader.’ …….’In a short space of time the poultry manure began to anaerobically breakdown leading to a offensive odour. It was at this time that several complaints were made to council about the “unbearably smelly” pig farm – despite explanations and evidence to the contrary regarding the poultry manure.’….…’I would like to re-iterate, this is a free-range pig farm and the so termed "intensive animal establishment" will not be used to intensively house livestock. It is merely a feed and shelter shed and martialling facility.’….’ In conclusion:

 

·              there were never any complaints from adjoining landowners until the experience with the poultry manure – in fact, we had very good neighbourhood relations until that time

·              to control the poultry manure odour, it was moved away from the pig feed site and turned into a large pile of saw dust - it has since began to compost properly and there is no smell at all!

·              There is currently absolutely no offensive odour on the paddock despite the presence of the pigs.  Even at a distance of 10m to the feed site there is only the mildest detectable odour.

·              Given the effectiveness of the sawdust to entirely eliminate the odour of the poultry manure, there can be no doubt about its effectiveness on the vastly milder and much less concentrated pig manure that will be present in the feed shed in future.

 

Following discussions with Ms Henderson, a file note dated 11 September 2009 included the following information:

 

In our discussion she questioned the definition of the operation as an ‘intensive livestock keeping establishment’. An ‘intensive livestock keeping establishment’ means ‘a building or place in which’…..’livestock are held for the purpose of nurturing by a feeding method other than natural grazing’. Ms Henderson contended that the ‘piggery’ predominantly involved ‘natural grazing’ in defined paddocks and the use of the proposed shed would be used for occasional feeding and during inclement whether to shelter the animals.

 

It is considered that the land use does not fit neatly into what would ordinarily be described as a ‘piggery’ where pigs are kept in a confined space. It could be argued that the predominant use is in fact ‘agriculture’ which means ‘the keeping or breading of livestock’ and that the proposed shed is ancillary to the use of the land for the purpose of ‘agriculture’.

 

I advised Ms Henderson that if the operation was deemed to be ‘agriculture’ then development consent was not required. However, this would require a legal opinion to make such a determination. In the absence of any such opinion, Council could only consider the operation as an ‘intensive livestock keeping establishment’, for which development consent is required. Ms Henderson advised that she always considered the operation as an agricultural land use and only lodged a DA after she was requested to by a Council officer. She advised me that she may pursue further advice to establish that the operation can be defined as ‘agriculture’ and therefore does not need development consent.

 

Ms Henderson subsequently advised Council that she proposed to withdraw the application for the reasons outlined in her latter dated 14 September 2009. In response to her letter she was advised by e-mail dated 15 September 2009 in terms of the following.

 

I agree that your proposal is not an ‘animal establishment’ in accordance with the definition under Nambucca Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1995. It is for this reason that the application was notified and advertised as an ‘intensive livestock keeping establishment’. I also agree that the current operation does not fit neatly into what would ordinarily be described as an ‘intensive livestock keeping establishment’, where pigs are kept in a confined space. However, the definition of an ‘intensive livestock keeping establishment’ does not differentiate between a confined space or otherwise. The definition states ‘a building or place used’ and includes ‘piggeries’. In accordance with the Oxford Dictionary a ‘piggery’ is defined as ‘a pig-breeding farm’. As discussed, definitions are sometimes open to interpretation and often challenged in the Land & Environment Court. However, it is Council’s view that the operation is an ‘intensive livestock keeping establishment’, for which development consent is required. As such, if you withdraw your application Council will have no alternative but to consider taking further action against you to cease the unauthorised land use (piggery).

 

Council staff has taken the view that if the piggery does not ‘accommodate 200 or more pigs or 20 or more breeding sows’, then State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No 30 – Intensive Agriculture does not apply. The applicant has indicated that she is prepared to limit the number of pigs to ensure that the piggery is less than the threshold and therefore does not require consent under clause 6 of SEPP 30. However, Council staff has been of the opinion that the piggery still requires development consent in accordance with the definition of an ‘intensive livestock keeping establishment’ under LEP 1995.

 

A meeting was held on the afternoon of 15 September 2009 to discuss the application and the applicant’s proposal to withdraw the application as she believed that the land use could be defined as ‘agriculture’ and therefore the use of the property for the purposes of grazing pigs did not require development consent. Ms Henderson was accompanied by her partner and her farther, Mr Peter Henderson, who was introduced as a retired barrister.

 

A number of questions were raised regarding agricultural land uses, including the application of SEPP 30 – Intensive Agriculture, and its relationship and/or relevance to the DA. Mr Henderson suggested that by virtue of SEPP 30 describing intensive agriculture as comprising more than 200 pigs and 20 sows, a ‘piggery’ with less numbers is not considered to be ‘intensive’ and therefore not an ‘intensive livestock keeping establishment’.

 

If I understand Mr Henderson’s argument correctly, he contends that if the piggery is not described as ‘intensive’ under the SEPP then the operation could only be described as ‘agriculture’ and therefore does not require development consent. His argument extended to the fact that the SEPP prevails over any other subordinate legislation which means that any other definition under the LEP is irrelevant and does not apply for the purposes of this particular operation.

 

At the meeting it was agreed that before any further assessment or determination was made regarding the DA Council would seek a legal opinion to determine if the land use could be defined as ‘agriculture’.

 

Deacons provided their draft advice by letter dated 19 October 2009, a copy of which is attached. In summary, Deacons have provided the following advice:

 

2.1      It appears that the proposal (as subsequently modified in correspondence) would most likely be characterised as ‘agriculture’ under the LEP, rather than an ‘animal establishment’ or ‘intensive livestock keeping establishment’, and is accordingly permitted without development consent under the LEP."

 

2.2      The proposal does not require development consent under State Environmental Planning Policy No 30 – Intensive Agriculture (SEPP 30). We recommend that the Applicant confirms in writing that the Applicant intends to carry out the proposal for fewer than 200 pigs and under 20 breeding sows.

 

Deacons also provided the following advice:

 

6.1     The neighbours adjoining the property have concerns regarding the impact of the development, including odours, manure and potential runoff from the manure and other material on-site. It is a well established principle that development consent to carry out a certain development (or as in the present circumstances  not requiring a development consent) is not a defence to a breach of the pollution provisions contained in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) … Therefore, if there are offensive odours emanating from the subject property, or other offences potentially occurring, the Council, or other parties such as the EPA can still take action against the applicant in this respect.

 

Having regard to the above, Deacons were advised by e-mail dated 20 October 2009, in terms of the following:

 

Having regard to your advice at Item 6.1, it would be helpful to advise Council of the correct processes to follow in response to any complaints received regarding the operation, particularly relating to any odour emissions, which can often be very subjective.

 

Therefore, your advice is sought in regard to the appropriate legislation that Council would need to rely upon and the correct procedures to follow in such instances as there is no doubt that given the level of objection already received, Council will continue to receive complaints regarding the operation. In this regard, Council will need to understand its role and responsibilities to attend to any complaints and when it should refer any complainant to the appropriate State Government Agency, such as the DECC to deal with any offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

On 3 November 2009 Deacons provided further advice relating to the potential actions available for odour and other offences relating to the piggery, and the correct procedures to be followed in these circumstances. Advice was also provided about obtaining a declaration from the Land and Environment Court as to the permissibility of the use and the potential cost of such action. A copy of this advice is attached to this report. A copy of the ‘Table of Potential Actions and Offences relating to operation of Piggery at Premises’ (Appendix A) provided by Deacons is attached to this report. A copy of the document entitled Technical Framework – Assessment and management of odour from stationary sources in NSW (November 2006), prepared by the Department of Environment and Conservation, is also attached and is publicly available on the DECCW website http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/air/odour.htm.

 

Some of the points of Deacons advice are:

 


·                     Council is generally the appropriate regulatory authority.

·                     The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) is the main legislation for the pollution prevention and control and contains a number of potential avenues for both the Council and residents to address potential odour and noise issues (Item 3.1).

·                     The appropriate regulatory authority can issue a prevention notice where the authority reasonably suspects that an activity has been or is being carried out in an environmentally unsatisfactory manner at any premises (Item 3.3).

·                     Under Section 6 of the POEO Act, Council is the correct party to take action, be it Court action, issuing orders or Penalty Infringements Notices (PIN’s) (Item 3.8).

·                     An individual or other party may obtain the leave of the Court to prosecute criminal offences under the POEO Act (Item 3.9).

·                     In addition to criminal proceedings, any person may bring civil enforcement proceedings in the Court seeking an order to remedy or restrain a breach of the POEO Act or the POEO regulations (Item 3.10).

 

Deacons advice highlights that in addition to Council, individuals can take certain action under the provisions of the POEO Act. Deacons also outline the following Common Law Actions available to individuals:

 

·                     Nuisance is a common law action, available where there is an indirect interference with a person’s land or enjoyment of it, such as by way of noise, odours and other forms of air or waterborne pollution. Nuisance may be classed as private or public, depending upon whether individual landholders or the public at large are affected (Item 5.1).

·                     An action in private nuisance may be available to an affected person, such as a neighbour. Private nuisance involves an act or omission which is an interference with, disturbance of or annoyance to a person in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her ownership or occupation of land. In such circumstances, the affected person, rather than Council, will need to bring the action before a Court (Item 5.2).

·                     The owners of neighbouring properties may have an action in private nuisance if they can show that the piggery interferes, by way of noise, odour or pollution, with enjoyment of their land (Item 5.4).

·                     A nuisance which obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public at large may be actionable as a “public nuisance”. Deacons have cited Baulkham Hills SC v Domachuk (1988) where it was held that offensive smell and fly nuisance could constitute a public nuisance (Item 5.5).

 

Deacons have provided the legislative requirements and advice to Council on its role and responsibility to deal with any complaints received regarding the operation. Council obviously has to institute appropriate action if it is established that there are any non-compliance issues under the relevant provisions of the POEO Act and the EP&A Act. However, Deacons have essentially advised Council that it is not necessary to pursue any complaints unless the operation exceeds 200 pigs or 20 sows, or there is a real possibility that the operation is likely to have some detrimental impact on the environment or if there is or there is likely to be any noise, odour or pollution events that contravene the provisions of the POEO Act. Deacons have made it clear that it is open for any person to take civil action to remedy any nuisance that affects the enjoyment of their land.

 

With respect to obtaining a declaration from the Court about the permissibility of the piggery, Deacons describes other Court proceedings and concludes that it is unlikely the Court would be willing to hear the matter and make a declaration.

 

Deacons state that ‘the proposal would most likely be characterised as agriculture’. The legal advice is essentially based on probability. However, it is considered that it would be inappropriate to disregard Deacons legal advice and take an alternative view on the need for a development application and/or seek a declaration from the Court to this effect. Alternatively, and as eluded to by Deacons, Council could seek an opinion from a Barrister familiar in such agricultural cases.

 

Whilst the above commentary relates to the lawful use of land and the provisions of Council's Local Environmental Plan. It is noted that a number of concerns have been raised in regard to the suitability of the site to accommodate the activity of a "free range" piggery. The Department of Primary Industry raise similar concerns.

 

These concerns are legitimate matters for consideration. However, in this case they are not a matter for consideration until either the activity is one that requires development consent or where a breach of the POEO Act or EP&A Act has been identified.

 

Council could seek expert advice from an agronomist in regard to the carrying capacity of the site for the free range piggery, however this in itself would not quantify or assist in the decision presented to Council at this time, as the legal advice indicates that 'agriculture' in this instance allows up to a maximum of 200 pigs in total including 20 breeding sows.

 

In the event that the site is over stocked and pastures are unable to cope, resulting in offsite feed having to be imported as the main source of sustenance, opportunity would then arise where this could be pursued.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

Deacons.

Department of Industry and Investment

Director Environment and Planning.

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Not being able to assess the development application precludes Council from imposing conditions to mitigate any potential environmental impacts such as; noise and odour emissions, soil and sediment control measures, etc. However, there is other State Legislation in place for Council or private individuals to remedy any of the above issues should they arise.

 

Social

 

The operation demonstrates the difficulty in managing land use conflict issues vis-à-vis the ‘right to farm’ and protecting rural residential amenity.

 

Economic

 

Notwithstanding the amount of opposition, the operation is an agricultural business enterprise on a rural property.

 

Risk

 

There is a risk that an objector may seek alternative legal advice and challenge Council's position in the Land & Environment Court (L&EC). If successful, the applicant would be required to submit a DA for Council’s consideration. Council would then need to make a determination to either approve or refuse the application, in which case there would be another opportunity for either party (objector or applicant) to challenge the decision in the L&EC.

 

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The cost for Deacons legal advice will need to be taken out of the 2009/2010 budget. Any future legal challenge may also impact on the current budget.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Current working funds in the 2009/2010 budget will need to be varied to account for the payment to Deacons.

 

Attachments:

1View

29014/2009 - Deacon's Correspondence

 

2View

24142/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - Australian Pork Ltd

 

3View

24141/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - Dangerous Dan's Butchery

 

4View

24050/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - A Nowland

 

5View

23994/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - B & L Wright

 

6View

23991/2009 - Submission and photographs in relation to DA 2010/031 - G & J Goesch

 

7View

23988/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - K & V Mannington

 

8View

23963/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - C & A Miles

 

9View

23954/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 -  S Schmidt and E Cowles

 

10View

23953/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - S Foley

 

11View

23952/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - W Rainnie and S Tritton

 

12View

23950/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - GHD and Residents

 

13View

23919/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - K & G Dean

 

14View

23913/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - S Henry

 

15View

23779/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - W & M Churchill

 

16View

23776/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 (letter of support) - B Good

 

17View

23598/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - B Swan

 

18View

23276/2009 - Submission in relation to DA 2010/031 - Reiss

 

19View

29011/2009 - Submission - Bowraville Central School

 

20View

29013/2009 - Submission - P Coxon

 

  


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 


 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 

 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 


 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 

 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 


 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 








 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 








 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 

 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 

 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 

 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 








 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 





 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 


 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 

 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 




 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 


 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 

 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 


 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031

 



 


Special General Purpose Committee - 14 December 2009

Report on Legal Advice Intensive Livestock-keeping Establishment - DA 2010/031