Agaric Pty Ltd v Council of the Shire of Rosalie [1991] QPEC 25

IN THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT HELD AT BRISBANE QUEENSLAND P & E Appeal No. 40 of 1991 BETWEEN: AGARIC PTY. LTD. Appellant AND: COUNCIL OF THE SHIRE OF ROSALIE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - O'SULLIVAN, D.C.J. - 14th NOVEMBER 1991 Agaric Pty. Ltd. appeals against the decision of the Council of the Shire of Rosalie by letter dated 23 May 1991 to refuse to approve the application for permission to use 846 hectares of land,· comprising the "Balgowan" property on the Muldu Plainview Road via Acland for the purposes of a cattle feedlot for 11,300 D .head. The subject land is zoned Rural "A" in the Respondent's D Town Planning Scheme. Lot feeding is a purpose for which buildings or other structures may be erected or used or for which land may be used only with the consent of.the Respondent under and pursuant to Column IV of the Table of Zones in the Rural "A" Zone. The only Zones in which lot feeding of stock is permiss- ible are the Rural "A" Zone and the Special Facilities Zone. The proposed use is within the definition of "animal husbandry" in the Scheme. The property already has an existing feedlot for 4,995 head. The proposal is to increase the number to 11,3000 head, in a number of stages which will include construction of new -- 1 of 23 -- ► 2 facilities on the existing site, and new facilities on another site. The details are contained in "Attachment 1" to the letter from the Chief Inspector of Stock to the Appellant of 8 April 1991 (Exhibit 1 pages 115-119). The conceptual layout of the feedlot is shown on the aerial photo (Exhibit 11). In summary, the feedlot will be operated at class 2 standards under the Department of Primary Industries Guidelines ("t~e Guidelines") for a period of at least 1 year during which it will evaluated and monitored.and if it is to the satisfaction of the Chief Inspector of Stock and the Rosalie Shire Council it may the?·be upgraded to Class 1. The "Measures of a Satisfactory Performance" are contained in paragraph ·15 of Attachment 1. These include "lack of substantiated complaint", "agreement by the monitoring group that conditions are being met" and random spot checks. The final stock density will be 18 square metres per standard cattle unit. The Respondent's letter of refusal included 10 grounds·of refusal which may be summarized as: non-compliance with the Guidelines, odour, incompatibility with development in the area, effect on water quality, adverse affect on neighbouring properties' access to underground water supplies, contamination of underground water supplies in the area, and traffic amenity. There were 58 objections to the proposal. Some of the objectors gave evidence, principally concerning their experiences with the existing feedlot on the property. Objector maps were prepared for the area as a whole, for Acland ·and for Muldu. -- 2 of 23 -- 3 I found the objectors to be genuine and sincere in giving their evidence. Some of them had recorded their perceptions of the level and frequency of odour from the existing feedlot. I do not find that they exaggerated. Mrs Wieck described the smell as suffocating, usually when it is very calm, mainly at night-time. They wake up to the '\ smell. Normally she recorded it at as 7,8 or 9 out of 10. The J ) frequency varies with the weather. She is concerned that the future operation of the feedlot may not come up to the required standards. Mr Vanhoff told of his concern about dust and smell. Mr Reeve, a Director of the Appellant, invited him to come over to check that the dust was not from his feedlot, but he did not do so. He agreed that if the feedlot were built and maintained at class 1 standard, it could be an improvement. -Mrs Plant is concerned because the proposed feedlot will be closer to their property than the existing one is. She complained of smell and dust, and her asthma problems. Mr Plant described the smell from the existing feedlot as unbearable when they are downwind. He estimated that 1/4 to 1/3 of the time the smell is unbearable. He and his family could not get away from it in their home, even while having tea. If the odour is to be three times greater than currently (as Mr Winders said to him at the open day) he considered this exceeds good neighbourliness. He did not accept that the proposed feedlot is a vastly improved -- 3 of 23 -- 4 design. He did not accept that the Council can impose conditions. He did not believe that there would be "sufficient resolve." He noted that he had been given assurances in connection with the existing feedlot which he had found could not be relied on. He had complained but no steps had been taken to improve the situation - this matter was not put to Mr Reeve in cross- examination. Mrs Ambrose described the smell as like vomit, 2 nights a week. A similar description was used by Mr Sherwin. Mrs Marsh described smell problems 3 times a week: she, like Mr Sherwin, • did not believe the Guidelines can be enforced strongly enough nor that the Departmerit of Primary Industries will monitor the situation. Mr Thrupp explained that the gentler the breeze, the worse the smell is. He had not complained to Mr Reeve. Because management had not been any good, he did not believe that stock ) density, better cleaning and better d~sign would make any difference. Mr McKenzie said he had been woken at night by the smell: it was really bad after rain. The objectors spoke of visitors and even members of the family not wanting to eat meals when the smell was bad. Clearly, the smell from the existing feedlot is on occasions -- 4 of 23 -- ) 5 at such a level that it is unacceptable from an amenity point of view. If the proposed use were for an extension of this feedlot, or the construction of a similar feedlot, I would have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that it would be unacceptable. However, I am satisfied that the proposed feedlot is significantly different. By letter dated 8 April 1991, the Chief Inspector of Stock, John Christopher Walthall, gave notice of his determination to permit the proposed feedlot, with 11,300 units at class 1. On the back of the licence he proposes to write special conditions which are contained in Attachment 1. His letter refers to the Guidelines, which are dated 1990 but we~e compiled· in 1988/1989. • Mr Walthall said that the Guidelines. were developed on the· understanding that people who live in towns have an expectation which is somewhat different from people who live in rural areas: they show a gradation in odour objectives, from a rural farm residence (2.5) to a small town greater than 20 persons (1.·0) to ) a larger town greater than 100 persons ( 0. 8) to a large town (0.6). The Guidelines do not specifically cover a rural area such as Muldu. They cover a rural farm residence and small towns of greater than 20 people. It was agreed that Muldu has a temporary population of 11 and a permanent population of 16. Mr Walthall said that the author of the Guidelines counselled strongly against interpolating between the values that are put in the Guidelines for S2 factors. The author of the Guidelines did not -- 5 of 23 -- '"l'\I I • 6 give evidence during the hearing. Mr Walthall had to make a determination: he chose .3. He regarded as relevant the fact that Muldu is not gazetted as a town. If Muldu were to grow to more than 20 people, he would use a factor of 1.0. Mr Kamst considered that the appropriate rate for Muldu is 1 odour unit. Mr Winders considered zoning, nearby farming activities and not being in a town situation as relevant to the selection of an S2 factor for Muldu. He arrived at a figure of .3. Mr Lord, a Civil Engineer engaged by_ the Respondent, i~terpolated the figures in the Guidelines in three ways and arrived at an odour objective for Muldu of 1.8. On all the evidence, I accept the approach of Mr Lord as ·appropriate. Mr Walthall said he was not aware of any complaints in the new generation feedlots. If residents complained of smell, he would ask the Feedlot Services Group to investigate. One of .. its ') members would visit the feedlot as soon as possible. He could ' - not say whether that would be the next morning or whether it might be a day after that. He would much prefer it to be the next day. He said it was a remote possibility that an odour event can persist for two days or more before he could even get somebody out there to look at it, and in the meantime those people are subjected to it. Mr Lord worked through the Guidelines section by section, and applied the parameters resulting there from to both the -- 6 of 23 -- J J .. 7 proposed and existing feedlot sites in order to determine the allowable cattle numbers attributable under the Guidelines to each site. Mr Lord used at a Muldu highest odour objective of 1. 8., and an S2 factor of O. 5. Using these figures, and class 1 conditions for Muldu the allowable cattle numbers would be about 17,000 at the e~isting site, about 5,313 at the proposed site, (the pro- posal is for 8,000). Thus, his total for both sites, so far as Muldu is concerned, is 22,313: however, he explained that the Guidelines make no provision for determination of curnulati ve effects of multiple sites on a property. If the Wieck residence were the limiting factor,. the number would be 5,800 head. If Acland were the limiting factor, he calculated the number would .be 17,000 total for both sites. On his calculations, the most limiting factor for the existing site would be the Wieck residence which would allow 7,000, and for the proposed site 5,313, a total of 12,313 head. Mr Ormerod, an Atmospheric Scientist, _gave written and oral evidence concerning acceptable emission rates from cattle feedlots. He had not modelled the proposed feedlot, nor had he visited the existing feedlot. He explained that class 3 and 4 feedlots generally have a greater depth of manure because they are not cleaned as frequently and they are generally stocked more densely than class 1 and 2 feedlots. The increased average depth of manure in the -- 7 of 23 -- l 8 pad has a number of effects which ultimately lead to more odour being generated. Mr Kamst agreed that the duration of elevated emission rates is longer with class 3 or 4 feedlots. Messrs Ormerod, Winders and Kamst agreed that class 3 and 4 feedlot emission rates will vary more over a wider range, and will tend typically to be higher than the rates for classes 1 and 2. For classes 3 and 4 there are greater fluctuations: with weather conditions, for example, and so it is harder to pin qown what might be a typical level. Mr Ormerod considered Mr Kamst's figures in his report for a class 3 or worse feedlot of .46 to 2.04 (subsequently modified in his oral evidence for stocking densities to -. 237 for the future feedlot and .414 for the existing feedlot) to be reasonable, and he believed them to have been experienced generally with older feedlots of ·that style. For a well- maintained class 3 feedlot in bone dry climate condition he expected the range to be .2 to .5. He considered that for a ~ class 1 feedlot the emission rates would typically range between about .1 and .3: all the data he had available suggested that the typical emission rate would be less than .2. Mr Winders' Figure 5 showed emission rates for various classes. For example, for 20 square metres per beast density for class, he referred to a rate of .21. Mr Ormerod considered that: "None of the work on odour anywhere is precise. One must accept it as indicative ... the aim is to be as accurate as_ possible within the confines of the methodologies that are -- 8 of 23 -- .l J 9 available. Quantifying and predicting odour is certainly intrinsically more difficult than, say, predicting dust or sulphur dioxide which can be measured much more readily, so there are certainly some areas of uncertainty. There is no completely objective method of measuring odour strength or quality - there are methods and techniques which ultimately draw upon the human factor but which seek to remove subjectivity to the greatest extent." He also explained that interpretation or value judgment is required by the odour computer model: for example, in taking drainage conditions and terrain into account. I accept this evidence as helpful in determining what weight I ought to be give to the computer modelling. I found Mr Ormerod to be an expert witness who attempted to answer questions honestly and to assist the Court. He thought that the D.P.I. Guidelines' emission rates for class 1 and class 2 cases in a general sense to be a reasonable representation: as reasonably based as can be done given that classes 1 and 2 are a relatively new phenomena. Mr Kamst said that he believed they "would need to be sorted out by scientific experiments". Messrs Ormerod, Winders and Karnst agreed that the Guidelines' emission rates for classes 3 and 4 underestimate the difference between good and bad feedlots. The difference in typical odour emission levels between class 1 and class 4 is greater than the Guidelines would seem to indicate. -- 9 of 23 -- 10 Mr. Ormerod believed that for a feedlot with a stocking density of 24 square metres per beast and a class 1 operation, the odour generation would be very low: typically (in dry weather particularly) it would be less than .1. If the stocking density were 18, most of the time the rate would be between .1 and .2. He described the stocking density as "critical" to the overall moisture balance of the manure pad. ·rt was agreed that the worst odour events occur shortly after rainfall events with a super-saturation cloudcover, calm wind conditions at night and slow drying out. Mr. Ormerod did some modelling ~n a couple of different feedlots in New South Wales and the worst case for class 1 was- not very much higher than . 3 ._ These were no·t the absolute worst cases: he would expect the worst case for a class 1 would still have to be below .5. • Mr Kamst said he believed that this has to be verified, but he did not disagree with it. For worst conditions for class 1 Mr Ormerod suggested maximum rates somewhere in the vicinity of .3 to something less than . 5, assuming class 1 maintenance. Mr ·Kamst did not disagree with the figure of .49. Mr Ormerod referred to various figures presented at a recent seminar which showed that the odour emission rate exceeded . 2 about 22% of the time: probably several days per year would be close to the worst case. The highest reading for a limited six-month period was .3, but he did not consider this to be absolute worst case. Only a few per cent of the time the rate would exceed .3. Of the order of 1% of the -- 10 of 23 -- 11 time the emission rate would exceed .4. These figures were not seriously challenged. Mr Ormerod considered that the majority of people cannot detect an odour unit of .6. The great majority, perhaps 70%, would detect 1.5 odour units. More than 70%, but less than 100%, would detect 2 odour units. Virtually everybody would detect 2. 5 odour units: he described it as quite a faint odour. He thought it would need to be much more than 2.5 units before it could be ,J described as nauseating. At 4 or 5 odour units there would be the beginnings of complaints from some people. He described the residents' descriptions of the smell they had experiericed as 11 su~prisingly strong sorts of descriptions really for the situation". He agreed that there was an anomal.y between the residents' comments and- the level of emission from the pad one would expect. He could not rationalise the two. Mr Kamst was unable to reconcile the descriptions in the residents' statements and the figures in the right-hand column of Table 4 of Mr Winders ' report. He thought that their descriptions lead him to suspect something like 5 to 10 odour units. He thought that the anomaly related to the odour emission rate utilised in the model being different from that actually being experienced when the residents complained. His under- standing was that the odour emission rates in the model are carried out under normal conditions - he was not aware of measurements being taken during complaint conditions. He agreed in cross-examination that he believed that for class 3 or class -- 11 of 23 -- 12 4 feedlots the extremes of odour emission are very, very wide- ranging, and narrower for class 1 feedlots. He agreed that it is very, very difficult to predict what class 3 or class 4 feedlots are going to do at any particular time. This, together with the underestimation in the Guidelines for classes 3 and 4, may explain the anomaly. In his oral evidence Mr Winders explained that the extremes for class 3 feedlots could on average be three times higher than as shown in Table 4 of his report. Mr Winders was unable to reconcile this table and the objectors' descriptions, except by ) suggesting that they could have been exaggerative or that the smell may have been from another source. He·· noted that complaint level is .5. Mr Ormerod said that so far as he knew officially there are not any class 1 feedlots in Queensland. He had seen one that would be very close to class 1, if not class 1: this is Sandal- wood. It was accepted that accumulations of manure under the fences can be very significant to odour generation. All the Guidelines' requirements (both design and operational) have some effect, and they go hand in hand - they are intended to keep the overall management of the feedlot to a level where all sources of odour are controlled. It was Mr Ormerod's understanding that if this occurred, the f~edlot would lose its class 1 status under the Guidelines. He said that it would be essential for the matters -- 12 of 23 -- 13 in the Guidelines to be continually kept under control for the feedlot to be considered a class 1 feedlot from the overall odour point of view. Using Mr Kamst's emission rate of .237 for a class 1 feedlot for the various receptors in the emission rate A column, and having regard to the accepted distances from Mr Lord's report, both the proposed sites comply in all respects with the requirements of the Guidelines. Using his highest conceivable emission rate for a class 1 feedlot of .49 and Mr Kamst's methodology, Mr Ormerod calculated the necessary separation distances and compared these with actual separation distances contained in Mr Lord's report, as follows: Site A: Required Acland Small town more than 20 people Using Mr Lord's 1.8 rate for Muldu Site A to a rural farm residence Site B: Acland Rural farm residence Small town more than 20 persons Using Mr Lord's 1.8 rate for Muldu Using Mr Winders' 2.5 rate for Muldu 3,200 2,400 1,400 1,100 4,300 1,250 1,250 3,250 1,800 1,250 Actual 4,640 2,640 (Muldu) 2,640 1, 140 (Wieck) 5,000 3,070 (Wieck) 1,700 (Lange) 1,640 (Muldu) 1,640 1,640 These figures show compliance, except for some of the results for Muldu. Mr Ormerod considered the Muldu separation distances to be adequate because, due to the elevation difference, a class F one metre per second breeze would not flow -- 13 of 23 -- 14 in the direction of Muldu. Mr Ormerod said that the frequency of an odour rate of .49 would be much less than 1% of the time. Mr Kamst said that he believed this needed to be verified; he did not argue with it on any basis that he could put before the Court. The fundamental disagreement between Mr Kamst and Mr Ormerod was the maximum acceptable odour objective. Mr Kamst considered the Guidelines' objective of 2.5 to be too high - he thought it should be 1.0, at most. In justifying this, he referred to the NSW State Pollution Control Commission's.objective of 0.1. He also disagreed with the use by Mr. Ormer·od and in the Guidelines of wind of 1 metre per second, and p~eferred 1 /2 metre per second, noting that in this area there is a significant proportion of calms. The Oakey roses which are part of Mr Winder's report do not show the calms as such, but rather as part of the category of wind speeds of less than 7 kmh. The roses also do not show night conditions when he would expect a higher percentage of calms. He considered wind calms to be significant because there are limited chances for odour dispersion. The difference between 1/2 and 1 metre per second means a tendency to get approximately twice the downwind odour concentration. Mr Kamst's calculations of emission rates did not take into account factors other than stocking density which represent the difference between a class 1 feedlot and a class 3 feedlot. These included the level of rainfall, the use of self-feeding -- 14 of 23 -- 15 troughs, the cleaning regime, pad moisture content and class 1 requirements. Nevertheless, his emission rates were comparable to those of Messrs Winders and Ormerod. The disagreement was the maximum acceptable odour objective. Mr Kamst said that the proposed meteorological monitoring may well allow more accurate predictions to be made about the sorts of impact that various receptors are receiving. He would also like to see odour emission rates monitoring as well, from time to time. Mr Kamst agreed that the proposed monitoring could gauge ~hether any nuisance is being created to any unacceptable extent to any neighbour. Mr Kamst agreed that there was a chance that if the management of the proposed feedlot is properly carried out it may meet the DPI Guidelines. I am satisfied from the whole of the evidence that the smell from proposed feedlot, if developed and monitored in accordance with special conditions, will not adversely impact on amenity to such a degree as to warrant refusal of the application. Groundwater: The possibility of subsidence as a result of the existence of the mine shafts on the subject land was withdrawn as an issue -- 15 of 23 -- 16 in the appeal. Mr Foong believed that there is not sufficient information to satisfy him that there will not be deprivation of the water supply to adjoining owners as a consequence of the increase in harvesting on the subject land. He had not done the evaluation himself. The Water Resources Commission advertised the application for licences for 271 megali tres of water. No objections were received. I consider this to be of some importance. Mr Murphy, a Senior Technical Officer with the . . Groundwater Hydrology section of the Water Resources Commission, explained that the investigation of the application for licences include~ a review of existing demands in the area, as required by the Water Resources Act. In the vicinity of the Balgowan property there are 7 existing groundwater allocations approved. He assessed that the proposed allocations would have a minimal effect on the licences in the vicinity. Mr Morphet, a Geologist and Hydrologist engaged by the Appellant, described the likely rate of usage from the proposed feedlot as quite a modest use of water. This evidence was uncontradicted. Mr Morphet was not concerned about the use of this quantity of water resulting in loss of water to neighbouring or nearby licensees . .& Morphet said that at the rates of present pumping there have been no substantial drawdowns or problems, based on what he was told by the operators who also told him they are operating the -- 16 of 23 -- 17 bores at part capacity. The current pumping is in the order of 3.8 litres per second. The demand will be in the order of 8.6 litres per second. He suggested in his report that as a matter of good practice there should be monitoring of both the groundwater qualities and the depths of the waters. Mr Murphy said that depending on the size of the allocations requested, he had no basis for concern that nearby or contiguous landusers will be denied existing or future allocations as a result of this proposal. He considered that there is no realistic prospect of their entitlements being impacted upon by this feedlot extension. Mr Murphy said that Mr Reeve had fulfilled his obligations to the Water Resources Commission in regard to the information necessary to fulfil his licence. Mr Morphet felt that he had adequate materials' on which to make a reasonable and satisfactory assessment of_the hydrological aspects of the proposal. He had no concerns about groundwater or hydrology that could not be adequately met by appropriate conditions or requirements of the licensee. Mr. Foong said he would do some tests before making a conclusion that there would not be an adverse impact on adjoining landowners, rather than generally using the equity principle to determine whether there is any adverse effect. He thought the equity principle a not unreasonable approach, but he would like to see the impact quantified. He described the tests he would like to see undertaken as inexpensive and not difficult. Mr -- 17 of 23 -- 18 Murphy described testing to see whether the subterranean aquifer which feeds both the subject land and the neighbours can accommodate the increase in harvesting from the proposal as "prudent". So far as migration of effluent into the groundwater system, Mr Murphy thought there is ample scope for processes and techniques to obviate any potential risk: for example clay liners for effluent retention storage. Mr Foong agreed tha~ the proposed grading and levelling of the new f eedlots and the proposed compaction made it most unlikely that groundwater will be affected by any efflue~t from under the pens. He agreed that if _the drains are constructed according to sound engineering practice and lined with. a clay liner or a similar material, it is most unlikely that they would constitute any serious threat to the groundwater. Mr Foong agreed that so far as the effluent storage ponds are concerned, if they are dug according to sound engineering practices, the sides compacted and lined with clay or other material, and if they are designed to sufficient capacity, it is most unlikely that there would be any unfortunate events as far as groundwater is concerned. Mr Foo~g agreed that it is necessary to adopt a suitable separation either from manure spreading or from any areas where effluent would lie from the bores to ensure that everything is -- 18 of 23 -- 19 satisfactory. He agreed that if the State Pollution Control Commission recommendation of at least 25 metres radius from any bores was followed there would be no problems with contamination through bores. Mr Foong agreed that if the area of irrigation of the effluent is also managed and there is a clay cover, and there are no cracks, then there should not be a problem. Counsel for the Respondent made various submissions, and referred me to a number of authorities, concerning the onus of proof on the issue of groundwater. I adopt the test outlined by His Honour Judge Row in McPherson v Landsborough Shire Council (1981) A.P.A.D. 555,462 that "it is proper to give weight to the reasonable probabilities herein." I have considered all the evidence concerning grounds of refusal 7 an~ 8 and I am satisfied that the proposed development will not produce problems of such significance as to warrant refusal of the application on these grounds. Amenity: Mr Feros, a Town Planning Consultant engaged by the Appellant, described the intensive animal activities in the vicinity of the proposed feedlot, including a large piggery at the Wieck's property. There are a number of approved feedlots in the area - these are illustrated in Figure 6 of the report of -- 19 of 23 -- Mr Hecksher, Respondent. head. 20 a Town Planning Consultant engaged by the The largest of these existing feedlots is 5,000 Mr Feros pointed out there was only 1 objection from Muldu, which has 6 residences. Mr Hecksher considered that it is necessary to look at individual people. He produced a schedule which profiled the residents of Muldu, which is in the "Village Residential" Zone. He considered 5 of the residences are significantly residential in nature rather than rural. He could not rule out further accelerated qevelopment. Mr Feros considered it relevant that the proposal is for an extension of an existing facility, particularly . if it is an improvement. Mr Feros agreed that the critical factor in this appeal is odour and two or three other matters all relating.to environ- mental pollution. Mr Feros explained that when he became aware of the objectors' descriptions of odour from the existing feedlot he spoke to Mr Winders and understood that certain undertakings were to be given in relation to performance standards, and that satisfied him as to the efficacy of the matter. Mr Hecksher's reaction was that the smells described by the objectors were unacceptable, even in a rural environment and should occur "virtually never". -- 20 of 23 -- 21 Mr Hecksher agreed that there is nothing in the Town Planning Scheme of the Respondent which prohibits the proposed feedlot. Monitoring: The special conditions which Mr Walthall proposes to attach to the licence seem to me to be most appropriate. These include monitoring performance standards. Mr Reeve gave evidence that he intends to comply with those standards. He said in cross- examination that he would not be the day-to-day manager· of the proposed feedlot - apart from this question, his willingness and/or ability to comply with the standards and special conditions were not pursued. Mr Winders told the Court had he has been advising Mr Reeve for 2 years. Mr Reeve said that he had had very few, if any, complaints directed to him or to his staff from persons living in the district: this ·was not challenged in cross-examination. However, he had approximately 6 complaints via the Council, the last one being in 1988, and 1 complaint via the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. The Department inspected the property and he held discussions with them and continued to try to reduce odour in any way he could with the present design of the feedlot. He intends to continue monitoring of groundwater supplies. He thought that Mr Winders' evidence concerning the desirability of meteorological.monitoring was an excellent idea. -- 21 of 23 -- 22 He said that so far as the class 1 requirements are concerned, every conceivable effort would be made to operate the proposed feedlot as a class 1 feedlot. He is prepared to agree to conditions conforming with the wording of the requirements for the operation of feedlots at class 1 operations according to the Guidelines. Under the Chief Inspector's special conditions if there is protra_cted non-compliance with requirements this will result in "reduction of stock number~ and/or changing of license classification to a lower class; cancellation of licence". I accept the •evidence of Mr Ormerod· that it would be essential· for the monitoring required by the Guidelines to be continually kept under control for it to be considered from the overall odour _point of view as a class 1 feedlot. I have given considerable thought to the evidence of the objectors, and their concerns about the probability of enforcement of the proposed special conditions and the special monitoring requirements. I have noted the comments o.f His Honour Judge Carter in Larsen and ors. v Caboolture Shire Council (1980) 1 A.P.A~D. 202, 210, adopting the words of Else-Mitchell J. in Gillet v Hornsby Shire Council (1965) 10 L.G.R.A. 285, 290 about avoiding the imposition of conditions which require continuous supervision and more particularly so when that supervision may entail difficulty of inspection. However, on the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the proposed use, when undertaken in the manner suggested by the Chief Inspector of Stock and in accordance with the Guidelines, will not impact on -- 22 of 23 -- 23 the amenity of the area to such an unacceptable degree as to warrant refusal of the application. On the whole of the evidence I am satisfied that the Appellant has made out a case that the proposal ought to be approved, subject to conditions which I find should include: ( i) the "Other Design Requirements" and "Operational Requirements" in Department of Primary Industries Guidelines; (ii) the matters set out in Attachment 1 of the letter from Chief Inspector of Stock to the Appellant dated 8 Aprilj 1991; and (iii) Odour ··emission rates monitoring. This calls for some consideration by the parties-. I a_djourn 1q • L-C\L the further hearing of the appeal to .. D';Q .......... to allow the Respondent within 30 days from the date hereof to notify the Appellant in writing of the proposed conditions to be attached to the proposed approval. The Appellant shall, within 14 days after the receipt of such proposed conditions, notify the Respondent in writing of any such conditions that are in dispute. -- 23 of 23 --