Posted 20/11/07

Note:  The grounds for appeal can be found in the Council agenda for the 14 November General Purposes meeting.  The following link will take you to the agenda; the grounds are on page 21 http://www.mrsc.vic.gov.au/Files/14Nov07_GPurposes_Agenda.pdf

7. SD.2 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT P203-0011 USE OF LAND FOR ONE DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS AND WORKS ON EACH OF FOUR CROWN ALLOTMENTS - 863 ASHBOURNE ROAD, WOODEND

Appeal Grounds (Western Water) (note that "the Applicant" referred to in the grounds is Western Water):

The grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. The Tribunal erred in law by failing to take into account a relevant consideration being the risk management approach required to be adopted by the Applicant.

2. The Tribunal erred in law in construing the Interim Guidelines as being subservient to compliance with the EPA Publication 891, Septic Tank Code of  Practice.

3. The Tribunal erred in law in its interpretation of the Interim Guidelines by applying the exception to the dwelling density in Guideline 1 where only one part of Guideline 1 was satisfied.

4. The Tribunal erred in law by failing to give the Interim Guidelines the status required pursuant to Section 60(1)(b)(ii) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

5. The Tribunal erred in law by failing to have the relevant regard to the Interim Guidelines.

6. The Tribunal erred in law in construing the precautionary principle as requiring the threat of damage to the environment to be both serious and irreversible.

7. The Tribunal erred in law by failing to take into account a relevant consideration being the risk management approach required to be adopted by the Applicant.

8. The Tribunal failed to take into account a relevant consideration being the costs and actions to ameliorate pollution to the water supply caused by the use of septic tanks within the water catchment in its construction and application of the precautionary principle.

9. The Tribunal failed to take into account a relevant consideration being the higher standard of care to protect the water catchment required pursuant to the decision guidelines of Clause 35.06 of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme where the area is in a proclaimed catchment pursuant to Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994.

10. The finding by the Tribunal that the threat of damage to water quality in the catchment was not a serious threat to the environment failed to take into account a relevant consideration being the risk management approach consistently adopted by the Applicant and previous divisions of the Tribunal.

11. The finding by the Tribunal that the threat of damage to water quality in the catchment was not a serious threat to the environment was unreasonable at law because:

(a) it erroneously dismissed the human health risks of pollution to the water supply;

(b) it erroneously dismissed the cost and works required to ameliorate any adverse impact on the water supply;

(c) it did not apply the higher standard of care required for protection of the water supply in a proclaimed catchment; and

(d) it did not give weight or sufficient weight to the risk management approach undertaken by the Applicant.