You are here: Agriculture » Dairy » Handling and Management » Case Study: Dairy Freestall

An Insight into Approval Processes – cases study of a dairy freestall barn

Download the PDF version of this document: Case Study - An insight into Planning Approval Processes: A case study of a dairy freestall barn

Background

Method And Data

Outcome

What To Do About It?

Appendix 1

1. Background

This study has been conducted as part of DPI’s Streamlining and Property Management Systems (S&PMS) project. The aim of S&PMS is to uncover inefficiencies that impede the sustainable growth and development of farm enterprises. This report has identified interagency communications as one of the key causes of delays and frustration in the planning approval processes for both an intensive animal facility planning application and a water licence application. This case study provides an insight into these processes and aims to contribute to building a collaborative culture which participants have identified as important.

The case study is interesting because it involves two applications with two agencies for a facility that could not proceed until both applications were granted at the same time. What ensued was a protracted, expensive and, at times, frustrating process involving many people. This case presents the experience from the perspective of the two responsible agencies.

The case study was offered by Russell Guest at Moyne Shire. Russell believed that this case would prove to be a forerunner of others that seek to intensify current animal husbandry practices under a lower annual rainfall regime. DPI has also recognised changes to rainfall patterns will likely lead to a growing trend toward intensification of farming. An increase in these types of operations will require greater guidance and clarification for all stakeholders and approving agencies. Part of this recognition is apparent in a recent sub-project (currently in draft) that aims to develop an overarching strategy for intensive animal industries.

We are grateful to Russell Guest, Strategic Planning Manager at Moyne Shire and Mick Fennessy, Manager Administration -West at Southern Rural Water (SRW) Warrnambool and his assessment staff, Lou Hollis, Lynda Hardy, Heidi Reese and Gary Wills for their assistance in this project. We have also had valuable guidance from SRW hydrogeologist, Elissa McNamara, Ross Martin at DSE¹ along with Scott McDonald and Denise Turner at DPI.

The benefits attributed to working cooperatively on this report have been:

A better understanding of the perspectives of others.
Potential to develop working relationships which would underpin the desired integrated agency outcome.
A genuine exploratory work in the absence of easy answers to the problems.

(Noted from collaborators meeting at SRW Warrnambool on19 August 2009.)

¹ Ross is now on secondment at Warrnambool Shire

2. Method and Data

This case study was conducted by reconstructing a 2006 planning application for a 1000 head freestall dairy barn. This was done by reassembling the trail of documents in relation to a 2006 application that had an estimated cost of $1.6 million in Moyne Shire.

The case study follows the separate approval processes for:

A freestall barn facility
A water licence

The processes are managed by different referral bodies working under different legislation. The water use in the freestall barn facility was not clarified in the planning application. However, a water application was active through another process managed by SRW which came to light when following up responses from referral authorities. SRW had not responded to the Moyne request but they mention that they had an ongoing application for a water licence from the same applicant. It transpired that the agencies had been dealing with the same development (the freestall barn) from different perspectives. The SRW application nominated irrigation as the water use, rather than the barn facility. Mick Fennessy reflected on the consequences of this:

"The two applications were hardly likely to trigger a response from either agency to the other’s referral given that SRW wouldn’t be much interested in a freestall barn nor Moyne interested in irrigation extraction. The issue of interdependence really needs to be emphasised, or in this case the lack of notice that it existed."

The lack of integration of processes has been identified as the crux of the problem resulting in protracted and contentious interactions between numerous stakeholders.. The officers involved believed it would be instructive if they had been aware of other approval processes underway. This report has reconstructed the case from the perspective of the lead agencies and others involved. The reconstruction was built from the trail of documents recovered for this purpose from Moyne Shire and SRW. The documents do not capture all the conversations and documents that related to the case. Rather it collects those documents retained and subsequently retrieved for this project. Consequently, this case study is indicative of the process involved and not a complete reconstruction.

Moyne Shire Data

The Moyne data consisted of 65 documents that covered 9 groups of agents (5 of these were the responsible referral authorities specified by Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987). It follows a trail of neighbours’ objections, requests to referral authorities for comments and site meetings through to May 2008 when the application was finally terminated after the applicant failed to respond to requests for further information.

Southern Rural Water Data

The SRW data consisted of 85 documents that resulted from the same applicant’s request for additional water through licence transfer and additional extraction applications. This represents a small portion of the correspondence, meetings and conversations that took place as a result of these applications. One of the applications was for 1,224 megalitres (ML), a large volume of water sought for irrigation purposes and, with the benefit of hindsight, to supply fodder and water for the freestall barn complex. This fact was not brought to SRW’s attention during its examination of the request. The documents that relate directly to the 1,224 ML must be understood in light of the multiple applications SRW received from the applicant between July 2005 and now, all of which occur against a background of numerous neighbour objections. For the purposes of this exercise, the points illustrated are those that relate to the 1,224 ML and even then, they are only those documents that the SRW staff could retrieve from their system and local records. The data is represented visually using a process mapping method² which extracts the overall story of the process and highlights the critical elements (see Appendix 2).

Referral Processes

Significant to this case are the referral agencies’ responses to requests for information or comment. In planning, these are either ‘statutory’ referrals (Section 55) or ‘non-statutory’ referrals (‘notice’ of an application – Section 52). The Section 52 referral is made at the discretion of the Council. Consequently, the referral agency is not obliged to comment when requested, nor will the advice automatically be accepted if they do. The following table shows the status of the referral agencies involved in the dairy barn planning approval process.

Similarly, in relation to the Water Act, Section 51b requires a mandatory response from the referral agency, while a Section 40 referral is made at the discretion of an agency. The relevant water referrals are highlighted in Table 2. SRW processes are governed by the Water Act (1989) and the CALP Act (1994). In this case study, this involved the referral authorities shown in the following table.

² Process Mapping is an intuitive method of representing workflow information. By visually depicting an entire activity, a process map provides the opportunity to understand and analyse how each process works and what can be done to improve its performance. This was done using Microsoft’s Visio software.

Table 1: Referrals for Planning

Legislation for planning approval; Planning and Environment Act (1987) and Clause 66 of the Moyne Planning Scheme
Agency	Section 55 – mandatory	Section 52 – seeking comments
DPI
DSE
SRW
EPA
GHCMA
CFA

Table 2: Referrals for Water

Legislation for water licensing approval; Water Act (1989) and CALP Act (1994)
Agency	Section 51b – mandatory	Section 40 – if applicable
Moyne Shire
Wannon Water
DSE
Winde-marra
GHCMA

(DSE; Department of Sustainability, EPA; Environmental Protection Agency, GHCMA; Glenelg Catchment Management Authority, CFA; Country Fire Authority)

The planning scheme defines ‘uses’ and that definition determines whether the development requires a planning permit or not and the specific referrals required. This can cause some problems as Russell Guest explained.

"If a freestall barn was defined as a feedlot, it would not require a planning permit. As it is defined as Intensive Agriculture it does require a planning permit, whilst extensive agriculture in turn, does not. How these three definitions fit together in a functional manner is something the Moyne Planners had immense difficulty in dealing with³.”

³ There is a 2007 VCAT determination (no. 496) … VCAT determined that a freestall barn was not a feedlot and was determined to be an intensive animal husbandry and required a planning permit. (Pers. Comm. Greg Ferrier December 14 2009)

3. Outcome

This report explores the events from the perspective of two referral agencies processing a planning permit application and a water extraction licence application. The reconstruction has found that the responsible authorities dealing with the process were frustrated by a number of factors. An example of this is that the responses received were not technically detailed enough for Moyne to process the application thus delaying the process as more information was sought.

An example of this is the the question of water use raised at an objectors’ meeting five months after agencies had submitted their first responses. The level of detail in the application, a focus of the objectors’ criticisms, was a composite of the requirements for the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots (1995) and the Dairy Cattle Feedpad Guidelines for the Goulbourn Broken Catchment Management Authority 2002⁴.

Moyne Story

The application was drawn up after consultation with a number of people from organisations including Moyne, DPI and an agronomist from Landmark. (The Freestall Barn Application is shown Diagram 2, Appendix 2.) Moyne Shire acknowledged receipt of the application after 8 days and a request for comment to referral authorities was sent after 23 days. The Shire also advertised the application to adjoining neighbours and in the local print media. The first objections were from neighbours and were received within 7 days of notification⁵. The CMA also responded with no objections. In early September, Moyne again wrote to CFA, DSE, EPA and DPI to remind them that their comments were now overdue.

Moyne shire had not initially sought comments from SRW, who were not a statutory referral authority for this application, although they subsequently decided to refer the application to them for comment. This may have been in response to some of the questions raised by the objectors. Consequently SRW received their letter 2 months after the other referral authority letters were sent. Moyne organised a site visit for referral authorities 4 months after the application was received which was followed by an objectors meeting.

The objectors had examined the technical specifications contained in the application in great detail, in support of their objections. The responses from referral authorities did not go into as much detail, instead simply addressing the issues that these agencies saw as relevant, and in many cases reiterating the need for the facility to demonstrate that it was employing operational ‘best management practices’. This highlights the other problem identified by the case study, that is, the different expectations and information needs of the various stakeholders in the planning process, which resulted in a significantly longer process than may have been necessary.

The referral authorities who are more familiar with these types of applications generally require applicants to demonstrate that they are operating to best practice to manage any potential amenity and environmental issues. They also tend only to address the issues they believe are relevant or are of concern. While Council, who is not always as familiar with intensive animal applications, and is in the position of having to respond or consider issues raised by objectors, usually seeks greater guidance and clarification from referral agencies to enable them to adequately assess the application. This can result in a longer process as Council seeks further clarification of issues from the referral authorities.

In this case, Council sought further clarification from the referral agencies, which was eventually provided in a letter from DSE dated 7/2/07, drawn up after the site visit and discussions with the EPA. This detailed response noted that there were errors in the buffer distances and the effluent plan as a result of using formulae from the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots (1995). The Cattle Code applies to beef cattle only, therefore the formulae used were not suitable or applicable to this dairy cattle application.

Another example of this is the question of water use which was raised at an objectors’ meeting five months after agencies had submitted their first responses. The fact that the applicant had made a separate application to SRW for a water licence for irrigation extraction was not identified and potentially caused further confusion and delays.

Another factor is the lack of integration of the two approval processes. As described earlier, the SRW application was registered as ‘irrigation extraction’, while the planning application was registered as a ‘dairy barn facility’. Despite the fact that both applications would have been for the same site, neither agency picked up that there was a connection between these applications. Had this been identified earlier this matter could have been addressed sooner and it would have been clearer that this issue would be addressed through the water licence application rather than through the planning application.

Moyne Shire’s Russell Guest reflected that he was required to undertake an approvals process for a facility that did not have access to the necessary volumes of water to operate. “The water issue was the ‘show-stopper’. It should have been sorted out first. By ‘show stopper’ I mean that is what killed the application. The applicant could not answer the question as to how much water they needed and where it was coming from. In other words what was the single main element that stopped the proposal from being considered?” In a letter, Council asked the applicant to;

Please specify all proposed water sources including onsite dams, bores and stormwater runoff. It has been suggested that no additional (to what currently exists on the Alanvale property) water sources will be required, please provide clarification and confirmation that this is a realistic assessment of the water required for a 10003000 cow facility.
Please confirm the exact program of water re-use, including detailing how that water will be treated to a standard which is safe for re-use. Concerns have also been raised regarding odours that may be emitted from such water, please clarify what potential odour impacts there may be from any water re-use/recycling.
Please clarify the potential impact effluent ponds may have on the ground water quality. It is understood that groundwater levels are 7-8 metres below bottom of ponds.

No answer was ever received to this request, thus the permit application lapsed.

Commenting on this, Denise Turner DPI Senior Policy Advisor -Land Use Planning, noted that, ”access to an adequate supply of water was critical to the operation of the barn facility. However, given this was the subject of an approval under a separate legislative process, it did not need to be considered as part of the planning application. It is not uncommon for a site to require separate approvals. Either way both approvals would be required in order for the barn facility to proceed. If the planning permit was approved and the water licence rejected the facility could not have proceeded, and vice versa. The access to water may have generated some uncertainty and confusion but need not have delayed the planning process. With better integration and communication between agencies this may have been avoided.”

Other issues of OH&S (in relation to the effluent ponds) and animal welfare were raised by DPI although they are not part of either the planning approval or water approval assessment processes. Proponents do need to be aware of these matters and are obliged to comply with the relevant legislation in this regard. However, raising these issues which were not relevant to the approval processes may have further complicated these processes, and raised expectations by objectors that these were valid issues that Council needed to assess as part of the planning application. This highlights another factor in this process. Referral agencies in providing comment or advice need to be aware of their respective roles and responsibilities, and in particular the scope of the approving bodies decision-making.

In the end, the applicant did not respond to the issues raised by the detailed DSE and EPA letter which eventually resulted in the application being terminated. It is possible that if this more detailed letter had been prepared in the first round of responses in September 2006, five months earlier, the application may have proceeded differently.

⁴ The Guidelines for Freestall Barns and Dairy Feedpads will be available late in 2010.

⁵ The main issues were the likely smell from pondage system, damage of heavy vehicles on roads, concern for falling water levels in bores, proximity to houses and queries concerning the effluent volume and water use estimates

Lack of appropriate Guidelines

Another obstacle was the lack of appropriate guidelines for dairy feedbarns and the level of detail provided in the application. While there is a Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots, there are currently no guidelines for ‘dairy’ feedbarns. The Cattle Feedlot Code is written specifically for ‘beef’ cattle so many of the references and requirements in the Code are not applicable to dairy feedbarns. In the absence of relevant dairy guidelines, the application which was submitted included a composite of the requirements for the Victorian Guidelines for Cattle Feedlots and the Dairy Cattle Feedpad Guidelines for the Goulburn Broken Catchment 2002⁶.

Planning Definitions

The planning scheme defines ‘uses’ and that definition determines whether the development requires a planning permit or not, and the specific referrals required. In this case study there was some difficulty in determining what definition the dairy barn facility came under in the planning scheme. This can cause some problems as Russell Guest explained.

SRW Story

The SRW story is shown in Diagram 3, Application for a Groundwater Licence. This was more complex because it was a mix of water transfer, bore drilling and water extraction requests from 1997 through to today. The purpose of mapping this history is to provide context to the SRW story and the application for 1,224 ML in July 2005. SRW received 40 objections to this application and held a meeting with all parties to seek a resolution. The meeting was described by SRW as ‘feisty’ and the objections to the application remained. By the end of 2005, SRW approved the drilling of 3 investigation bores. A long delay ensued before the applicant drilled the bores and reported the results. This was likely caused by a surge of applications for bores across the region in response to the ongoing dry conditions. As a result, drillers were in high demand with long waiting lists.

Preceding this activity SRW had, over an 18 month period, received requests for about 5 GL – a 50% increase in the extraction of water from the Hawkesdale aquifer. This triggered a Groundwater Resource Appraisal (GRA), a hydrological study conducted by SKM and resulted in the capping of the aquifer. The cap was imposed at a level that corresponded to current licensed extraction including the applications that were already on hand and under consideration. Of the 12 people with applications in the system when it was capped, 5 decided to appeal to VCAT to dispute the decision, two of those now remain and one of whom is the applicant. The hearing is expected to take place in October 2009 and run for up to 10 days.

In early 2008, the applicant decided to submit a further licence request to extract 1,224 ML from an aquifer underlying the shallow aquifer located in the Hawkesdale GMA– the Dilwyn aquifer that would require bores of up to 1,000 metres in depth. In July 2009, with evidence of declining water levels, the Minister for Water announced a cap on extraction from the Dilwyn aquifer⁷. The Minister’s intervention has triggered a GRA. This went out to tender in August 2009.

The multiple applications initiated by the applicant and the outcome of the licence request for 1,224 ML demonstrates the information vacuum SRW navigated for these requests. The lack of precise groundwater resource estimates may encourage landholders to ‘test’ their limits against public opinion, ministerial involvement or VCAT. All of these methods can be ad hoc and lead to opaque types of decision making that invite applicants to try all avenues. The situation in this case study shows how time consuming this is for all parties.

⁶ The Guidelines for Freestall Barns and Dairy Feedpads are currently being developed and are expected to be available late in 2010.

Summary

The two processes are summarised in Diagram 1, An Illustration of the Approval Process for an Intensive Animal Enterprise. This demonstrates the parallel nature of the case study in both SRW and Moyne, characterised by:

Referral authorities working in isolation.
Cursory comments that provided insufficient technical detail to inform decision making.
Lack of clarity around the referral authorities’ expertise and responsibilities of both referral and responsible authorities (who does what bit and who should integrate the comments).
An ‘opportunity’ motivated request for water rather than matching planning for proposed production requirements.

⁷ The Dilwyn aquifer meets the urban supply for Portland, Heywood and Port Fairy and may have been considered as a resource security issue.

3.1. Cost and Reflections

Time and Cost

What was the cost in time and money for SRW and Moyne Shire to process the applications in this case study? The reconstructed data points were used as a guide to this.

Moyne

Russell Guest chose to estimate the costs by breaking the activities into tasks and assigning each task with the time taken to complete it.

Data	Items	Hours	Days	Total Cost
Letters (2hrs/letter)	36	72	15.39 days	@$400/day $6,156.00
Meetings (recollected)	3	15
Reports (recollected)	1	10
General organising, processing and research	numerous	20
		117 hrs

SRW

The scattered nature of data concerning this case study made these estimates particularly difficult for SRW. After consideration and to capture the wider impact of this application, Mick Fennessy provided the following estimates.

Data	Est Cost	Total Cost
Administration (including preparation for VCAT appeals)	$75,000	~$625,000
Reports (including Hawkesdale GRA)	$200,000
Legal Costs (ongoing)	~$350,000

This figure seems an overestimate as the legal costs and GRA report would have been initiated for any large application for water – it so happened to be this particular case.

Other Referral Agencies

The DPI Farm Services Victoria dairy program charge rate is $860/day or $114/hr. This was considered a useful standard for estimating the costs in this case study.

Agency	Data	Items	Hours	Total hrs	$ Total
DPI (Scott McDonald)	Letters (2hrs/letter)	1	1	6	$684
DPI (Scott McDonald)	Meetings	1	5	6	$684
DSE (Ross Martin)	Letters (2hrs/letter)	2	4	9	$1026
DSE (Ross Martin)	Meetings	1	5	9	$1026
EPA (Dean Suckling)	Meetings		27	50	$5700
EPA (Dean Suckling)	Research and Writing		23	50	$5700

Summary of Cost Estimates

Authority	Estimated Total Cost *
Moyne	6,156
SRW	625,000
DSE	1026
DPI	684
EPA	5,700
	$638,566

* The costs are estimates and can only provide an indicative view of the real costs involved.

Both Moyne and SRW reported a high degree of frustration in the processes they were engaged in.

Reflections

Russell Guest -Moyne

"It was bloody hard. The EPA are responsible for water discharge and noise, DPI can access the technical assumptions, SRW had to do the water availability, we are only responsible for a small part of the whole thing but had to coordinate it.

It’s a case of assimilating information with unknown validity and making an assessment – it can't be done. (reference to the quality of information).

You can't expect planning to control an industry like intensive farming that is ad hoc and depends on when it rains and whether people decide to continue feeding their stock in confined areas. This isn’t the job of the planning scheme.

The main issue is the singular lack of reasoning as to why the most intense use of land does not require a permit (feedlots) and that there is no mechanism to review the ongoing performance of codes of practice. In fact the default provision of failing to meet the code requires a permit application that is functionally useless! Why should a permit be issued after the event? Why is this a planning matter at all??"

Mick Fennessy -SRW

"As it is, it’s (the process) drowning in its own perspiration! Everyone is in a lather getting comments from everywhere and trying to make a decision.

A better way would be to have a ‘regional major projects office’ or a single point of contact for the whole process – a one stop shop.

We can get distracted by the fact that there are so many applications on our desk and the need to turn them over by a certain time. Without any deliberate intent we can be oblivious to the obvious.

Despite the way this case study might tend to portray the situation, it ought to be said and understood that SRW maintains a healthy dialogue with all referral agencies. The circumstances of this matter might suggest that the applicant ought to have brought the matter of interdependence to the notice of the respective agencies."

Elissa McNamara -SRW

"We need to remember that these aquifers are heterogeneous and although they are now capped at the current levels of extraction we expect to get more applications for licence transfers. This is still significant for us because each one is site specific and there is a need to avoid irrigation hotspots."

Scott McDonald Senior Dairy Extension Officer DPI

"It is obvious from a landowner’s perspective the bureaucratic processes and lack of consistent information tends to discourage agricultural development and growth, rather than encourage and assist.

The disjointedness of key referral agencies makes it difficult to determine who is responsible for assessing and making recommendations on specific issues.

With dairy effluent auditing ramping up a few years ago, it was vital DPI and EPA clearly established a process hierarchy. This may be a good example as a foundation to link all the other agencies. Often the technical specialists are an indirect referral link so if you don’t know who has the expertise it creates a knowledge gap and inconsistency in the planning process.

I dislike codes of practice whereby if, by some means, people are found not to comply, the resolution is to require them to apply for what has to be a retrospective planning permit. This situation is virtually impossible to enforce.”

Denise Turner Senior Policy Advisor -Land Use Planning DPI

“The planning system itself is able to cope with these intensive animal applications. It is more that the information and capacity building of all parties – the planners, referral authorities and farmers that's required.

Dairy feed barns fall under the definition of ‘intensive animal husbandry’ which requires a planning permit. The ‘cattle feedlot’ definition refers to the Cattle Feedlot Code but that is written specifically for beef cattle so it’s not applicable to dairy. The development of guidelines for dairy feedbarns will help address this confusion and provide a guide to assist planners in their assessment of these applications.

It is reasonable for referral authorities to advise that best management practice be employed and to point out whether the application meets this or amendments are required for the application to comply with relevant standards. However, given they are providing technical advice and Council and the community may not be aware or familiar with this type of industry, it would be good if the referral authorities in providing their technical assessment, also provided some further explanation to assist Council and other Stakeholders in understanding that compliance with best practice etc ensures a good operation and minimises potential amenity and environmental issues.”

3.2. Summary

The cost of dealing with the applications for a freestall barn facility and a licence to extract 1,224 ML of water has been estimated at $638,566. More-over the experience has been reported as unsatisfactory by the key referral bodies, and other agents involved. The complex nature of the freestall barn operation required the integration of a number of specialty areas relying on the input of others. Moyne Shire’s Russell Guest reflects that he was required to undertake an approvals process for a facility that did not have access to the necessary volumes of water to operate. Russell explained, ”the water issue was the ‘show-stopper. It should have been sorted out first.” Denise Turner from DPI’s Policy Group explains that the legislation determines the different processes and that the applicant should be the one to choose the order they proceed, “water availability is not…a valid planning issue as it is covered by separate legislation and approval by SRW -this should not be a reason to combine processes.”

This case study has highlighted that the approval processes in planning and water licencing can be complex and involve many agencies and individuals. This can be a result of the number of interactions required as well as the complexity of the technical detail necessary for the process.

4. What to do about it?

A meeting was held on August 19 2009 at SRW’s Warrnambool office between the authors and project collaborators Moyne Shire’s Russell Guest, SRW’s Mick Fennessy and Warrnambool Shire’s Ross Martin, to decide how to progress this work.

The meeting summarised the problems that have been depicted in this case study as:

Information/Networking Problems

Inadequate accountability requirements on the investor.
Inadequately articulated approvals pathways.
Lack of coordination in government agency inputs.

Governance Problems

No formal linkages between the Planning and Environment Act and Water Act.
Lack of strategic direction to the industry.

One way of improving the situation would be to assist in developing the capacity of all parties to;

Engage effectively in the process
Gain a better understanding of dairy feedbarn applications.

Different solutions have been proposed. The following is a list of suggestions received during the course of this project from SRW, Moyne Shire, DSE and DPI representatives:

Changes SRW and Moyne want to tackle now

As a result of this experience, SRW introduced a ‘No Surprises’ approach to approvals that has been implemented. The main thrust of this approach is to provide applicants with greater clarity of the process before they begin. This could be enhanced by:

Establishing a network of individuals with specific technical expertise in areas such as water extraction, effluent ponds, animal welfare, OH&S, plant physiology and animal nutrition.
- For example this may include a cover sheet listing referral agencies/individual and technical aspect for comment.
- A network of referral agency specialists to provide comment on issues (this could be at a regional or state-wide level).
Including on the Standard Application form a 'tick the box' question asking whether the applicant has any other applications in processes under consideration with another authority.
Ensuring the application process clearly identifies the type of information and the level of detail that needs to be addressed in the original application to avoid having the document continually sent back to the applicant every time a different agency asks for more detail.

Other Possible Suggestions

Greater clarity around the cattle feedlot and intensive animal husbandry definitions, particularly in regard to dairy feedbarns.
Completion of the DPI dairy guidelines in consultation with local government and all referral agencies.
Further capacity building of planners and referral authorities on intensive animal industries, including greater promotion of the PLANET training course being offered.
Capacity building of farmers of their obligations under the various approval processes.

Solutions to enable local agency collaboration

Develop a memorandum of understanding between referral authorities to manage intensive animal industries and matters of mutual interest of co-dependence generally.
Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each agency and construct an agency integration process with specified timeframes (refer to McDonald’s third quote page 9).
Improve communications between referral agencies and bodies and the applicant to ensure that all are aware of each agencies involved in the application and are kept up to date with the comments received and status of the application.
Request that DPCD prepare a Practice Planning Note on intensive animal industries in consultation with relevant referral agencies, to provide all stakeholders with greater information about how the industry is addressed through the planning process.

Further to this, at the meeting held on August 19^th 2009, those in attendance agreed to examine a change to improve the transparency of their organisations’ processes. This included the development of a fact sheet and flow diagram for intensive animal industry planning applications and applications for a water licence.

The problems of accountability and inter-agency synergy were generally regarded as endemic and beyond the reach of a south west intensive animal case study. None the less, the group wanted to tackle the issue by proposing a pilot study that would ‘road test’ a number of scenarios using real intensive agricultural planning and water licencing situations. The scenarios, still to be decided, would compare current planning approval processes such as planning permits and codes of practice to the effective management of intensive animal industry enterprises. This could be used to demonstrate potential improvements from more fundamental changes in processes.

The pilot study proposal has not received any material funding support and has not been developed.

5. Appendix 1

Diagram 1: An Illustration of the Approval process for an Intensive Animal Enterprise

Diagram 2: Freestall Barn Application

Diagram 3: Application for a Groundwater License