Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

This section outlines requirements relating to dairy developments under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (the POEO Act). The following information identifies current triggers, operation activities and definitions that relate to environment protection licences (EPL).

Schedule 1 to the POEO Act lists a range of activities that require an EPL, known as ‘scheduled activities’. An EPL authorises the scheduled activity to be conducted and includes enforceable conditions to prevent or minimise the environmental impact of
the activity. Under Schedule 1, Part 1 premises-based activities, Section 22 Livestock intensive activities of the POEO Act, dairy animal accommodation is considered a scheduled activity if the development has capacity to accommodate more than 800
dairy animals at any time.

The POEO Act definition of dairy animal accommodation is:

*Loafing pads may be a more appropriate term and is an area designed to provide cows with a comfortable place to rest and move around when they are not being milked or fed. These pads are usually made of materials that offer a soft and dry surface, such as sand, straw, or other organic bedding. Proper drainage and maintenance of these areas are important to prevent mud, reduce the risk of injury, and maintain a clean environment for the cows.

This means that if the dairy complex (see Section 2) has the capacity to accommodate more than 800 milking cows (the threshold) at any time, it is considered a ‘premises-based’ scheduled activity and requires an EPL to operate. When lodging a DA application, it must be lodged as an ‘integrated development’ (see Section 5.1.3 and Figure 5, Section 5) and the EPA will assess the premises according to the POEO Act.

Under the POEO Act, the EPA is the ARA for all scheduled activities. Figure6 demonstrates the EPA’s role in assessing DAs that trigger the dairy animal accommodation threshold of the POEO Act.

A licence for a ‘premises-based’ scheduled activity is issued to the ‘occupier’ of the premises (that is the person or entity that has overall management or control of the premises) following DA approval and a successful licence application.

EPL case studies

*insert image

Freddy Friesian:

800+ milking herd converting to a contained housing system = EPL

Freddy Friesian has a  1,200-cow milking herd that is currently a grazing-based system. Freddy has spent many years researching intensive (dairy (restricted)) housing systems and has decided to build 2 x  600-cow freestall facilities (sheds) to accommodate his separate herds  24 hours a day. Freddy will need to prepare an environmental impact statement for his application to council, following the receipt of the Secretaries Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) and his development will be defned as  designated and integrated development. He is  required to have an EPL as Freddy’s herd is greater than 800 milking cows and they will be contained within the  dairy complex at the same time.

*insert image

Adam Ayrshire:

Freddy’s neighbour Adam Ayrshire has been on several farm tours with Freddy and has decided to build a  loose housing (dairy (restricted)) facility which will accommodate his  600-cow herd 24 hours a day. Adam will need to make an application to the local council for local development approval; however, as his milking herd is less than 800 cows, he does  not require an EPL.

*insert image

Janice Jersey:

900 milking herd on pasture. Dairy complex holding yards and feedpad currently accommodates a maximum of 500 cows.Milking is undertaken in split milking herds of 450 cows. Facilities are used 4 times per day but do not exceed 800 cows within the complex = No EPL required.
As Janice’s milking herd has grown over time her milking facility now needs to increase to a capacity capable of accommodating the entire  900-cow herd at the same time. Janice will also seek approval to increase her feedpad t o hold up to 1,000 cows to supplementary feed her cows following each milking. Even though Janice is a grazing-based system, she will require an EPL to operate as she exceeds the 800 cow accommodation threshold in both the dairy yards and the feedpad. Like Freddy, Janice will also need to prepare an environmental impact statement for her application to Council, following the receipt of the SEARs and the development will be defned as designated and integrated development.

*insert image

Hermione Holstein:

Janice’s neighbour,  Hermione Holstein, has a 600-cow milking herd. Her cows live at ‘Holstein Homestead’, which is a grazing-based property. Hermione has purchased a neighbour’s 400-cow herd, however, her dairy yard is not big enough to accommodate all of her now 1,000-cow milking herd at the same time. Hermione has made the decision to split milk her herd as it fts with her pasture paddock sizes. As Hermione’s dairy will continue to accommodate less than 800 cows, she does  not at this time require an EPL.

*insert image

Barry Bull:

Garry’s neighbour,  Barry Bull, has been impacted by a terrible bushfre and is using a stock containment area to accommodate his  400-cow milking herd. After 6 months of using the stock containment area Barry has made the decision not to return his cows to a grazing-based system. His dairy is also nearing the end of its life and needs replacement. Barry will need to make an application to council for the new dairy and as he has made the permanent change to a  contained housing system as a dairy dry-lot he will also need to make an application for a change in use to ‘dairy (restricted)’. As this area accommodates less than 800 milking cows, he does not need an EPL.