BYV says “Complies”. But where is the planning need?

Let me be clear. Lot 4 on RP217082 at Glan Devon is zoned Rural. It is not an industrial block. It is a property that has been used for grazing, surrounded by farming, including cropping. Barkers Creek is approximately 1.5 kilometres away, flowing downstream towards Bjelke-Petersen Dam.

This is where BYV Organics proposes to establish a High Impact Industry involving waste incineration, biosolids drying and fertiliser manufacture.

So let's look at BYV's development application and the South Burnett Planning Scheme. Specifically, what the planning scheme says about locating industry in our region, and what BYV has done to demonstrate that its proposal complies.

What does the planning scheme actually say?

The South Burnett Planning Scheme contains a particularly important requirement in its Strategic Framework, under Settlement Pattern, specific outcome (10):

“Expansion beyond zoned industrial areas is discouraged unless there is an overriding planning need.”

The meaning is straightforward. Industry should generally be located in areas planned for it. Development outside those areas may be justified, but there must be an overriding planning need.

The scheme also recognises that some major industries may be appropriate in rural areas. Under Rural Futures, strategic outcome (4), such industries must be of a nature unable to be accommodated in towns, bring major local or regional economic benefits, respect rural character, production values, scenic values and water quality, and have suitable road access.

These are not interchangeable requirements. Economic benefits cannot substitute for demonstrating that the industry cannot be accommodated in a more appropriate location.

There is also a fundamental distinction between an applicant's perceived commercial need and a planning need. A business may genuinely need a new facility, or consider a particular property ideal for its operations. But an overriding planning need concerns whether there is a sufficient planning justification, in the public interest, for departing from the scheme's intended pattern of development.

Now look at BYV's response.

In its Code Responses, BYV marks both provisions “Complies”.

Its explanations emphasise environmental controls, separation from sensitive land uses and anticipated regional economic benefits.

But where is the demonstration of an overriding planning need? Where is the evidence establishing that the proposed industry cannot reasonably be accommodated in an industrial location?

Writing “Complies” beside a planning requirement does not make the development compliant.

Economic benefit is not planning need

BYV relies partly on an economic assessment to justify its proposal.

I've previously dissected that assessment, so I won't repeat the analysis here. It uses input–output modelling, an inappropriate tool for reliably evaluating the economic consequences of a relatively small industrial project in a small regional economy. It applies standard multipliers to uncertain expenditure assumptions from a project whose engineering and operating requirements were still poorly defined.

It also fails to account adequately for existing economic activity. Biosolids are already transported into the South Burnett and applied to farms, supporting transport, handling and agricultural services. The proposed operation would alter or replace some existing activity rather than simply adding an entirely new enterprise to the economy.

Importantly, BYV's own economic consultant acknowledges that the model estimates gross economic contribution, not net economic benefit. The report identifies limitations in the method and discusses cost–benefit analysis as an alternative for evaluating net benefits.

But let's be generous to BYV.

Let's accept every one of its economic figures. Let's assume the construction expenditure, employment estimates and ongoing economic activity are all correct.

Even then, the economic assessment does not answer the planning question.

Most industrial developments generate employment, purchase goods and services, and contribute to the economy. Those benefits may support a project, but they do not establish why it must be located on rural land.

Why can't the same or comparable benefits be achieved on industrial land? What prevents this facility from operating somewhere else, or alongside existing industrial operations? What evidence establishes that Glan Devon is necessary rather than simply BYV's preferred location?

Those are the questions relevant to the claimed overriding planning need.

And an economic model, regardless of its accuracy, cannot answer them.

No land zoned for High Impact Industry?

BYV repeatedly claims that the South Burnett has no land zoned for High Impact Industry. It uses this assertion to help justify choosing rural land.

There is a rather obvious problem.

High Impact Industry is not a zone in the South Burnett Planning Scheme. It is a land-use classification.

The planning scheme provides for Low Impact Industry, Medium Impact Industry and Special Industry zones. High Impact Industry is expressly included in the assessment provisions for the Special Industry Zone.

This is not some obscure interpretation of the scheme. Council's own June 2025 Industrial Circular Economy Precincts Report states:

“Industrial zoning within the South Burnett Regional Council Planning Scheme includes low impact industry, medium impact industry and a special industry zone code to allow for high impact industry.”

So BYV's argument is misleading. The absence of a zoning category that does not exist tells us nothing about whether suitable industrial land is available.

And even if no suitable Special Industry-zoned land were available, why should the next choice be a rural property? Land within an existing Medium Impact Industry Zone, particularly near or adjoining a Special Industry Zone, would be more consistent with the planning scheme's intended pattern of industrial development than a grazing property surrounded by farming and tourism activities. Such a location would already form part of an established industrial area, rather than introducing a High Impact Industry into a rural landscape.

None of this establishes that any particular industrial property can accommodate BYV's facility. Some may be occupied, too small or otherwise constrained. But identifying and demonstrating those constraints is precisely what a credible site-selection assessment should do.

Which industrial sites has BYV investigated? What prevents their use? What evidence establishes that alternative industrial locations or co-location arrangements are unsuitable?

Simply asserting that there is no appropriately zoned land is not an answer, especially when Council's own work identifies the relevant industrial zoning and existing industrial locations.

And where did 800 metres come from?

BYV's other principal justification is separation. Its application repeatedly refers to a required 800-metre buffer from sensitive receptors, arguing that such separation cannot be achieved within existing industrial areas.

But what establishes that requirement?

One possible source is Victorian EPA guidance for composting facilities. A 2017 guideline recommended a separation distance greater than 800 metres for a reference composting facility processing 36,000 tonnes annually, involving open-air receival, enclosed composting and open-air maturation.

That guidance concerns a different industrial process in another state. We have not established that BYV derived its figure from this document, but the similarity is worth investigating, particularly given the project's earlier composting proposal.

Queensland's approach is based on assessing the actual activity, its environmental impacts, operating controls and local conditions. A separation distance needs to be justified against those circumstances.

So where are BYV's studies establishing that 800 metres is appropriate for its proposed waste incinerator, biosolids dryer and fertiliser plant?

Which emissions or hazards determine the distance? Is it odour, dust, noise, combustion emissions or some combination? Is the distance intended to protect neighbouring properties during normal operation, or does it account for equipment failures and other credible contingencies?

Why 800 metres rather than 300, 500 or 1,200 metres?

There are three questions BYV needs to answer.

Is 800 metres necessary? Is it sufficient? Or is it unnecessarily large?

A buffer that is too small may fail to protect neighbouring properties. A buffer that is unnecessarily large may wrongly exclude otherwise suitable industrial sites. If the distance is supposed to protect against failures or abnormal operating conditions, where is the modelling demonstrating its adequacy under Glan Devon's actual conditions?

This matters directly to the planning argument. BYV cannot reasonably use an asserted separation requirement to exclude industrial alternatives without first establishing why that requirement applies.

Even accepting 800 metres as necessary, where is the comparative assessment demonstrating that no suitable industrial location can accommodate it?

An unsupported separation distance does not establish an overriding planning need. It simply introduces another unsupported assumption into the site-selection argument.

The report BYV promised is not the report it supplied

There is a revealing statement on page 3 of BYV's Code Responses.

BYV says its application includes an “Economic Needs Assessment” to help Council understand why Glan Devon is appropriate despite departures from the Rural Zone's intent.

It then says the report will explain the economic benefits, the strategic basis for the chosen location and the lack of suitably zoned High Impact Industry land that informed site selection.

That sounds like exactly the evidence required to support its planning argument.

Except that the report actually supplied, Appendix F, is titled Economic Impact Assessment for Pilot Waste Processing.

It estimates economic activity associated with the proposed pilot facility. It does not provide a comparative site-selection study, systematically assess alternative industrial locations, or demonstrate why the project cannot reasonably be accommodated elsewhere.

It does not establish the overriding planning need that BYV invokes.

BYV has described the evidence it needs, then supplied a report that answers a different question.

Where does that leave the application?

The planning scheme discourages industrial development beyond zoned industrial areas unless there is an overriding planning need. It also provides circumstances under which major industries may be accommodated in rural areas.

BYV says its proposal complies.

Yet the justification presented rests on economic benefits that do not establish planning need, a misleading assertion about the absence of High Impact Industry zoning, and an 800-metre separation requirement whose necessity and adequacy have not been demonstrated.

The missing piece is a properly evidenced explanation of why this industry cannot reasonably be accommodated in a more appropriate location, and why its proposed rural location is justified against the planning scheme's requirements.

That is not a minor omission. It goes to the central question of whether this development belongs on Lot 4 at Glan Devon.

BYV may have perfectly good commercial reasons for wanting this property. It is a large holding, has highway access and provides separation from some sensitive uses. But commercial convenience, environmental compliance and economic activity do not automatically establish an overriding planning need.

Nor does the fact that BYV owns or has access to a suitable-sized rural property mean the planning scheme should accommodate its proposed industrial use.

“Complies” is a conclusion, not evidence

In his July presentation to Council, BYV project director Rusty Mark said:

“We prefer to get it right than get it done quick.”

He also said the businesses involved have a culture of wanting to do things better.

Fair enough. But surely that commitment extends to the development application itself?

Is marking a planning requirement “Complies”, without demonstrating compliance with the actual requirement, getting things right? Is relying on an economic study that doesn't establish planning need, a zoning argument that misrepresents the scheme's structure, and an unexplained separation requirement consistent with that commitment?

The community is entitled to expect more than assertions, particularly when an applicant seeks approval for a High Impact Industry on land zoned Rural.

The planning scheme asks for an overriding planning need. BYV says it complies. Where is the evidence?

© 2026. All rights reserved.