A council report by senior statutory planner Luke Gavin found Mr and Mrs Repper’s application to continue operating the business satisfied the requirements of all relevant agencies, including Country Fire Authority, GWMWater, EPA Victoria and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, as well as the council’s own building, infrastructure, environmental health, economic development and waste guidelines.
The permit application received six objections and 10 letters of support.
The objections, including those from neighbours, raised issues such as the business’ perceived incompatibility with the area’s agricultural zoning, impacts on local amenity through noise, environmental and health concerns including dust, and the retrospective nature of the permit.
Letters of support emphasised support for small businesses and local economic benefits.
In debating whether to approve the permit, Cr Jack Blake said he wanted to see local small businesses thrive.
“Mr Repper has been very cooperative in ensuring that this permit goes through,” he said.
“On many occasions he has tried to work with the neighbours by offering curfew hours once the permit has been granted to ensure noise and dust isn’t an issue. Yet, this local born-and-bred family are now facing a most uncertain future, which could result in another small business closing.
“Are we prepared to put our names next to this town slowly disappearing with family businesses going under, and potentially putting that last nail in the coffin of other small businesses that also rely on Mr and Mrs Repper’s family-owned-and-run business?
“I support the issuing of the permit to show that we want all small business to survive in our community.”
Cr Jenny Greenberger opposed the permit’s issue, saying neighbouring property owners had valid concerns.
“As a council, we need to consider the needs of the applicant, but also the needs of the immediately impacted neighbours,” she said.
“Even though it is the practice of council to work with applicants on permit applications – and in actual fact, there’s been no instruction for the business to cease operating while the permit application is before council – I would’ve thought the applicants would be very clear on what the conditions that were submitted as part of the application contained, and that included no operating on a Sunday and no operating on a public holiday.
“As a councillor, when one is contacted … immediately before this discussion with neighbours expressing concerns about the impact of noise over an Easter long weekend, I do have serious concerns about the willingness of the applicant to comply with the conditions.
“I hope that, should this planning permit be granted, they are mindful of the conditions of that permit and ensure those conditions are met at all times.
“For many people who have purchased properties out along Pipetrack Road, it was a lifestyle decision and it is meant to have a very peaceful and quiet amenity.
“There are very serious concerns about the business operating there.”
Cr Karen Probst said she hoped additional permit conditions added by councillors would help mitigate the impacts of the business on neighbours.
“We’ve removed weekend hours from it so that it’s quieter on the weekends and gives everyone a bit of that work-life balance,” she said.
“There’s also a restriction in there that it can only be operated by the current people operating it, so if they were to sell the house or still live there but sell the business to a different operator, they’re not able to do that – the planning permit is specific to them.
“There are substantial rules on it and obligations that they’ve got to comply with, so any breaches of those obligations can lead to action for the breach.
“It’s a balance that probably keeps no one happy, but hopefully is a practical outcome that enables a business to continue but reduces the impact on surrounding landowners.”
The entire April 15, 2026 edition of The Weekly Advertiser is available online. READ IT HERE!
