It was however by “a very slim margin” that Senior Commissioner Moore found the development application was a modification of the original and not a completely new development.

While not everyone will be happy, council’s general manager Michael Coulter said the result was a good one for council and the community.

“There will be some residents who would have preferred the council not reach agreement on such matters and instead defend a Class 1 appeal with counsel and expert evidence in the Land and Environment Court,” Mr Coulter said.

“The latter option would have likely cost council something like $100,000 with much less control over the outcome ... plus the risk that not only would we have lost (should the council have decided to oppose the application) but the conditions determined by the court may have been less onerous on the quarry than those arising from the conciliation agreement.

“After we had negotiated the conditions, the applicant elected to reduce the requested maximum output from 110,00m3 in situ to 95,000m3 in situ which further improved the outcome.”

Other achievements include:

* The operation of the rock pick is limited to 10am to 3pm Monday to Friday with no operation on Saturday, subject to an emergency.

* Construction and maintenance of the quarry access road (two coat bitumen seal).

* Improvement of the intersection of Valla Rd and Sullivans Rd.

* Increase in Section 94 contributions for maintenance of Valla Rd by 250 per cent of the extraction volume above 50,000m3 (in situ).

* The consent (condition 58) requires the annual submission of an Environmental Management Audit Report to both the council and the EPA. The report has to be prepared by a duly qualified and experienced environmental consultant specialising in such matters and not by the quarry.

* Besides the consent requirements, the quarry also has to report to the EPA on their licence conditions and any “exceedances”. This principally covers blasting, noise, dust and water quality.

Council has also received a written undertaking from the quarry to pay the council’s costs of $30,000.

For its part, council will undertake at least one or two general compliance inspections per year as well as responding to complaints.

Valla Rd resident Peter Sobey, said the results were certainly an improvement but “at the end of the day we, the community, were largely excluded as we were not a party to the dispute.”

“We haven’t really won anything,” Mr Sobey told the Guardian.

“We still have a quarry in a residential area and by getting this permission to operate at an expanded rate, the ongoing uncertainly continues that the quarry will grow.”

In relation to Valla Rd maintenance Mr Coulter said a lot of money had been spent there in the last five years but major work to remove one of its tighter corners was still planned.

He said the additional Section 94 contributions would be allocated to this capital work and on-going maintenance.

Residents who made a submission will receive a copy of the conciliation agreement in the near future.