On-site earth / clay for off-site 3DCP mix testing

Dossier 6. Testing whether on-site clay / earth harvesting for off-site 3D- construction-printing (3DCP) mix testing survives evidence as a “grown on site” material narrative without on-site manufacturing.

Evidence base

FACT (panel record) — the earth-materials idea comes from printworks-coop docs/research/land-income-51123-1.md (agy). Parcel facts in docs/research/parcel-facts-51123-1-native.md. Cite, do not duplicate.

Claim table

Kill tests

1. TODO — off-site 3DCP partner interest in testing on-site material (cheapest; a conversation, no spend). What would kill it: no 3DCP partner wants to test unknown-source clay. Runs before any lab spend — if no partner is interested, nothing else matters.
2. TODO — earth-extraction use-class confirmation from Huon Valley Council. Correction 2026-07-10 (SPP Table 6.2 read — see docs/research/spp-22-2-lcz-use-table-2026-07-10.md): the assumed “Resource Development” class is likely wrong — that class is for “propagating, cultivating or harvesting plants or keeping/breeding livestock”. Extracting material from the ground is the more specific “Extractive Industry” class (clause 6.2.3: the most specific class applies), which is NOT listed in the LCZ use table → Prohibited under clause 6.9.1(a). RISK — this could make track 6 a planning dead-end for anything above a de-minimis sample. The live question for council: whether a one-off, small-quantity clay/earth sample for off-site testing even constitutes the “use” of Extractive Industry, or is incidental / below a use threshold. What would kill it: council confirms Extractive Industry applies and is Prohibited in the LCZ. ASSUMPTION until council confirms — do not assert either way.
3. TODO — geotech suitability test (sample and lab-test on-site clay). What would kill it: on-site clay is not suitable for 3DCP mix testing without additives that negate the “grown on site” narrative. Only after #1–2 land — lab fees are spent only if a partner is interested and the classification is clearable.

Hazard-reduction residues (NEW — agy round-3)

ASSUMPTION — any future mandatory BAL clearing (bushfire attack level assessment for a habitable dwelling) generates residues: firewood, biochar feed, craft timber. Monetising a sunk regulatory cost turns a compliance burden into a low-capital income line. TODO — Resource Development classification for selling these residues is unverified. Do NOT imply any clearing is approved or planned; this is contingent on dwelling-keystone outcomes. RISK — clearing on 91.3% Priority Vegetation Area (63.22 ha) is the most contested planning interaction on the parcel (parcel-facts-51123-1-native.md).

Path to live

1. Greenlight threshold — CHOICE — an off-site 3DCP partner wants to test on-site material (kill test #1) AND council confirms the use-class position for a one-off off-site test sample — noting Extractive Industry, not Resource Development, is the specific class and is Prohibited in the LCZ (correction 2026-07-10; kill test #2) AND geotech test confirms on-site clay is suitable for 3DCP mix testing (kill test #3). All three are TODO.
2. Minimum viable version — TODO — one bucket of clay characterised by the co-op lab. That is the smallest real transaction that proves the income line: a sample is lab-tested and accepted by a 3DCP partner as worth further mix testing.
3. First move + trigger — TODO — the first concrete action is kill test #1 (off-site 3DCP partner interest — a conversation, no spend). Who: founder (reach out to printworks-coop and any other 3DCP partners). Trigger: this dossier is unblocked the moment the founder makes the first call. No commitment is implied.
4. Stacking synergies — ASSUMPTION — earth-materials feeds printworks- coop (the 3DCP co-op is the off-site partner) and is cheapened by 00-dwelling-keystone (hazard-reduction residues from mandatory BAL clearing, agy round-3). RISK — clearing on 91.3% PVA (63.22 ha) is the most contested planning interaction on the parcel (parcel-facts-51123-1-native.md); residue sales are contingent on dwelling-keystone outcomes.
5. RISK mitigations — ASSUMPTION — the PVA clearing RISK may not arise at all if what is actually done is a one-off, minimal-disturbance geotech sample rather than ongoing extraction. That is a fact about the activity, not a labelling choice: the enquiry should describe the sampling accurately (volume, frequency, disturbance) and ask council where the use-class threshold sits. RISK — hazard-reduction residue sales are blocked if no dwelling is built (no mandatory BAL clearing); the fallback is selling residues from any permitted hazard-management clearing on the retained lot — ASSUMPTION, needs planning advice.

Gates

• Capital: ASSUMPTION — near-zero for sampling; lab test cost unverified.
• Permit: TODO — two separate class questions, both unverified. (a) Earth extraction: the class is Extractive Industry (Prohibited in the LCZ), not Resource Development — the open question is whether a one-off off-site test sample is that “use” at all (correction 2026-07-10). (b) Residue sales: Resource Development is the plausible class, since it covers harvesting plants; unverified.
• Insurance: TODO — unverified; extraction activity on a bushfire-prone / landslip parcel may affect premiums.

Verdict

OPEN — blocked on 3DCP partner interest (kill test #1) and Resource Development classification (kill test #2). The hazard-reduction residues section (NEW, agy round-3) is contingent on dwelling-keystone outcomes and is TODO on classification; no clearing is approved or planned.