VCAT upholds decision on two lot subdivision

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has upheld a Baw Baw Shire Council decision to approve a two lot subdivision of rural land at Brandy Creek.

The 85.9 hectare lot in Cazaly’s Rd will be subdivided as proposed by property owner Allan Walker.

Kevin and Debra Ablett appealed council’s decision at VCAT, claiming the subdivision would lead to a fragmentation of agricultural land.

VCAT member Graeme David determined the proposed use would not impact on agriculture.

The land is used for cattle grazing. A small lot of about two hectares containing a dwelling has previously been excised off the southern lot adjacent to Dollarburn Rd.

The tribunal was told the land was previously in two parcels but was consolidated by the current owner in 2012.

The land is located in the rural activity zone which has a 40 hectare minimum subdivision size, and does not require a planning permit for agriculture. However, a dwelling requires a permit irrespective of lot size.

A small portion of the land is covered by an overlay for protection of Giant Gippsland Earthworm and Habitat Areas, which requires a permit for subdivision.

The proposal, approved by council allowed for a 41.18 hectare lot with the existing house and associated infrastructure accessed from Cazaly’s Rd.

The second lot of 44.74 hectares would straddle an unmade east-west ‘one-chain’ road reserve, and contains no dwelling or other structural infrastructure. A portion of the lot is subject to a section 173 agreement that prohibits any further subdivision or houses.

VCAT heard the Abletts owned an adjoining property.

In 2012, the two lots that comprise the current review land were consolidated into the current 85.92ha lot.

In the same year, the property owner also proposed to reposition the boundary between the former two separate lots, to the north to create two lots of over 40ha, and to construct a dwelling on the proposed (southern) lot two.

The application was the subject of two VCAT applications.

In December 2014, the current owner lodged the current application with council to subdivide the land into two lots, with no associated proposal for a dwelling.

The Abletts opposed the application when it was considered by council in March this year.

They opposed the application based on seven grounds, saying it was not in line with state and local policy and would lead to the fragmentation of agricultural land.

They submitted to the tribunal that the history of the land represented a “piecemeal approach by the permit applicant over time.”

Mr David said local planning policies sought to protect agriculture; encourage large farming lots and agricultural diversity including on small lots; support appropriate tourism use and development; minimise potential for small lot development to interfere with agriculture; and protect the rural character from visually inappropriate development.

He said the retention of agriculture was of high strategic importance and any decision that might diminish its importance must not be made lightly.

“The current proposal creates two lots that exceed the 40 hectare minimum in the rural activity zone and on that basis can be argued not to unduly further fragment the farm holding.

“As no change in land use is proposed from grazing, which is consistent with use across the district, the proposal will not impact adversely on external agricultural land use,” Mr David said.