1. From the matters raised in the submissions and evidence and the planning controls and policy applicable to the review site, I consider there are four key issues which must be considered in reaching a decision in this application as follows:
   • Implications of the proposed barn on landscape values
   • Alternative design and siting of the proposed barn
   • Environmental effects of the proposed barn

1. Mr Bartley, for Council, submitted that the scenic and landscape value of the site and surrounds is due to the overwhelming absence of built form and the uninterrupted sequence of vegetation and dune patterns as well as glimpses of Westernport Bay. The proposed structure at a height of 8 metres, a total floor are of 207 square metres and use of first floor windows will create visual bulk, reflection and sun glare and create a scale and built form that is unreasonably visually obtrusive. The existing vegetation, in Council's view, is inadequate to screen the building and the presence of other structures visible to Boneo Road are not directly comparable to the current proposal and should not be relied on as precedent for a structure that will be clearly visible from Boneo Road. The existence of other suitable locations for the barn the rear of the site in Council's view lend weight to the rejection of a highly visible siting that requires an extreme setback variation under the provisions of the Green Wedge zone.
2. It was Mr Hansen's evidence that the proposed barn will not be highly visible to motorists travelling along Boneo Road in an easterly direction, will not be visible at all when travelling west, will be in a landscape where there are a number of structures visible to the road and alternative locations within the site are inappropriate for a variety of reasons including need for excavation, exposure to weather and impact to native vegetation. These factors combine, in his evidence, to make the proposed site the best location for a barn and one that will maintain the scenic landscape quality of the area.
3. Mr Patrick's evidence on landscape matters was that visibility of the barn from the road will be limited and this can be screened with planting. Attached to his evidence was a proposed planting plan that showed dense planting within the 10 metre setback from the front boundary which, in his evidence, would provide that screening. Supplementary planting on the road reserve would provide additional screening but in Mr Patrick's evidence was not essential to provide screening.
4. The proposed barn and driveway are subject to a permit under a number of provisions of the Scheme where the significance of landscape values is emphasised. Of particular importance to consideration of landscape values is the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 6 (SLO6) that relates to National Trust Classified Landscapes. This overlay contains the following landscape character objective to be achieved:

To protect and enhance the visual, natural and cultural heritage values of classified landscapes.

To protect classified landscapes from visual intrusion resulting from the inappropriate siting, design or materials of buildings and works.

To encourage siting, design and landscaping of buildings and works which is responsive to the landscape values of classified landscapes.

To maintain vegetation as an important element of classified landscapes.

1. Other overlay provisions and the Green Wedge zone refer to protecting the character of scenic non urban landscapes and minimising visual impact of development on landscapes and major roads. The Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 16 (ESO16) states that the Cape Schanck hinterland, that includes the review site, is of strategic landscape importance forming part of the coast and hinterland to Westernport Bay and the Bass Strait coastline. Boneo Road itself is subject to a Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3 that, although not applicable to the review site, seeks to ensure the scenic and recreational value of the road is not compromised by inappropriate siting and design of buildings.
2. Having considered the relevant provisions of the Scheme I have found that the proposed barn and works are designed and sited in a manner that will not adversely affect the identified landscape values. In reaching this view, I have been assisted by my observations when undertaking several vehicle trips along Boneo Road near the review site in a manner that paralleled a video of the landscape shown by Mr Hansen at the hearing.
3. I agree with evidence that the barn will not be visible when travelling from east to west along Boneo Road due to the dense vegetation on the adjoining land to the east and along the road reserve. I am thus satisfied that the barn will have no detrimental impact on landscape values from this aspect.
4. I also agree with evidence that the barn will be visible when travelling in the other direction along Boneo Road. I find the visibility when travelling west to east is confined to a width of some 30 metres where there is no vegetation in front of the proposed barn site. I consider this extent of visibility acceptable and not unreasonably intrusive having regard to the following.
   • The visibility of the barn is not from a particular vantage point and will not interfere with any views of Bushrangers Bay.[2]
   • Visibility of the barn will be confined to a view of relatively short duration when travelling in one direction along Boneo Road.
   • There is opportunity within the property to plant vegetation in the 30 metre wide gap to provide screening of the barn. I accept Mr Patrick's evidence that by implementation of an appropriate landscape scheme, the proposed development need not be seen from Boneo Road.
5. In finding the limited visibility of the barn acceptable, I have had regard to the landscape context. On the south west side of Boneo Road in that section of land where the SLO6 applies I agree with Council that visible built form is minimal with dense rows of Cypress trees limiting views of buildings and Bushrangers Bay beyond. The exception to this is the Cape Schanck resort development that is west of Cape Schanck Road where residential development is apparent. I acknowledge that the resort site is exempt from the overlay provisions under a site specific Incorporated Plan Overlay but that does not prevent the built form contributing to the landscape in the general vicinity of the review site. On the north east side of Boneo Road in the locality of the review site the landscape is more open comprising largely cleared and undulating grazing land. A former telecommunications building is relatively close to the road and together with a shed on this side of the road create some built form presence. I consider that this landscape context where built form, although limited, is present creates a setting where the existence of a barn will not be incongruous.
6. I consider the height of the barn is not excessive in terms of visual impact. The proposed location on a relatively level part of the site avoids extensive excavation or elevated floor levels and the overall height of 8 metres to the top of the attic style roof will not create, in my view, a dominating structure. I note that the 8 metre height does not exceed the building height specified in the ESO16 as exempt from permit control, in specified circumstances.
7. I am satisfied that the external materials and finishes comprising timber and colorbond in muted tones that will be complementary to the landscape and the use of windows is not so extensive that excessive sun reflection is likely to result. There will be minimal disturbance to the landscape from excavation since the site is relatively flat for both the construction of the barn and the access from the main driveway.
8. Various provisions of the Scheme place considerable emphasis on the scenic value of native vegetation in this area. It is important to my findings on landscape values that the proposed site for the barn and associated works results in no loss of native vegetation.

1. I have found that although there will be some visibility of the proposed barn from Boneo Road, the design and siting is such that it will not adversely affect the landscape values of the area. The Scheme however requires a more stringent test than simply finding the proposal acceptable. The decision guidelines of the SLO6 require consideration of

The availability of reasonable alternative sites, alternative building designs or alternative construction practices for proposed buildings and works that would better meet landscape character objectives of this schedule, having regard to the size and topography of the land and the form and nature of the proposed buildings and works.

1. I have considered alternative sites on the review site and for the following reasons find the proposed site the preferred location.
2. The area to the southwest, southeast and northwest of the dwelling on the review site comprises mostly cleared land with the undulations common to semi-consolidated sand dunes. It is my view that a barn in this part of the site would result in visibility of the structure from Bushrangers Bay and from some adjoining properties in a manner that would be intrusive in the dune patterns and, on the evidence of Mr Patrick, less capable of being screened by vegetation due to the increased exposure to drying winds. Visibility in this area would be contrary to objectives of the ESO16 that, amongst other things, seeks to promote siting of buildings that are responsive to the semi consolidated sand dune and coastal landscape character and vistas of the area. Furthermore, construction of the barn and associated accessway in this area would require, in my opinion, considerable excavation in an area that is identified as liable to erosion.[3]
3. Although not relevant to impact on the landscape, I note Dr Walker's evidence that the location of the barn to the southwest, southeast and north west of the house would result in frequent exposure to wind which would be stressful to horses resulting in ailments and unpredictable and dangerous behaviour when ridden. The selected site for the barn conversely is well sheltered from the elements, a factor crucial to the welfare of horses in Dr Walker's evidence.
4. Locating the barn in the vegetated area forward of the house is clearly not desirable for reasons relating to loss of vegetation, particularly having regard to the high conservation value of that vegetation, a matter I refer to later.
5. An alternative building design could provide a barn with reduced height and floor area. However, I accept the evidence of Dr Walker that the floor plan and two level design is appropriate and well planned for the proper care and stabling of horses. Dr Walker gave evidence that the second level is necessary for the proper storage of feed in terms of temperature, avoidance of vermin, snakes and the invasion of disease carrying creatures.

1. It was Council's submission that the environmental and ecological systems, including vegetation cover and dune patterns, provide the site and surrounding area with unique values which are under threat by the proposed siting of the barn. The policy framework and applicable provisions of the Scheme, in Council's view, provide strong emphasis on ensuring these environmental values are respected and protected. In particular, Council was concerned about the loss of native vegetation arising from the siting of the barn and the failure to avoid removal of native vegetation as required under Clause 52.17 of the Scheme.
2. Mr Organ's evidence was that the area along the Burrabong Creek within the review site supports remnant native vegetation that is considered endangered within the Gippsland Plain bioregion and of Very High conservation significance according to the Port Phillip and Westernport Native Vegetation Plan.[4] I accept that the native vegetation on the land is of high value and the provisions of the Scheme provide considerable support for protection of native vegetation.
3. As outlined earlier, my inspection of the review site followed the pegging of the barn site and I am satisfied that the barn location will not result in loss of native vegetation. I accept the evidence of Mr Organ that the proposal will have negligible impacts to flora and fauna values and that provided construction activities and drainage are appropriately managed impacts upon terrestrial and aquatic values will be minimised. I consider these management impacts can be addressed by conditions of a permit.

1. One of Council's additional grounds of refusal related to a perceived risk that the outbuilding would not be ancillary to the dwelling on the review site and thus inconsistent with the intent of the Green Wedge zone. It seems that this ground related to Council's concern that the barn could be used for a second dwelling.
2. I do not consider this ground substantiated. The application is for a barn to be used for the stabling of 2-3 horses. This use on a 2 hectare lot, in my view, is ancillary to the use of the land for a dwelling and Mr Bartley in his submission on behalf of Council acknowledged that the site had potential to accommodate an outbuilding for two or three ponies. As I outlined earlier in this decision, use of the barn for a second dwelling is prohibited under the Scheme and if there is any such use in the future Council can pursue the matter under appropriate enforcement procedures.

1. The draft conditions circulated by Council were discussed at the hearing. I have generally adopted the conditions subject to changes to reflect my findings in relation to landscaping and protection of existing vegetation. I have also included a condition requiring amended plans to be submitted reflecting the correct location of the title boundary and existing vegetation.

1. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that it is appropriate for a permit to be granted for the proposed barn and associated works.

1. Prior to the commencement of buildings and works, plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

1. A site plan accurately showing location of the front title boundary, existing front fence and edge of vegetation to the south of the proposed barn as shown on the Plan of Survey (Partial) & Barn Setout prepared by Peninsula Survey Group P/L dated 17 February 2009. 2. A landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person or firm incorporating: 1. Dense planting of the review site in the area adjacent to the front boundary generally in the area shown as 'screening planting' on the Landscape Plan dated January 2009 prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects. 2. Fencing of the planted area referred to in i above to protect it from damage by stock. 3. Measures to eradicate exotic weedy species close to the Burrabong Creek and additional planting in that area of locally indigenous tree, shrub and ground storey species; 4. A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which will include the location and size at maturity of all plants, the botanical names of such plants; 5. 100% species indigenous to the locality; 6. Placement of temporary high visibility fencing around vegetation to be retained to the south of the barn.
2. The location size and type of the proposed building and works, including the materials of construction, on the endorsed plan must not be altered or modified without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

The temporary barrier fence/s to protect existing trees and shrubs shown on the endorsed plans must be erected in accordance with the endorsed plans prior to the commencement of any buildings or works and must be maintained throughout the construction of the barn and associated works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

During construction there is to be no storage of any vehicles, waste, materials, machinery or associated equipment or works on the areas of vegetation to be retained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Within six months of the practical completion of the barn or another time agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed and then maintained in a healthy condition, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any dead or diseased trees or shrubs must be replaced as soon as possible. The area set aside for landscaping must be used for no other purpose and must be fenced to prevent access by stock.

All waste water from the building must be treated and contained within the boundaries of the property to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

All disturbed surfaces on the land resulting from the development must be stabilised to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

This permit will expire if the development is not started and completed within two years from the date of this permit. The Responsible Authority may extend the above periods if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within the following three months.

[1] By facsimile dated 18 February 2009 from Mr David Hansen addressed to VCAT and the Council.

[2] Although parties referred to views of Westernport Bay, the views of the sea from the review site are to Bushrangers Bay with Bass Strait beyond.

[3] Under Schedule 16 to the Environmental Significance Overlay at Clause 42.01 of the Scheme.

[4] As defined in the Port Phillip and Westernport Native Vegetation Plan 2006. This plan is consistent with the statewide approach to native vegetation management outlined in Victoria's Native Vegetation Management - A Framework for Action. Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002).