1. Danny Drougas applied to Wellington Shire Council for a permit to operate a Farmstay/Host farm with six accommodation dwellings. The council issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for three dwellings (including a caretaker's residence).
2. James Barry, a neighbour, had objected to the issuance of a permit and is now seeking a review of the council's decision. His principle grounds are:
   • We do not consider the proposal to be a genuine Farmstay/Host farm.
   • We do not consider the proposed access to be suitable for this proposal.
   • We are very concerned that this proposal could be used for permanent/semi permanent rental accommodation.
   • We are concerned about the waste treatment facilities - scant details provided.
3. Danny Drougas advised at the hearing he proposed to provide a high quality facility for visitors with a particular emphasis on farming activities in three relocatable dwellings. Visitors would be able to view meat processing which adds value to the operation and people would be able to feed animals, have hay rides, undertake hay baling, view a genuine organic farm, and if necessary examine other types of farm in the locality. He considered concerns about waste management could be addressed through the council's condition and would rely on a farm manager to help run the operation.

1. It is proposed to relocate three dwellings onto the site as part of a host farm. Initially six self-contained "cottages" were proposed, but clarified at the hearing that these would be relocatable dwellings. The dwellings would be clustered along the eastern driveway with one of the dwellings utilised by a farm manager. The dwellings would be capable of having up to six berths with the intention of visitors participating in farm activities whilst staying at the farm.

1. The subject site is located on the northern side of Gelliondale Road in Jack River. The property has a frontage of just over 500 metres to Gelliondale Road and is about 60.44 hectares in area. Gelliondale Road is the extension of Lower Jack road in Gelliondale. It is about 10km west of Yarram. The property is relatively flat cleared grazing land with a depression gully that slopes to the south and only flows in very wet weather conditions. The property contains an existing homestead dwelling located to the front of the site plus farm sheds and yards. The dwelling has direct access to Gelliondale Road and there is another access point on the eastern side of the site to serve the farm stay accommodation.
2. Gelliondale Road is a sealed road and crosses a gully near the site.
3. The surrounding area is generally farming land grazed for dairy and beef cattle with some occasional sheep and other uses. There is an occasional farm house including one immediately south of the subject site.

1. The subject site is zoned Farming Zone under the Wellington Planning Scheme. Surrounding land is also zoned Farming although nearby is a Public Conservation and Resource Zone. Gelliondale Road is a Road Zone Category 2.
2. The purposes of the Farming zone include:
   • providing for the use of land for agriculture
   • retention of production agricultural land.
   • ensuring that non-agricultural uses, particularly dwellings, do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture.
3. The use is defined as Host Farm which is a farm used to provide accommodation for persons, away from their normal place of residence, to experience farm living. It is nested with the "Accommodation" terms in the Planning Scheme.
4. A permit is required to use land for a host farm under Clause 35.07-1 of the Planning Scheme and a permit is required under Clause 35.07-4 for buildings and works. There are specific requirements concerning building works in Clause 35.07-4 and there are also Decision Guidelines in Clause 35.07-6 which address general issues, agricultural issues, dwelling issues, environmental issues, and design and siting issues.
5. There are also various State and Local Planning Policies that assist in the exercise of discretion[1]. Decision Guidelines are contained within Clause 65.

1. At the review hearing Mr Bayly and Mr Barry provided written submissions and Mr Drougas provided an oral submission. Following the review hearing I undertook an inspection of the subject site and general neighbourhood.

1. Mr Barry argued that the farm stay (host farm) is used to provide accommodation for persons away from their normal place of residence to experience farm living. He argued that the definition implies that the farm living experience should be provided on the same property where the accommodation is situated. He claimed this definition was confirmed during meetings with the Council's Planning Officer. He raised this issue because he was advised that arrangements have been made for farm stay guests to visit other properties for activities. He claimed the applicant is not a resident of the property and he expects that the host farm would have a host farmer. He claimed the applicant has only very limited knowledge of farming and farm practices, having owned the property for a short time with no farming background.
2. The plan accompanying the application showed the outline of six buildings and made reference an upgrade of the dairy to a meat processing facility. The plan depicted access from an existing track on the site that is located away from the existing house and sheds. No further details were provided of the meat processing and there were no plans or elevations of the dwellings nor were there information of how these dwellings would be connected to a waste disposal facility.
3. Condition 3 of the Notice of Decision requires, inter alia :
   • that the three front dwellings be removed and the three cottages shall located more than 30 metres from the top of the escarpment of the watercourse;
   • fully dimensioned elevation and floor plans of the cottages including minimum floor levels of 400mm above the ground;
   • details of external materials and finishes for all cottages; details of areas set aside for car parking for each cottage;
   • details of all exterior lighting; details of rubbish bins for each cottage; at least 10000 litre water tank for each cottage;
   • detail of storm water drainage for each cottage; and details of any business identification signage.
4. There was also a separate requirement for landscaping plans and a management plan.
5. The Council also required the placement of a Section 173 Agreement on the site which required inter alia
   • that no further subdivision take place while the Farm stay cottages are located on the land
   • that should the Farm stay use be discontinued for a period of greater than two years, then all cottages and the buildings associated with the Farm Stay use shall be removed from within the land within two years and three months of the discontinuance of the use
   • that the Section 173 Agreement lapse when the farm stay use lapses and all cottages and associated buildings for the farm stay use are to be removed from the land.
6. The information provided with the application was inadequate and I suggest the responsible authority should have sought more information before determining the application. The application related to use and development and yet there were no proper plans or elevations of the proposed accommodation, let alone information about waste treatment from the use or the buildings.
7. The lack of information makes it difficult to make findings about the bona-fides of this application and I would have expected, at least, that the information nominated in parts (b) to (j) in Condition 3 should have been supplied with the planning permit application.
8. In addition, the proposal seemed to lack details or bona fidies of how three dwellings would genuinely operate for tourist accommodation to justify it being called a Host farm (farm stay). It is appreciated that the applicant intends to provide an experience of farming operations and practices for people unfamiliar with farming practices to visit the site, but some of the facilities themselves are currently not available on site at present or in the case of visits to other farms, are not genuinely related to this farm stay accommodation.
9. The proposed host farm dwellings were to be located well away from the existing house so there will be little direct access to the house or the normal infrastructure provided by the farm and its sheds. Whilst staying on a farm may be an informative and entertaining experience for urban dwellers it should be supplemented by infrastructure for the people that intend to stay. To place the accommodation a considerable distance from the main farm dwelling and buildings seems to send the wrong message to a person who may wish to experience a proper farm experience. Similarly, the subject site is not located within close proximity to any settlement or town, and there appears to be little support for the farm stay patrons other than rudimentary farm practices on a small farm. In all on the information presented there is only a limited experience of farm life.
10. Whilst the applicant claimed the proposal will be a high quality tourist facility, judging by the information contained in the application it is difficult to come to that conclusion, particularly when there is no information submitted about the form of accommodation or any specific programs that could be regularly employed.
11. On reading the officer report there was information that indicated the original discussions between the permit applicant and council officers were at a time when the land was zoned Rural, which allowed a greater amount of tourism activities. However the land was rezoned to Farming which places greater restrictions on tourist activities and virtually requires that they can only function with a genuine farm.
12. I have some difficulty accepting that this is a genuine host farm. There seem a disproportionate number of dwellings for a 60 hectare farm. The activities to be provided were rudimentary and the applicant intended to take tourists to other farms to increase the level of farm experience. The farm is not a large operation and is currently occupied part time by the owner who has little knowledge of farming. It is appreciated that it is intended to employ a farm manager but the farm stay facility seems to be the primary activity rather than the farm activity.
13. Furthermore the vague information about the use and the lack of plans and elevations of the buildings it is difficult to properly assess the application against the Decision Guidelines in Clause 35.07-6.
14. Mr Barry also raised concerns that the proposed accommodation units will be used for cheaper rental accommodation and that it will not provide a genuine farm stay. It is difficult for me to make findings one way or another on this particular issue

1. Mr Barry raised concerns about access to the site, however after viewing the access to Gelliondale Road I am satisfied there is sufficient sight distance for this property and there is no need to relocate the access track or the entrance detail. I note the responsible authority's engineers had examined this issue and raised no concerns.

1. Whilst issues concerning waste disposal raised by Mr Barry had earlier been of concern, it appears that the Council's Officer was satisfied the site can be adequately served. I consider this issue should have been investigated having regard to the fact that there were no plans or elevations of the proposed dwellings to be accommodated and therefore it is difficult to make any proper assessment the true impact of the three dwellings. This is another indicator of a vague planning proposal.

1. The responsible authority had included a requirement for a Section 173 Agreement to be inserted on the title. The wording of the condition referring to the need for a section 173 Agreement is odd and it seems to have been extracted from a subdivision permit because the trigger for its application is at the time of a "Statement of Compliance". There is no Statement of Compliance required under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or for buildings and works or use. A Statement of Compliance is usually required in the case of subdivision, which is clearly not the case in this application.
2. Furthermore, the very nature of the requirement requiring removal of the "cottages" and buildings associated with the farm stay use to be removed may be difficult to police in the form presented. Once the use (and related buildings) is enacted under the permit it has rights to continue. In fact the lack of information about these dwellings compounds my concerns about this application.
3. The Notice of Decision also contained a requirement for a management plan and Condition 10 required all weather access must be provided to each lot. I am not sure whether this was intended to require a sealed surface up to all dwellings rather than lots.
4. Similarly, some of the conditions such as Condition 15 states: "The three cottages should have a shared wastewater treatment facility and effluent disposal field". A condition that says something should be done limits the ability of the council or any individual to seek enforcement of the permit or condition.

1. For the abovementioned reasons, the responsible authority's decision is set aside. It is considered that there is a lack of information about the form of development of the land and all proposed activities. If the applicant wishes to provide a genuine host farm experience it is recommended that it provide substantially more information about the use, including proper plans, elevations, site levels, waste collection facilities, programs of farm activities offered and a draft management plan so that is it is necessary to employ a manager there are clear operational guidelines available. I suggest that if the applicant is genuine about this proposal it should attempt to provide a far more modest proposal such as one dwelling rather than a vague, yet ambitious, tourist facility on what is considered a relatively small farm holding.

[1] Clause 17.04-1 - Tourism, Clause 21.06 - Tourism