Brown v Campaspe SC [2026] VCAT 257 (13 April 2026)

1. The weight of policy does not support the proposal. The subject land is highly productive, irrigated agricultural land of State significance, used for horticulture. The Scheme policies detailed earlier in these reasons encourage the retention and protection of such land. Fragmentation of agricultural land is discouraged.
2. The policies specifically discourage small-lot subdivisions as these can undermine agricultural productivity by permanently removing land from agriculture and introducing potential land use conflict.
3. It was argued that the excision of the dwelling will enhance the viability of the existing agricultural enterprise.
4. The establishment of rural lifestyle lots in farming areas is discouraged by policy. These can give rise to land use conflict associated with noise, dust and spray drift and, while there are numerous examples of these in the locality, this is not justification for further such outcomes.
5. I acknowledge the applicant's willingness to enter into an Agreement pursuant to s 173 of the PE Act to require, amongst others, the owners of the excised lot to recognise that proposed Lot 1 is located in the FZ1 and may be subject to amenity impacts from agricultural activities.
6. As observed by the Tribunal in Zappia v Swan Hill RCC [2008] VCAT 1445: