1. My assessment has taken into consideration the position of the modified building form, and its interfaces with the surrounding land uses and development. I have assessed the proposal against relevant decision guidelines to reach a conclusion as to whether the amendments sought achieve an acceptable outcome under the provisions of clause 35.07 and associated policies.
2. Relevant decision guidelines in clause 35.07 with respect to design and siting include:
   • The need to locate buildings in one area to avoid any adverse impacts on surrounding agricultural uses and to minimise the loss of productive agricultural land.
   • The impact of the siting, design, height, bulk, colours and materials to be used, on the natural environment, major roads, vistas and water features and the measures to be undertaken to minimise any adverse impacts.
   • The impact on the character and appearance of the area or features of architectural, historic or scientific significance or of natural scenic beauty or importance.
3. Distilling the applicants' key amenity concerns, this is firstly the visibility of the proposed dwelling and southern outbuilding from the adjoining and nearby land, and secondly, the impacts that may arise from the revised siting of the proposed southern outbuilding and dwelling closer to its neighbours to the south and west (and their agricultural operations).
4. The applicant accepts that the Planning Scheme does not specify a minimum setback for outbuildings/sheds which are associated with a section 2 use.[4] Nor does it specify a maximum size of an outbuilding/shed associated with a dwelling.
5. The site is not affected by any relevant built form or landscape overlays. The Planning Scheme provides no specific directions (through the imposition of overlays) that this site is part of a significant landscape. The absence of any such overlay (such as a Significant Landscape Overlay or the like) means that the Planning Scheme does not identify this is an area of significant landscape.
6. My decision-making then must be informed by the provisions of the Farming Zone ('FZ'). I was assisted by the extensive photographic exhibits provided by the parties. When tested against the decision guidelines for design and siting issues in the FZ, I find that the dwelling and southern outbuilding's revised siting, scale (including height and bulk), colour, design and material selection (and associated works) would have no adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the area or natural environment.
7. There is no Planning Scheme guidance that requires a development to be invisible but rather calls for a sensitive siting and design response - in my view this is an outcome which this proposal achieves. There is no specific view or vista that is identified in the Planning Scheme that the proposed development would disrupt.
8. Contextually, the setting of all the dwellings in the immediate area is distinctly rural, and taking into consideration the separation distance between the proposed dwelling and the existing dwellings on adjoining land, I cannot conclude that the re-siting of the approved dwelling and southern outbuilding will have any appreciable negative visual amenity impact to either adjoining, nearby properties or broader area.
9. I say this for the following reasons.
10. The revised dwelling design provides for a lower building profile than that approved. The dwelling is comparable in scale to that which was originally approved, and the revised dwelling design provides a lower building profile. The reduced height of the dwelling and flat roofed design and more horizontal profile means that when viewed from the nearest dwelling (approximately 200 metres distant), the dwelling will appear more nestled into the landscape, rather than breaching the skyline. I do not agree that the revised dwelling location is on a ridgeline or hilltop - this is obvious from the plans. While the development site is at a high point of the land, it does not represent a 'ridgeline' or 'hilltop' as considered in policy.
11. The proposed dwelling will not be unreasonably intrusive when viewed from adjacent properties or public roadways. I am satisfied that the proposed dwelling is designed as a simple and cohesive contemporary building form that will not dominate its setting, as the dwelling's built form will present with rectilinear planes. The proposal maintains the same general colour palette as that already approved, and the inclusion of natural stone and timber will further integrate the dwelling into the landscape setting.
12. The revised siting of the dwelling and southern outbuilding will not impact upon any existing vegetation on the land. Therefore, the extent of the proposed development features will not discernibly alter the natural landform and landscape. While the dwelling and both outbuildings may be visible from various vantage points, this does not mean that they will detract from the significance of the rural character or landscape.
13. The proposed buildings are proximate to one another. This is consistent with the FZ Decision guidelines which seek a clustering of built form to minimise impact on agricultural land.
14. Further, I am not persuaded that the re-siting of either the dwelling or southern outbuilding will have an adverse impact on agricultural activities occurring on adjacent land. The applicant says that the revised siting of the southern outbuilding may give rise to noise that would affect sensitive horses in the adjacent paddock.
15. While it is policy that a dwelling should not adversely impact on existing agricultural activities, I have no evidence that the agricultural activity on the adjacent property (being horse breeding) would be fatally or unreasonably impacted.
16. The southern outbuilding is largely screened from the closest adjoining property by a mature cypress hedgerow. Access to the outbuilding is orientated to the north, with the entry roller doors being 30 metres from the property boundary and screened by the shed structure itself. The proposed outbuilding has no openings facing towards the adjacent site. The use of the outbuilding is for domestic purposes. Noise arising from domestic activities is managed through environmental regulations, and there is nothing before me to suggest any unusual or unreasonable noise is expected to occur.
17. I have no concerns regarding the size of the proposed outbuilding/s. I accept that the respondents wish to ensure that they have sufficient space, and to utilise the roof space of the southern outbuilding to install a large domestic solar energy system, and this has informed the orientation and length of the structure. In any event, as is evident in the immediate context, large outbuildings are a characteristic, and one expected on farming properties of this size.
18. With respect to landscaping, while the applicant was critical of the lack of landscape plan, I am satisfied that no specific plan is required. I say this because the property is in the FZ, the development is appropriate as proposed, and does not require landscape screening to be acceptable.
19. Finally, with respect to the applicants concerns regarding effluent disposal, they acknowledge that, generally speaking, effluent can usually be managed via permit conditions. I agree. This is a large landholding that is entirely capable of containing effluent disposal within its boundaries. The Council's expert environmental health officers have no concerns regarding effluent disposal and conditions on the NOD require this is consistent with relevant legislation.

1. As the council concedes that the application did not seek to amend the permit to the extent that it authorises the removal of the restrictive covenant over the land, I have reinstated this permit trigger, albeit using the new standard wording for permit preambles.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. An amended permit is granted subject to conditions.

A buildings or work associated with a use in Section 2 of Clause 35.07-1.

Remove a restriction under Section 23 of the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic).

1. Before the development starts, amended 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 then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must generally be in accordance with the plans submitted on 26 February 2025 but modified to show:

(a) the vehicle accessway at least 3.5 metres wide with 0.5 metre clearance on each side and 6.0 metre wide passing bays (plus clearances) provided every 200 metres. As the accessway is more than 100 metres in length, an appropriate turning area must be provided.

Use and development in accordance with endorsed plans:

1. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Covenant removal required prior to commencement of buildings and works condition:

1. The exterior colour and cladding of the building(s) must be of a non-reflective nature, in muted tones appropriate in the rural landscape, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Appropriate measures must be implemented throughout the construction stage of the development to rectify and/or minimise mud, crushed rock or other debris being carried onto public roads or footpaths from the subject land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Before an Occupancy Permit is issued for the dwelling hereby permitted, or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the following works must be completed in accordance with the endorsed plans and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

(a) All stormwater discharging from the site, buildings, vehicle access ways and works must be discharged to a water tank, soakwell or otherwise discharged so as not to cause erosion, flooding or nuisance to the subject or surrounding land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(b) The existing vehicle crossing providing access from McGraths Track must be upgraded between the edge of the existing road pavement and the property boundary to comply with the vehicle crossing standards as set out in Latrobe City Council's Standard Drawings LCC 306 and LCC 212 including provision of an all-weather sealed surface from the edge of the existing road pavement for a distance of six (6) metres toward the property boundary.

(c) The areas provided within the property for vehicle access to the permitted dwelling and associated buildings and works, must be constructed and surfaced with concrete, reinforced concrete, brick paving, gravel, crushed rock or hot mix asphalt so as to prevent mud or other debris from being carried onto the road and to meet the access standards of the Country Fire Authority which require:

(i) a minimum trafficable width of 3.5 metres with a minimum clearance of 0.5 metres to any structures on either side of the access,

(ii) Constructed to a standard that is accessible in all weather conditions and capable of accommodating a vehicle of 15 tonnes,

(iii) Minimum curve radius of 10 metres and grades of no more than 1 in 7, and

(iv) Where more than 100 metres in length, must include an appropriate turning area.

(v) Six (6) metre wide and twenty (20) metre long passing bays must be provided along the accessway with no greater than 200 metres between each passing bay as measured along the access.

1. Sewage, sullage and other liquid wastes to arise from the development shall be treated and retained on site by a septic tank system in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic), the EPA Guideline for onsite wastewater management May 2024, EPA Guideline for onsite wastewater effluent dispersal and recycling systems May 2024 and the Responsible Authority.
2. All waste water and liquid is to be contained and treated on site by a septic tank system or equivalent. The system must be at least 60 metres (Primary Treatment) or 30 metres (Secondary Treatment) from any watercourse and/or dam on the subject or neighbouring properties, and must meet the EPA Guideline for Onsite Wastewater Management May 2024, EPA Guideline for onsite wastewater effluent dispersal and recycling systems May 2024.
3. Prior to the commencement of construction of the dwelling or outbuilding, an Application for a Permit to Install a septic tank system must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to any installation.
4. Backwash from the swimming pool is to be diverted away from the onsite wastewater treatment and disposal system.
5. The inground swimming pool must be at least 6 metres away from the onsite wastewater system for primary treated wastewater.

1. Once building works have commenced, they must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The outbuilding must not be used for human habitation at any time.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit;

(b) The development is not completed and the use has not commenced within four years of the date of this permit;

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within six months of expiry of permit. An extension of time to complete the development or a stage of the development may be requested if:

• the request for an extension of time is made within 12 months after the permit expires; and
• the development or stage started lawfully before the permit expired.

[1] The submissions of the parties, any supporting exhibits provided to the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] Noting that the applicant raises no issue with respect to the proposed northern outbuilding.

[3] As sought in Clause 14.01-1S - Protection of agricultural land.