1. The decision of the Responsible Authority is varied.
2. In planning permit P11/1984 issued by the Responsible Authority on the 5 April 2012:
   • Condition 1B is deleted and replaced with the following:

B. A plan that shows a domestic building envelope of no more than 10% of the site area (being 1430sqm), including the effluent disposal field. Note: all buildings and works not explicitly approved by this permit may require further planning approval.

• Condition 1D is deleted and replaced with the following:

D. An integrated land management plan and implementation program prepared by a suitably qualified professional that includes:

i. Planting of no less than 95 olive trees in Paddock 2;

ii. Management and eradication of woody weeds and noxious weeds;

iii. Protection measures for any native flora or fauna;

iv. Fencing types to allow free passage for native indigenous animals;

vi. Methods to protect and enhance open views of landscape of the area; and

• Condition 7 is deleted and replaced with the following:

The management of the land and the activities on the site must accord with the endorsed integrated land management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

• At condition 8 replace the word "six" with the word "twelve"
• Condition 9 is deleted.
• Condition 10 is deleted and replaced with the following.

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

a) The development and use is/are not started within two years of the date of this permit.

b) The development is not completed 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 three months afterwards.

Section 80 Planning and Environment Act 1987

The subject land is an irregular 1.43 ha parcel of green wedge land. The site was formerly owned by the operator of a bus company and a large shed remains on the land which was used for bus repair and storage.

There is no existing dwelling on the land, although I was advised that an older style dwelling burnt down some years previously.

There are two similarly sized rural lifestyle properties to adjoining the site and there are a variety of green wedge properties throughout the area.

1. This proceeding pertains to an application for review of conditions in Planning Permit P11/1984.
2. At the Hearing, I received submissions from all parties. Submissions, plans, photos and other documents submitted at the hearing are retained on Tribunal files.
3. A number of the requested changes to conditions were agreed to by the Responsible Authority. These include changes to Conditions 1B, 1E, 5 and 8.
4. Having considered the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, the purpose of the Zone, the decision guidelines of the relevant clauses of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme and the submissions of the parties, I have determined to vary the decision of the Responsible Authority. My reasons follow.

1. From the material that is before me it would appear that, what is proposed is essentially a rural lifestyle dwelling. The permit applicant included the planting of 66 olive trees with the original application but clearly indicated that they were for personal use.
2. Dwellings in the Green Wedge Zone are generally discouraged, particularly where they will result in a rural residential or lifestyle use without link to agriculture or other land uses supported in the zone. Many of the conditions of permit in contention are directed at creating this link. They seek the provision of additional olive trees and the preparation of a farm management plan.
3. It is not for me to question the permit issued. I am required to consider only whether the conditions contested are reasonable. However, while rural lifestyle properties are generally discouraged within the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme, there will always be cases which provide an exception and I am satisfied that this site is one of those, primarily because of the specific site history in this case. The size of the land, its previous use and current development when taken into account support the proposed use of the land.
4. A number of the conditions were based on a non-incorporated or referenced policy. It was submitted that the policy provides delegated powers to Council officers where particular conditions are included on any permits granted, with no discretion available to those officers to vary the conditions to the particular circumstances. This appeared problematic in the subject application whereby the site did not reflect what could be considered "typical" circumstances.
5. I now consider each condition in turn.

Condition 1D Requirement for a Farm Management Plan.

1. This condition sought the preparation of a Farm Management Plan including additional planting of Olive trees over and above what the applicant had indicated in their proposal. Given that it was the clear intention of the applicant not to run a farm, this condition is problematic. The applicant did agree to additional olive tree density in one paddock and I will require this, but I do not consider that it is appropriate to attempt to make the permit applicant plant additional olive trees in Paddock 3.
2. Ms. Jordon submitted that the applicant would be prepared to provide an integrated Land Management Plan (as set out in the decision guidelines to the zone) addressing such items as weed management. I consider that this would be a reasonable imposition in this case. I have amended Condition 1D accordingly and also amended condition 7 which referred to the implementation of the Farm Management Plan.

Condition 9 Section 173 Agreement

1. Council required preparation of a detailed Section 173 Agreement to enforce the Farm Management Plan but to also require a range of other matters such as the responsible management of dogs and cats. I agree with the permit applicant that this condition is unduly onerous. Some aspects, such as inter-property spray drift, if of concern to Council could be included in the required Land Management Plan.

1. Council sought a separate landscape plan for the house site and new driveway which did not include any olive planting. This is a common and reasonable condition and is retained.

1. Council sought to limit the expiry of this permit to require development to be completed in 2 years rather than 4 and allowing the use to commence at 2 and half years. I see no justification why the usual provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 should be varied in this case and will amend condition 10 accordingly.

1. Council agreed to alter the heading above this condition from "vehicular crossing" to "Driveway". This is a change that the Council can make, as I must address the conditions of permit (not the format adopted by Council).

1. The decision of the responsible authority is varied.