1. The proposed materials are not noted on the plans but this can be addressed via permit conditions.
2. A gravel driveway is proposed to connect the building to the existing internal driveway over which access to the cabin will be obtained.
3. An open car parking space is provided adjacent to the cabin on its eastern side.
4. Some cut and fill is proposed, as well as a retaining wall on the eastern side of the cabin.

1. The applicant proposes that the cabin form part of the use of the land for a Host Farm. The definition of a Host Farm under the planning scheme[7] is:

An agricultural property used to provide accommodation for persons, away from their normal place of residence, to experience living on land used for agricultural purposes

1. The OMP was submitted as part of the permit application to the council. It describes the current agricultural use as a prime beef vealer enterprise, where cattle are bred and raised on the land.
2. The OMP also describes how guests will experience living on the land for their stay. This includes:
   • Vaccination of cattle, including calves.
   • Supplementary feeding of stock.
   • Castration of bull calves.
   • Weighing and drenching calves.
   • Application of electronic eartags.
   • Fencing repairs and maintenance.
   • Checking cattle for general health issues.
   • Sileage production.
   • Strip grazing operations, including moving cattle and relocation of temporary fencing for strip grazing.
3. Other activities such as observing other agricultural operations and introduction information presented by the operator are proposed.

1. The subject site is located on the south-western corner of the intersection of Gibb Road and Dunns Creek Road in Red Hill.
2. As set out earlier, the subject site comprises six parcels of land, all contiguous and generally arranged in an 'L' shape. The subject site totals approximately 57 hectares, of which approximately 18 hectares is heavily vegetated and location in the south-eastern portion of the site. Scattered vegetation exists throughout the remainder of the site.
3. All other land is generally given over to grazing pasture, save for the area around an existing single storey brick dwelling, and other appurtenant elements of the agricultural operation such as stockyards and sheds.

Aerial image of the subject site (bordered in white) and immediate surrounds

1. Existing access is via an informal crossover to Gibb Road, leading to a driveway that runs centrally through the site to the existing dwelling.
2. The site is gently undulating although generally rises towards the east.
3. The surrounding area includes a subdivision pattern generally consisting of large, irregular allotments with no consistency of size or configuration. Scattered vegetation and some larger patches are evident throughout the wider landscape which is generally characterised by grazing agricultural uses. Other properties are generally developed with a single dwelling and outbuildings associated with agricultural uses.
4. Dunns Creek Road immediately abuts the site's northern most frontage, with other rural properties beyond.
5. The eastern boundary has various abuttals given its length and configuration. Gibb Road abuts the eastern boundary along its northern extent, with 55 Gibb Road abutting the central part. This property contains a dwelling towards the north-east corner and is approximately 250 metres to the subject site. Otherwise, this property is used for rural activities and is mainly comprises of cleared pasture.
6. The property at 395 Dunns Creek Road abuts the eastern part of the that forms the horizontal part of the 'L' formation. This is a large rural property substantially covered by vegetation with a dwelling closer to the Dunns Creek Road frontage.
7. There are a number of properties abutting the southern boundary being 91, 97, and 100 Browne Lane. These properties are substantially covered by vegetation as part of the wider bushland, with each containing a dwelling.
8. Several properties abut the review site to the west including 625 Dunns Creek Road, 635 Dunns Creek Road, 57 Harrisons Road and 101 Harrisons Road. These properties vary in size, and each contain a dwelling. The closest of these dwellings to the location of the proposed cabin is at 57 Harrisons Road which is approximately 400 metres away to the south-west.

Is the existing agricultural operation sufficient to provide a real host farm experience?

1. Council submitted that the scale and intensity of the agricultural use on the land is not great enough to warrant the use of the land as a host farm.
2. The Operational Management Plan (OMP) identifies the following activities that occur on the property in relation to the agricultural use:
   • Checking and repairing fences
   • Strip grazing temporary fences
   • Trough and pipe issues
   • Livestock wellbeing monitoring
   • Checking hay and silage
   • Vax cattle
   • Supplementary feeding
   • Fertiliser application
   • Hay and silage cutting/baling
   • Applying mandatory electronic eartags to calves
   • Checking for calving, issues etc
   • Eartags to calves
   • Castration of male calves
   • Weighing calves
   • Drenching calves
   • Vaccinate calves
3. The definition of Host Farm at clause 73.03 of the planning scheme is:

An agricultural property used to provide accommodation for persons, away from their normal place of residence, to experience living on land used for agricultural purposes.

1. The council referred to the case of Blackney v Surf Coast SC[8] as to what a host farm should involve in order for it to be relied upon to establish accommodation as part of that on the site:
   1. An 'experience' must be more than just being at a farm. It must be more than merely being given information about what happens at the farm. It connotes the opportunity to involve guests in what goes on at the farm. There must be a real and not tokenistic experience, based on the circumstances in a particular case. Nonetheless, guests do not have to be immersed in a farm experience for the whole of their stay and may take excursions to places of interest in the surrounding area.
2. The opportunities for guests to be involved in farming activities do not need to be of such a high degree that they are able to participate in every single task that may need to be undertaken on the farm. This would be highly impractical, and no doubt raise issues related to health and safety more usually reserved for and employer-employee arrangement. However, it does need to be of some substance and not just being told about what occurs on the land or a small level of involvement.
3. The council in its written submissions, referred to an extract of the delegates report that was written as part of the assessment of the application. This extract, and the submission, made an assessment that grazing of cattle is insufficient to justify the proposal.
4. However, the OMP identifies that what occurs is both the grazing and breeding of cattle. This was also confirmed orally by the applicant at the hearing.
5. The OMP identifies the following activities that occur on the property in relation to the agricultural use:
   • Checking and repairing fences.
   • Installing and relocating strip grazing temporary fences.
   • Checking reticulated water supply to troughs and addressing pipe issues.
   • Livestock wellbeing monitoring.
   • Checking hay and silage.
   • Vaccinating cattle.
   • Supplementary feeding of cattle.
   • Fertiliser application.
   • Hay and silage cutting, raking and baling.
6. In addition to the above, which would ordinarily be associated with grazing only of cattle, the OMP also identifies other activities that are associated with breeding of cattle, and the subsequent activities associated with resultant calves bred on the site including:
   • Applying mandatory electronic eartags to calves
   • Checking for calving, calving down issues etc
   • Applying eartags to calves
   • Castration of male calves
   • Weighing calves
   • Drenching calves
   • Vaccinating calves
7. The OMP was supplemented at the hearing by the applicant in written and oral submissions regarding what occurs on the farm and what guests could participate in. The applicant said that the guests were provided with the opportunity to actively participate in many of the activities listed above, much of which is encompassed as stock care, pasture improvement, water management and infrastructure maintenance.
8. Obviously, there may be some limitations of guests participating in particular activities because of matters such as the need for particular expertise or risk.
9. The council referred me to the decision of the Tribunal in Mahood v Bass Coast SC[9]. This case also refers to the decision in Blackney v Surf Coast SC & Ors where the Tribunal found that in deciding whether a proposal is properly characterised as a host farm, the two key questions are:
   • Whether the land is a farm; and
   • Whether guests will be provided with a farm experience.
10. Blackney also sets out the following:
    1. An 'experience' must be more than just being at a farm. It must be more than merely being given information about what happens at the farm. It connotes the opportunity to involve guests in what goes on at the farm. There must be a real and not tokenistic experience, based on the circumstances in a particular case. Nonetheless, guests do not have to be immersed in a farm experience for the whole of their stay and may take excursions to places of interest in the surrounding area.

1. The farm experience guests will receive on the farm will be wandering around the farm themselves or by asking the farm manager for a 'farm tour' or both.
2. Wandering around a farm at which hay is grown and observing a few cattle and sheep is a low-quality farm experience. Mr Blackney also offers limited recreational activities such as riding go-karts and climbing a tree house. These recreational activities are not a farm experience or, in this case, ancillary to a farm experience...
3. It must also be pointed out that whilst council was relying on these decisions in relation to findings about the nature of a host farm, the two decisions referred to above were found to have inadequate connection to agriculture. In the case of Blackney, the 'farm experience' was quite limited. In Mahood, the 'farm experience' would constitute guests fishing in a dam associated with a future pursuit of aquaculture that was a tourism activity.
4. The existing agricultural pursuits on the subject site are substantially more involved. The two other decisions referred to above can be easily distinguished on this basis.
5. In my view, the definition of a host farm does not require or imply that guests essentially become de facto farmhands. The definition does not require guests to be immersed in the agricultural operations like a farmer or employee would. There has to be an acceptance that as part of a host farm, such a level of involvement by guests will probably never occur.
6. Breeding of cattle is inherently more complex and has more associated tasks than simple grazing or fattening of beef cattle, for example.
7. It is the combination of all of the activities associated with the breeding and raising of cattle that has persuaded me that the intensity of the existing agricultural operation on the land means it is sufficient in my view, to warrant the approval of the host farm use.
8. Based on the material filed with the Tribunal and submissions at the hearing, I find the level of activity associated with the agriculture undertaken and the scale and intensity of the host farm use is 'about right'. Meaning any lessening of the agricultural activity on the land or increase in the intensity of the host farm use might alter the acceptability of the proposal.
9. Whilst I have been persuaded by the various information and material before me that the activities currently undertaken on the land are adequate to determine that the proposal is a host farm, I think that it is necessary that the OMP be amended to more comprehensively capture the activities that occur, and which the guests will be able to participate in. The information I have relied upon in arriving at my decision is drawn from various sources and having one comprehensive document, that can be endorsed as part of the permit documentation, is necessary.

Is a host farm on the site an acceptable outcome?

1. Council said that a host farm is a form of accommodation and that accommodation uses are highly regulated by the GWZ and discouraged where not genuinely associated with a use that is encouraged by the GWZ.
2. The council also submitted that because it said the proposal had not demonstrated a genuine connection to agriculture, that the establishment of a host farm would effectively fragment agricultural land.
3. Furthermore, the council said the occupation of part of the site that is used for productive agriculture would now be given over to non-agricultural use, including the footprint of the cabin and the any wastewater treatment area required. The council said this would be a loss of productive agricultural land and also raised the prospect of 'reverse amenity impacts', being impacts from other nearby agricultural uses potentially impacting on the cabin and therefore potentially limiting those existing agricultural uses.
4. The council also said that the limited benefits derived from the proposal would outweigh the detriments, when assessing the proposal against all relevant policy. That is, the council said that the tourism and economic policy guidance in the planning scheme might be met by the proposal, but it said these were small and contrasted with the detriment of fragmentation of productive agricultural land, impacts on landscape values and
5. The respondents raised concerns that allowing the cabin on a separate lot would amount to fragmentation of a farm comprised of several lots, and that doing so would create a precedent for incremental cabin development across similarly fragmented rural land holdings and undermining land consolidation and agricultural productivity objectives under the GWZ3.
6. A host farm is a section 2, 'permit required' use in the GWZ. The purposes of the GWZ refer to the protection and conservation of green wedge land for its agricultural and tourism opportunities.
7. Relevant policy[10] aims to protect green wedge agricultural land from permanent loss by way of incompatible uses and development and to protect agriculture in rural areas[11].
8. Strategic Directions under Clause 02.03-1 (Settlement) include:
   • Protect green wedge land, maintain the Urban Growth Boundary and protect the 'green break' between the Peninsula and metropolitan Melbourne.
   • Maintain rural areas for their environmental, landscape, recreational and agricultural values, and minimise development that could have an adverse impact on these values and on land located in the Green Wedge Zone or Farming Zone.
9. The Mornington Peninsula Localised Planning Statement is referenced at Clause 11.03-5S (Distinctive Areas and Landscapes) of the Planning Policy Framework, and its importance and role is established by Ministerial Direction 17 - Localised Planning Statements.
10. Under this Statement, strategies seek to recognise and protect the value of the Mornington Peninsula for agriculture and to support and encourage sustainable agricultural land use.
11. Strategic directions for economic development of the shire are at clause 02.03-6. Amongst these are the following:
    • Maintain the long-term recreational role of the Peninsula, which underpins the tourism sector, to support the local economy.
    • Support businesses that improve the ability to experience the Peninsula's natural and cultural recreational values, such as the provision of short-term and home-hosted accommodation, host farms and similar uses. (Tribunal emphasis)
12. When read collectively, I find that policy within the planning scheme seeks to protect agricultural land from permanent loss, and that productive agricultural land be able to continue to be used in that manner, without be adversely impacted by new uses or development.
13. Similarly, policy also encourages tourism uses to take advantage of the existing assets of the GWZ, such as agriculture. The establishment of host farms is specifically supported in policy at clause 02.03-6 as set out above.
14. I have already set out my reasons as to why I do not think the proposed host farm is separate from the farm use, or that the intensity of the agricultural use is insufficient to warrant a host farm from establishing. It is on this basis that I am not persuaded that the proposal will fragment agricultural land, in a fundamental and adverse way.
15. I am satisfied that the proposed host farm has a necessary relationship with the agricultural operation, and the intensity of the host farm use low enough such that it will not be a dominant use or one which will hinder the agricultural operation to an unacceptable degree.
16. In terms of the footprint of the proposed host farm cabin and its associated curtilage, this will obviously reduce the amount of land available to productive agriculture.
17. However, there is nothing in the planning scheme that I was taken to that demands that the accommodation component of a host farm be restricted to non-productive locations within properties.
18. It follows that objectively, the fact that a host farm is a section 2 use in the GWZ, and that host farms are specifically encouraged by local level policy, means that there is an acceptance at a broad policy level that a host farm may occupy part of a productive farm. In this instance, I am therefore not persuaded that such an outcome will be unacceptable.
19. In terms of 'reverse amenity impacts', such as the operation of the agricultural activity on the site itself, as well as those on the adjoining land to the east, I accept that there may be some impacts. However, I am not persuaded that such impacts should warrant the refusal of this application.
20. Although the definition of host farm in the planning scheme does not specifically make reference to the accommodation being short term, I find that this is implied in the definition by referencing the provision of accommodation "...for persons, away from their normal place of residence..."
21. In my view, it therefore follows that any impacts from agricultural activity will be short lived by any one person or group of persons staying at the host farm. This differs from a permanent dwelling where such impacts may be experienced by the one occupant on an ongoing basis and therefore give rise to ongoing land use conflicts.
22. I am also not persuaded that the proposal will result in fragmentation of an existing farm comprised of multiple parcels. My decision relates to the host farm being reliant upon the whole farm and I am not persuaded that this decision will become the catalyst for others. Even if it did, those applications need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. As I have set out, the decision in this case is entirely based upon the details of this proposal and the nuances of this site.
23. Given the proposed host farm is relatively modest, I find that its impact on agriculture will be minimal and although modest, it will provide benefits when assessed against policy. On this basis, and on balance, I find that policy supports the proposal.

1. Council included the requirement for a section 173 agreement to be registered on title as part of its draft 'without prejudice' conditions circulated prior to the hearing[12]. The council said that because the subject site comprises of five separate lots, and the agricultural use upon which the host farm occurs over all of those lots, and each lot is able to be separately transferred, that a section 173 agreement should be registered on title. The council said that the purpose of the section 173 Agreement would require the Owner undertake the following:
   1. Implement measures of the endorsed Operational Management Plan.
   2. To cease the host farm use if the use of the land for agriculture ceases or if any of the five lots that comprise the subject site are transferred to different ownership.
   3. To remove the host farm building from the land should the agricultural use cease.
2. The council said the host farm use relies upon the existing agricultural operation as set out in the OMP, and ongoing implementation of the OMP should be required by a section 173 agreement.
3. The respondents made submissions regarding the proposed accommodation for the host farm being located on a title separate from that which contained the existing dwelling, and the ability for this lot on its own to provide the 'farm experience' necessary to establish a host farm. They said the lot upon which the cabin is proposed is not used separately from the other lots that comprise the farm, and therefore not capable of being separately used as a host farm.
4. The applicant said in past decisions, the Tribunal has been clear that section 173 agreements should not to be used automatically or indiscriminately, but reserved for special circumstances where permit conditions alone are inadequate.
5. It was further said by the applicant that well-drafted permit conditions are sufficient to achieve compliance and can be enforced under section 114 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), without imposing the additional burden, cost, and complexity of a registered agreement. In support of these submissions, the applicant relied on a number of previous Tribunal decisions[13] that it said had established this position. In one of the cases, Taras Nominees Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula SC, the Tribunal stated the following:
   1. ...It is for special purposes and special purposes and specific outcomes when an ordinary condition might not be able to deliver the certainty that is required. It is best applied to a tailored outcome determined by the merits or nuances of a case...
6. The pertinent question to ask in this instance is: can permit conditions adequately perform the task of what the council seeks via a section 173 agreement?
7. I agree with the council that there needs to be some rigour applied to the material relied upon and submissions made regarding the proposed host farm building being used for that purpose. In my view, most of the requirements set out in the draft condition for a section 173 agreement could ordinarily be dealt with via conditions.
8. However, the applicant relies on the entire farm, and the OMP to justify the host farm. The whole farm, as set out in various application material, is the six parcels I have previously described.
9. The reliance on both the whole farm (the six parcels), as well as the OMP, is fundamental to my decision to allow the use of the land as a host farm. The Tribunal has not been asked to make its decision on the basis of the lot upon which the cabin is proposed. It has been asked to make its decision on the basis of 'the farm'.
10. In my view, the imposition of permit conditions cannot alone serve the role of ensuring that the host farm may only continue to operate if the six lots remain in common ownership. If one or more parcels were separately transferred, then this would call into question the basis of my decision, because my decision is based on the entirety of the farm being relied upon to establish the host farm.
11. A section 173 agreement would not only serve as a restriction on the title, but also notice to any prospective purchasers of any of the lots, that each title is relied upon to justify the use of the whole of the site for the purpose of a host farm. This, in my view, is an important distinction from many other circumstances where permits often only apply to one lot. In this case where multiple lots are relied upon, this creates a nuanced circumstance that I find warrants the imposition of a section 173 agreement. This is because if the subject were to be broken up, then future land owners should be made aware of how this permit may affect them and the obvious way to do this is via a section 173 agreement which will be required to be registered on title.

1. There was no dispute between any of the parties that the proposed cabin that enables the host farm is an acceptable outcome in terms of development impacts.
2. The proposed cabin is a modest, low-scale and confined development. It contains one bedroom, a lounge room with kitchen and a modest bathroom. The total habitable space is approximately 32 square metres. There is also an external deck which equates to approximately 26.5 square metres. The cabin will also be a maximum of 4.05 metres in height.
3. Materials and colours are not nominated on the architectural drawings but these matters can be sufficiently dealt with through permit conditions which I have included on the permit.
4. Subject to those conditions, I find that the proposed development of the host farm cabin and associated works will be acceptable, based on its modest size and the overall minimal impact on the surrounding environment.

1. Agricultural operation is undertaken across the five lots that form the review site. All six lots are in common ownership.
2. During the course of the hearing, it became apparent that part of the vehicle turning area for the proposed cabin straddled two parcels of land. It is generally undesirable to have development, or a necessary aspect of the proposal such as the turning area, straddling two lots, regardless of whether they are in common ownership or not. Therefore, I will include a condition to require amendments to the turning and parking area to ensure these elements are entirely contained within Lot 2 PS211171L.
3. Add s173 condition back in and refine.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Lots 1, 2 and Road R1 on Plan of Subdivision 122911

To construct or carry out a building and works associated with a Section 2 use.

To construct a building or construct or carry out works.

To construct a building or construct or carry out works.

1. Before the use or developments starts, amended plans 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. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

(a) A plan showing the full extent of the use including all of the land parcels to which the permit applies.

(b) A post and wire fence around the host farm cabin and associated waste water treatment area in order to protect these structures from cattle.

(c) Setbacks of the proposed building from the north and east boundaries of the lot in which it is located.

(d) The host farm building and all associated buildings and works, including the driveway and vehicle turning area to be wholly contained within Lot 2 PS211171L.

(e) The proposed materials and colours to be applied to the host farm building.

1. Before the use or developments starts, an amended Operational Management Plan (OMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The amended OMP must be generally in accordance with that filed with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 12 September 2025, noted as 'Operational management plan VCAT Matter No P298-2025 - P24-1837 Operational management plan' (three pages) but amended as follows:

(a) All five lots and parcel Road R1 that comprise the subject site must be:

1. clearly delineated in plan form; and
2. specifically referenced in text form.

(b) Clearly set out all activities that guests are able to actively participate in.

(c) Set out that calf breeding and rearing forms part of the agricultural operation.

(d) Include a document date.

Once approved, the Operational Management Plan will be endorsed and must be implemented and maintained in perpetuity, as part of the use of the approved host farm, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The use of the land as a host farm may only operate if the agricultural activities on the land:

(a) are carried out generally in accordance with those set out in the Operational Management Plan; and

(b) continue to occur over all six land parcels referred to in this permit.

1. Should the agricultural use referred to in the Operational Management Plan endorsed under this permit cease, the host farm:

(a) building (cabin) must be removed from the land.

(b) use must cease.

1. Should any of the five lots (Lot 1 on LP211171L, Lot 2 on LP211171L, Lot 1 on LP129097, Lot 1 on LP122911 and Lot 2 on LP122911) or Road R1 on title Volume 09156 Folio 939 be transferred to different ownership from one another, the host farm use must cease immediately upon transfer of any such lot and the host farm building (cabin) must be removed from the land within six months of such transfer.

Section 173 Agreement

1. Prior to the commencement of the host farm use, the owner must enter into an Agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Agreement must be prepared and registered on the title to the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Agreement must require the owner or occupier to undertake the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

(a) Implement measures of the endorsed Operational Management Plan.

(b) Should any of the five lots (Lot 1 on LP211171L, Lot 2 on LP211171L, Lot 1 on LP129097, Lot 1 on LP122911 and Lot 2 on LP122911) or Road R1 on title Volume 09156 Folio 939 be transferred to different ownership from one another, the host farm use must cease immediately upon transfer of any such lot and the host farm building (cabin) must be removed from the land within six months of such transfer.

(c) All costs associated with the drafting and registration of this Agreement on title, are to be borne by the permit holder.

This Agreement must be registered by the Applicant on title, prior to the commencement of the use of the host farm, pursuant to Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

1. The approved development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority (Unless otherwise specified by a condition of this permit, consent is not required for any buildings or works which do not require a planning permit under the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme).

1. The materials and colours of the exterior finish of the building must be in accordance with the endorsed plans unless with the further permission of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the initial occupation of the building external finishes must be completed to a professional standard to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

1. All wastewater from the approved development must be contained on site in accordance with the Council's Wastewater Management Plan, and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use or development, through the:

(a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land.

(b) Appearance of any buildings, works or materials.

(c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, dust, waste water or other waste products.

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

(a) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

(b) The use is not commenced within five years of the date of this permit.

In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

[1] The submissions of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at 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] Although the applicant said at the hearing that the land had been destocked at that time owing to drought conditions.

[3] The council's Preliminary matters submissions dated 18 September 2025

[4] Excluding Road R1 on Plan of Subdivision 122911.

[5] Except for part of the new driveway turning area for the new cabin.

[6] At paragraph 29 of the council's Preliminary matters submissions dated 18 September 2025.

[8] Blackney v Surf Coast SC & Ors [2013] VCAT 218.

[9] [2021] VCAT 890

[10] At clauses 11.01-1R, 14.01.1R and 14.01-1L.

[12] As required by VCAT Practice Note PNPE2.

[13] Burgess v Mornington Peninsula SC [2015] VCAT 465, Rose v Mornington Peninsula SC [2013] VCAT 38, Taras Nominees Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula SC [2012] VCAT 1889, Schiavello & Anor v Yarra Ranges SC [2009] VCAT 1237.