1. Each of the individual elements of the development I find unacceptable and therefore should be refused.
2. Having regard to my earlier comments on the findings of Boroondara v 1045 Burke Road considering the proposal as a whole does not change my view on any of these findings. Considering the development proposal as a whole only conflates the issues identified in their individual elements. This is because combined, the visual impact of the two structures, dam and earth mounds will result in an aspect that will be quite out of character to the existing rural and rural residential landscape of the area.
3. The decision of the responsible authority is therefore affirmed. No permit is granted.

[1] The submissions and evidence 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] Paragraph 7, Hycenko v Mornington Peninsula SC unreported - Order dated 11 September 2017.

[3] A dwelling is a section 1 (no permit required) use and development only if it forms part of an approved development plan or is located north of the Nepean Highway and south of Pickings Road and meet other development conditions, notably that it is connected to reticulated sewerage. The development does not meet these requirements and therefore buildings and works require a permit.

[4] Clause 57 applies to the land as it forms part of the green wedge.

[5] [2015] VSCA 27

[6] Boroondara City Council v 1045 Burke Road Pty Ltd [2015] VSCA 27 at paragraph 36.

[7] [2008] VCAT 1472 at paragraph 60.

[8] [2005] VCAT 1535 at paragraphs 28 and 29.

[9] Mornington Peninsula SC v Ingersoll [2017] VCAT 1446, Manningham CC v Hoe [2010] VCAT 1079 and Hoe v Manningham City Council [2011] VSC 543