1. The Tribunal erred in law by rigidly applying planning policy that each of the proposed lots must be economically viable, alternatively inappropriately applied the said planning policies.
2. The Tribunal erred in law, and acted upon an irrelevant consideration, in interpreting references in the Metropolitan Region Policy to viable minimum lot sizes capable of efficient, sustainable agricultural production, and in Policy DC 3.4 to the effect that agricultural land should not be withdrawn from productive use, as requiring economical viability for each proposed lot.
3. The Tribunal in any event unreasonably and improperly found that the proposed lots were not economically viable, by relying on the evidence of Mr Johnston without any or any due consideration of the opposing, credible evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants which substantiate economic viability.
4. The Tribunal erred in law, and acted upon an irrelevant consideration, in having regard to the motivation and personal circumstances of the applicants for the subdivision application in refusing the application.
5. The Tribunal erred in its conclusion in paragraph 8 of its reasons that the current situation of the appellants does not create an unsatisfactory position for the proper use of the land for agricultural purposes.
6. The Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the relevant planning policies, and acted upon an irrelevant consideration, in concluding that a reason for refusing further subdivision was the potential, future use of the land for non rural and non agricultural uses, whereas any such uses can only be evaluated if and when they are proposed, and when such uses are further controllable by appropriate zoning conditions, conditions of subdivision and/or conservation covenants.
7. The Tribunal erred in law and in fact in concluding that the planting of olive trees on one of the proposed lots would not facilitate the introduction of new rural economic activities, on the basis that olive production on the lot was not economically viable.
8. The Tribunal erred in law, and acted upon irrelevant considerations, in refusing the application in reliance upon each of the following:
8.1 the purported better use which could be made of the land than by the uses proposed by the appellants;
8.2 the purported circumstances that as Mr Harrington's olive plantation plans required only 12 hectares (and not 20, as in the proposed lot), a more efficient division of the land is possible;
8.3 the respondent's practice of refusing similar subdivision proposals in the locality and in the wider rural zone.
9. The Tribunal erred in its evaluation of the evidence of Mr Wells and Mr Ingram by finding that Mr Well's evidence of the effect of good husbandry on the land was of limited use because Mr Ingram's proposals to divide his land into 6 or 7 paddocks, when this proposal would further good husbandry.
10. That upon setting aside the decision of the Tribunal, the subdivision application should be approved upon a proper appreciation of the evidence and proper application of the relevant planning legislation and policies.