• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Hepburn Shire Council refused the permit. The applicants (Drs K & M Jones), who operate 'Big Shed Wines', sought review at VCAT. Evidence before the Tribunal included an agricultural report and lay evidence from Dr Miranda Jones and a landscape architect (Appearances). The planning controls applied were the Farming Zone (Clause 35.07), the Environmental Significance Overlay (Clause 42.01) and relevant local policies including Clause 22.04. Clause 35.07-3 permits resubdivision of existing lots provided the number of lots is not increased and requires a section 173 agreement (Planning controls policies [1]-[4]). The Tribunal heard submissions about on-site biodiversity improvements and the Joneses' intended continued involvement should the subdivision be approved (Tribunal's consideration [2]-[4]).

The Tribunal (Member N. Hadjigeorgiou) accepted the Responsible Authority's principal concerns: the proposed small dwelling lot would segregate land from productive agricultural use, risk proliferation of dwellings in the Farming Zone and create land-use conflict, and undermine the role of nearby Rural Living zoned land (Tribunal's consideration [5]-[7]). The Tribunal also recorded that the Joneses' intentions and assurances could not be assumed to guarantee the claimed benefits (Tribunal's consideration [8]-[10]). Ultimately the Tribunal affirmed the Responsible Authority's refusal and directed that a permit must not be granted (Order; Tribunal's consideration [11]).

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal's reasoning is grounded in the purposes of the Farming Zone and the relevant planning scheme policy. The Farming Zone's stated purposes include providing for agricultural use, encouraging retention of productive agricultural land and ensuring dwellings do not adversely affect agricultural uses (Planning controls policies [2]). The Tribunal focused on whether creating a separate small dwelling lot was consistent with those objectives.

Key elements of the Tribunal's reasoning:

• Fragmentation risk: The Tribunal accepted that creating a separate 1.23 ha lot would amount to segregation of land from productive agricultural use and further fragment farming land in the municipality (Tribunal's consideration [5], [7]). Fragmentation is a direct threat to the retention of productive agricultural land and the efficient operation of agricultural enterprises.

• Proliferation and conflict: The Responsible Authority's concern that such a subdivision would encourage proliferation of dwellings within the Farming Zone and heighten potential for conflict between residential and farming uses was accepted as justified (Tribunal's consideration [7]).

• Weight of intentions: The Tribunal made clear that the applicants' personal intentions, that the Joneses would remain nearby and assist future operators, and would undertake vegetation regeneration, were not enough to displace the scheme-based concerns. The Tribunal emphasised that the new owners of the agricultural lot may act differently and the Joneses might not continue to live on the small lot; such outcomes cannot be assumed (Tribunal's consideration [8]-[10]). Thus speculative or contingent benefits carry limited weight in an objective planning assessment.

• Context and comparators: The Tribunal distinguished a decision relied upon by the applicant (Lovrecic, Member Cimino), noting that that case concerned permission for a dwelling on a single lot (no subdivision) in an unusual context of many small occupied lots. By contrast the present case involved a resubdivision creating a small separate lot within broader farming land and therefore different planning consequences (Tribunal's consideration [11]).

These factors led the Tribunal to conclude the resubdivision was not consistent with the Farming Zone objectives, notwithstanding the fact the number of lots would not increase and Clause 35.07-3 contemplates resubdivision in some circumstances (Planning controls policies [1], Tribunal's consideration [6]). The Tribunal therefore affirmed the refusal (Order; Tribunal's consideration [11]).

Before and after state of the law

Before this decision: Clause 35.07 (Farming Zone) already permitted resubdivision in specified circumstances (resubdivision of existing lots provided the number of lots is not increased and a s173 agreement is entered into) and the planning scheme emphasises protecting productive agricultural land and resisting unplanned fragmentation (Planning controls policies [1]-[3], [7]).

After this decision: The Tribunal reaffirmed that the resubdivision carve-out is not an automatic licence to create smaller dwelling lots where the practical effect would be to segregate agricultural land from production and undermine Farming Zone objectives. The decision underscores that planning scheme purposes and local policy concerns about fragmentation, proliferation of dwellings and land-use conflict can prevail over a mechanical application of a resubdivision provision. It emphasises close factual assessment and scepticism toward speculative benefits reliant on the applicants' future conduct (Tribunal's consideration [5]-[11]).

Practically, the decision signals that consolidating an agricultural operation onto one title will not necessarily justify creation of a small residential lot where that lot would reduce the productive potential and change the character of farming land.

Key passages with plain-English translation

• Tribunal's statement: "The Responsible Authority in my view was justifiably concerned with the further fragmentation of farming land as a consequence of this resubdivision." (Tribunal's consideration [5]). Plain English: The Council's worry that dividing the land into a small house block and a farm block would break up farming land is reasonable and supported.

• Tribunal's statement: "the creation of a 1 hectare dwelling lot is in my view inconsistent with the underlining objectives and purposes of a farming zone." (Tribunal's consideration [6]). Plain English: Making a small house block in the Farming Zone goes against the main goals of that zone, which are to keep land in productive farming use and avoid isolated small house lots.

• Tribunal's statement: "I must indicate that such an outcome cannot be assumed to occur." (Tribunal's consideration [8]). Plain English: You cannot simply assume that, because the current owners say they will help, that they or future people will behave the same way; uncertain promises are weak evidence.

• Tribunal's conclusion: "I am of the view that the proposal is not consistent with the purposes of the farming zone and thus I propose to uphold the decision of the Responsible Authority and direct no permit issue." (Tribunal's consideration [11]). Plain English: The Tribunal decided the plan does not fit with the Farming Zone's goals and confirmed the council's refusal.

• Distinguishing earlier authority (Lovrecic): The Tribunal accepted that the other decision involved different facts (no subdivision; a dwelling to be built on an existing lot surrounded by other small residential lots), and so it did not apply here (Tribunal's consideration [11]). Plain English: A previous case where a house was allowed on a single small lot does not help in this different situation where a new small lot would be created inside farming land.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This decision is directly relevant where an application in a Farming Zone proposes:

• A resubdivision that would create a small separate lot for residential use (around 1 hectare or similar) while consolidating agricultural operations on the remainder; and

• The site is within an area where the planning scheme and local policy prioritise retention of productive agricultural land (eg identified as high-quality agricultural land or where fragmentation is discouraged), and

• The creation of the small lot would segregate part of the land from productive use and potentially encourage proliferation of dwellings or land-use conflict.

Factors that make this decision particularly applicable include: the lack of a compelling, enforceable mechanism (beyond s173) ensuring the claimed operational benefits will follow; nearby land retains farming character; and local policy expresses explicit concern about unplanned subdivision and loss of agricultural land (Planning controls policies [7], Tribunal's consideration [5]-[7]).

This decision will be less persuasive where the resubdivision is absent (no new lot), where the wider context comprises many existing small occupied lots and dwellings so that introducing a dwelling would not materially change the pattern of land use (as in Lovrecic), or where enforceable contractual or statutory arrangements demonstrably protect the agricultural enterprise and prevent fragmentation.

How later courts have treated it

The Tribunal in this decision expressly distinguished Lovrecic (Member Cimino, [2009] VCAT 329) on factual grounds and did not follow it (Tribunal's consideration [11]). The decision itself is a single-member VCAT determination and operates as persuasive authority for future VCAT panels or planning authorities considering similar resubdivisions. It reinforces a cautious approach to small residential lots within Farming Zones where fragmentation would occur. Any later court or tribunal would expect factual comparison to see whether the present case aligns with the fragmentation risk identified in Jones or instead matches the different context in Lovrecic.

(As this deep dive is restricted to this judgment, no further subsequent authority is cited in the reasons. Users should check post-2009 VCAT and court decisions to see how Jones v Hepburn SC has been applied or distinguished in later matters.)

Still-open questions

• Threshold of 'small lot': The decision identifies a 1.23 ha lot as inconsistent with Farming Zone objectives in these factual circumstances. It does not lay down a numeric bright-line rule. How large a lot would be acceptable depends on context: the decision leaves open what size or additional measures (eg enforceable s173 limitations, proven agricultural linkage obligations) might render a similar resubdivision acceptable.

• Enforceability of benefits: The Tribunal discounted speculative benefits from the applicants' intentions. It is unanswered whether more formalised legal mechanisms (eg binding s173 covenants requiring continued on-site management, occupation or stewardship arrangements) would carry sufficient weight to alter the outcome.

• Interaction with broader policy tools: The decision applied scheme objectives and local policy but did not exhaustively analyse possibilities such as clustering principles, transfer of development rights or the use of design and management conditions to protect agriculture. How such instruments might be used to reconcile consolidation of enterprise with retention of productive land remains open.

• Biodiversity claims: The Tribunal recorded proposed vegetation regeneration and biodiversity connectivity but did not accept these as decisive. It is an open question what level and enforceability of environmental enhancement would materially change the planning balance in favour of allowing a small residential lot.

• Precedent hierarchy: As a single-member VCAT decision, Jones is persuasive rather than binding. How higher courts would treat the reasoning if appealed or if identical facts arose before a court remains uncertain.

Practitioners should treat Jones v Hepburn SC [2009] VCAT 1522 as a cautionary authority: in Farming Zone contexts, resubdivisions that produce small separate dwelling lots will attract close scrutiny for fragmentation and proliferation risks, and reliance on proprietors' intentions without enforceable guarantees will carry limited weight (Tribunal's consideration [5]-[11]).