[2006] VCAT 2098
General information, not legal advice.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2006-10-09
Original judgment source is linked above.
This matter is reasonably simple, either the land is required for a public purpose and in which case it should have been reserved accordingly rather than protected by stealth under the cover of an overlay or buffer area which effectively presents a reservation by subterfuge or a permit should be granted for the development of a dwelling for farming purposes.
28 On behalf of Goulburn Valley Water, Mr Sherman submitted that the declaration application is misconceived for various reasons based on an analysis of the provisions of the Act and relying upon various Supreme Court cases. We do not consider it is necessary to address these submissions in detail because in our view, the declaration is misconceived for more simple reasons.
29 First, the Environmental Significance Overlay and the application of the buffer distance is not intended to provide protection for the future expansion of the land area required for the Mooroopna Waste Water Treatment Facility as alleged by the applicants. It was Mr Hammond's clear and unequivocal evidence that Goulburn Valley Water has no intention to expand beyond its current land holding. If it intends to acquire additional land in the future, then it will need to purchase that land or otherwise go through the proper procedures associated with acquisition. The purpose of the buffer around the Waste Water Management Facility is not to protect land to facilitate the physical expansion of the facility. Rather it is to protect the operation of the facility and prevent potentially incompatible land uses from establishing within the buffer area that may be adversely affected by operation of the facility.
30 Second, we have refused to grant a permit on a planning grounds based on the fact that the land is not appropriate to be used for a dwelling because it is too close to the Mooroopna Waste Water Management Facility and because a dwelling on this small lot is contrary to the purpose of the Farming Zone and state and local policy to discourage construction of dwellings in rural areas not related to agriculture. These are not 'public purposes' within the meaning of the compensation provisions of the Act or as implied by the declaration sought.
31 For these reasons, the application for a declaration is refused.
[1] See paragraph 3.0 Environmental Significance Overlay - Schedule 3 and Schedule 2 clause 66.04 Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme.
[2] Clause 21.05-4 Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme.
[3] Clause 21.05-4 Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme.
[4] For example, see Sunraysia Water Board v J & M Kelly (Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 1994/013733), Boyer v Strathbogie SC [2004] VCAT 1624, Sandow v Moira SC [2004] VCAT 1998; Weightman v Murrindindi SC and Goulburn Valley Water [2005] VCAT 1097
[5] See EPA Publication AQ2/86 Recommended Buffer Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions (July 1990)
Napolitano
Greater Shepparton CC [2006] VCAT 2098