It is my view that the security and welfare risks associated with the proposed beef enterprise are minor and can be effectively mitigated without the need for a continuous presence on the property. It is also my view that the risks and potential income of $26,000 per annum does not justify the significant investment associated with construction of a dwelling.

1. The land is located in a GWZ1 and the relevant purposes include the use of land for agriculture, the protection and conserve green wedge land for agriculture and the opportunity to establish a variety of productive agricultural uses.[11] Whilst relevant decision guidelines seek consideration of the maintenance of agricultural production and the protection and retention of land for future sustainable agricultural activities.
2. A relevant objective at clause 11.01-1R seeks to protect green wedge land whilst a relevant strategy seeks to protect important productive agricultural areas. In this context the site is designated to be within a "General Agricultural Area 'on the Cardinia Shire Strategic Framework Plan at clause 21.01-5 and as having 'good' agricultural significance at clause 21.04-2. Notably 'good;' is the second highest rating of four ratings within the hierarchy after 'high'.
3. Clause 21.04-2 identifies the maintenance and protection of high value and productive agricultural land from incompatible uses and inappropriate development as being a key issue.
4. Clause 22.05-3 divides the area into three precincts. The land is located in Precinct 1: Agriculture, horticulture and soil based food production. [12] The vision for Precinct 1 is as follows:

Precinct 1 will be the hub of, agriculture, horticulture and soil-based food production within the Cardinia Western Port Green Wedge, taking advantage of its highly versatile soils, vegetable production (in particular asparagus), dairy and beef farming, other agricultural pursuits, potential access to Class A recycled water and the important role this precinct plays in food security. Land within the SUZ1 part of the precinct will be prioritised for soil-based agricultural and horticultural use and soil based food production with a focus on the consolidation of lots to support the economic viability of the agricultural and horticultural industry.

Opportunities for new, innovative or more intensive agriculture and horticulture and soil-based food production will be supported to ensure that the rich agricultural potential of the precinct is realised.

It will integrate biodiversity and agricultural outcomes by recognising ecosystem services which can improve agricultural efficiency.

Opportunities for linking the community with the local agricultural and horticultural industry will be identified and promoted to help establish food-based tourism within the precinct.

1. Under the heading 'Land use', it is policy at clause 22.05-3 that proposals should:
   • Ensure that green wedge soils and their versatility are recognised as a finite resource and are protected accordingly.
   • Maintain and protect the highly productive agricultural land from incompatible uses including non-soil based farming.
   • Provide for the restructuring of lots in agricultural areas to reduce the impact of old and inappropriate subdivisions on the economic agricultural viability of the area.
   • Minimise the risk of flooding which impacts on agricultural activities in the Koo Wee Rup Flood Protection District.
2. Under the heading 'Land use', it is policy at clause 22.05-3 that proposals should:
   • Ensure that green wedge soils and their versatility are recognised as a finite resource and are protected accordingly.
   • Maintain and protect the highly productive agricultural land from incompatible uses including non-soil based farming.
   • Provide for the restructuring of lots in agricultural areas to reduce the impact of old and inappropriate subdivisions on the economic agricultural viability of the area.
   • Minimise the risk of flooding which impacts on agricultural activities in the Koo Wee Rup Flood Protection District.
3. Having regard to the above there is significant guidance in the planning scheme that seeks to manage development and protect land in the GWZ1 for agricultural purposes. In this context, I have been persuaded by Council's submission that states:[13]

66.1 Policy clearly identifies the Subject Land as forming part of an area that has some of the best agricultural soil in Melbourne. The Subject Land is productive agricultural land through its designation as being of 'Good' agricultural significance. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest otherwise.

66.2 Land within the Western Port Green Wedge is intended to be protected as a significant part of the State's agricultural base, noting high quality green wedge oils are a finite resource that should be retained for agricultural pursuits and protected from the intrusion of rural-residential living.

66.3 The encroachment of residential activities into the green wedge is discouraged by directing them into townships and urban areas.

66.4 Precinct 1 is 'the hub of, agriculture, horticulture and soil-based food production' with 'rich agricultural potential'.

1. Given the above, there must be acceptable justification for the proposed dwelling. Both Council and the applicant referred me to several past Tribunal decisions that I have considered when making my decision.
2. The applicant states that a dwelling is required to establish the embryo transfer and artificial breeding program.
3. The FMP states the existing farming enterprise conducted by the owners since their purchase of the site in 2021 is operating at 50% or more of its' maximum productive capacity.
4. Having regard to the FMP, it appears there is potential for an increase in productivity for the current farming enterprise. Whilst there may be potential to increase the agricultural productivity of the land, I have not been persuaded the dwelling is necessary for the establishment of the proposed farming enterprise. More specifically, I have not been persuaded there is sufficient nexus between the proposed farming enterprise and dwelling to justify approval of the dwelling.
5. The unique aspects of the proposed farming enterprise on the land as detailed in the FMP appear to be the administering of a series of injections at particular times to prepare the cows for the embryo transfer, monitor the cows to ascertain the most appropriate time for the embryo transfer and the embryo transfer. Whilst there may be some variation in the optimum time for the embryo transfer and calving there is a commencement of the process that begins with the administering of the injections.
6. In response to questions from the Tribunal, the applicant stated the calving period for a cow is either from March to May or September to November each year and the gestation period is approximately nine months. They further stated the embryo are created off site, transported to the land, stored and implanted by a Vet.
7. Having regard to the above it is evident there is a documented process for the farming enterprise. In this context there is certainty in the activity associated with the proposed farming enterprise albeit there will be some variation as the farming enterprise comprises a biological process.
8. During the process there will be periods of more intense activity associated with the embryo transfer, monitoring and calving. During these periods there is likely to be a greater need for attendance on the land. However, it is noteworthy these more intense activities are for limited periods of time.
9. Councils' submission states, that other than the calving season, checking cattle every 2 to 3 days is adequate. They say during the calving period, twice daily checks (morning and evening) is considered best practice. They also say, a shelter including a calving paddock and a treatment shed, could provide the necessary infrastructure to enable the farming enterprise.
10. Whilst a permanent presence on site might be convenient, I am not persuaded that a dwelling on the land is required to conduct the farming enterprise. Having regard to the FMP it is evident that the process and schedule of preparing the cows for embryo transfer is conducted at specific times and persons involved in the process will know when they should attend the land and conduct the necessary monitoring and associated activity. This enables the farming enterprise to be conducted without the need for a dwelling. Those involved in the farming enterprise should be able to attend the land without having to live on it.
11. The lack of a dwelling may be inconvenient during periods of more intense activity such as monitoring the cows prior to embryo transfer or during the calving process. However, inconvenience is not justification for the development and use of a dwelling on land. There must be a nexus between the proposed dwelling and farming enterprise that is beyond mere convenience.
12. The activity associated with the farming enterprise is documented and known as per the FMP. Therefore, the persons involved in the farming enterprise will know when they are required to attend the site albeit there may some variation. They will have some prior knowledge of when the activity as detailed in the FMP is likely to occur. In this context, I am not persuaded there is a demonstrable need for the dwelling to enable the conduct of the farming enterprise.
13. Similarly, with respect to the breeding cycle exclusive of the embryo transfer and calving period, I have been persuaded by Council that routine attendance of the land to conduct welfare checks and provide feed can be managed without the need for a dwelling that enables someone to live on the land.
14. If being proximate to the farming enterprise is necessary, I note Council's submission that states the township of Longwarry is less than 4.0 kilometres from the subject land whilst the township of Bunyip is less than 5.0 kilometres away. Therefore, there are other opportunities for procuring a dwelling proximate to the land that would enable the conduct of the proposed farming enterprise without the need for a dwelling on the subject land.
15. The applicant seeks to justify the proposed dwelling on the basis of there being 16 dwellings proximate to the site that have been constructed on lots below the minimum lot size. Council submits many of these dwellings have been constructed without a planning permit. I am not persuaded the existence of these dwellings provides justification for the proposed dwelling in the absence of an acceptable nexus between the proposed farming enterprise and dwelling. With respect to this matter, I concur with the Tribunal as quoted in the Councils submission as follows:[14]
    1. The applicant referred to other examples of where dwellings on small lots or small lot house excisions elsewhere in the Cardinia Western Port Green Wedge have been approved to demonstrate that the proposal has similar merits for approval. Approvals for similar forms of use and development elsewhere may not be appropriate as a precedent, nor are they necessarily examples of orderly planning outcomes. My focus is on determining this matter based on its own merits and how the proposal responds to the planning scheme and its physical and policy contexts.[15]
16. The FMP provides a financial analysis of the existing and proposed farming enterprise. With respect to the existing enterprise the land is said to carry 20 cow/calf units yielding a net return of $10,290.00.[16]
17. With respect to the proposed farming enterprise the FMP states:[17]

This elite breeding business will become a significant local business and contribute considerably to the local economy, returning an annual net income of up to $18,000 in its early stages and, with an estimated $28,000 being spent on direct production costs, input costs and services at local businesses. As the enterprise intensifies with pasture improvements and stock numbers lifting, it is likely that a net return of $26,600 can be achieved on the property with some $50,000 being spent on products, services and the like.

1. Council submits the FMP demonstrates the proposed farming enterprise is small scale and unlikely to be commercially viable. They say:
   • The proposal will more than likely lead to a rural lifestyle outcome, while the applicant pursues its primary occupational pursuits associated with the family's cattle cartage business.
   • The estimated future income of $26,600 per annum represents a 'hobby-farm' scale operation i.e. a farm that is primarily residential in nature, rather than being operated for the purpose of generating a profit.
2. The financial analysis demonstrates that the proposed farming enterprise will result in an increase in the agricultural productivity of the land. An increase in productivity is supported by relevant policy.
3. However, while there is likely to be an increase in productivity the construction of the proposed dwelling will remove agricultural land from productive use. The proposed dwelling will result in a permanent change to the available agricultural land in the GWZ.
4. Therefore, in the absence of a demonstratable nexus between the proposed dwelling and farming enterprise the increase in productivity does not sufficiently justify the proposed dwelling in the context of the loss of productive agricultural land.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.

[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] Plan prepared by JDesign Group, Sheet 1 of 6, Revision C, dated August 2024.

[3] Plan prepared by JDesign Group, Sheet 4 of 6, Revision C, dated August 2024.

[4] Plan prepared by JDesign Group, Sheet 6 of 6, Revision C, dated August 2024.

[5] Farm Management Plan prepared by M Harms of On Farm Consulting.

[10] Council submission paragraph 30, pages 8 and 9.

[12] Clause 22.05-3, Map 1: Cardinia Green Wedge precincts.

[14] Applicant's submission paragraph 89, page 23.

[15] Kenny v Cardinia SC [2024] VCAT 415