1. Debra Rose applied for a permit to place a portable classroom on a lot of some 4.38 hectares and convert it to a dwelling. She intends to undertake various internal works to the building to make it suitable for habitation, alter the external layout to make it look like a dwelling together with other necessary improvements including collection to a septic tank system, installation of solar panels for electricity supply.
2. Northern Grampians Shire Council refused the permit application on the following grounds:
   • The proposed use and development is contrary to the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and in particular clause 17.05 - Agriculture;
   • The proposed use and development is contrary to the Local Planning Policy (LPPF) and in particular clause 21.06 - Agriculture (objective 1);
   • The proposed use and development would result in a built form outcome that would impact negatively on the natural beauty and character of the area.
3. Jenny Boisen, Barbara Dwyer and Maurice Holden, objectors, supported the Responsible Authority's decision. In their respective statements of grounds they raised various issues which can be summarised as:
   • Opposition to the farming area being undermined.
   • Opposition to the use of a portable classroom for dwelling purposes.
   • Loss of productive agricultural land.
   • Adversely effect agricultural activities on adjacent farming land.
   • Loss of values.
   • Lead to concentration or proliferation of dwellings on land for agricultural purposes.
4. Ms Wilkinson on behalf of Debra Rose refuted grounds and claimed that the proposal would produce positive outcomes.
5. The principal issues for determination are:
   • Is the proposed use and development supported by State and Local planning policy and the purposes of the Farming zone.
   • Will the proposed use lead to potential conflicts with farming practices.
   • Is the appearance of the proposed house unreasonable.
6. I have considered all submissions, examined the planning policy framework and the purposes of the Farming zone and inspected the subject site and locality and I consider the Responsible Authority's decision was correct. My reasons are as follows.

1. It is proposed to transport a portable classroom onto the site and convert it to a dwelling. This conversion would include internal alterations and a fit out for habitable purposes. There will be external alterations involving new façade treatment.
2. No details were supplied on septic tank although Ms Wilkinson advised in her submission that the applicant propose to connect to a septic tank in accordance with the SEPP. She also advised of details of the proposed form of alternative electricity supply, reliance on water through rainwater tanks. Access to the site will be from Landsborough Road, a sealed road.

1. The subject site is located on the southern side of Landsborough Road, east of Wests Road near the settlement of Concongella. Concongella is about 3 kilometres east of the Stawell township with the subject site being a further 1.5 kilometres from the Concongella settlement.
2. The site is about 4.38 hectares in area (11 acres) and virtually contains no native vegetation. It is located on gently sloping land set in a farming area predominantly established for sheep grazing.
3. At the time of inspection of the site much of the locality was parched as it was at the end of a severe drought. The area to the east of Concongella is, for most part, an attractive rural setting with farm houses encompassed by roadside canopy vegetation and other copses of trees throughout the landscape. It is indeed an attractive rural setting.

Planning Controls and Policies- Northern Grampians Planning Scheme

1. The subject site and all surrounding properties are located in a Farming Zone. The relevant purposes of the zone include:
   • To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
   • To provide for the use of land for agriculture.
   • To encourage the retention of productive agricultural land.
   • To ensure that non agricultural uses, particularly dwellings, do not adversely effect the use of land for agriculture.
2. A permit is required to use land for a dwelling on a lot that is less than 80 hectares in area[1]. In the Farming zone the requirements of Clause 35.07-2 must be met and these require:
   • Access to a dwelling by an all weather road.
   • Connection to a reticulated sewerage system or treatment of or wastes in accordance with SEPP Septic Tank Code of Practice.
   • Connection to a reticulated potable water supply or have an alterative potable water supply with adequate storage for domestic use as well as for fire fighting purposes.
   • Connection to reticulated electricity or have an alternative energy source.
3. A permit is also required for buildings and works under Clause 35.07-4. Decision Guidelines in Clause 35.07-6 guide the exercise of discretion. In particular the section titled 'Dwelling Uses" requires a Responsible Authority to consider:
   • Whether the dwelling will result in the loss or fragmentation of productive agricultural land.
   • Whether the dwelling is reasonably required for the operation of the agricultural activity conducted on the land.
   • Whether the dwelling will be adversely effected by agricultural activities on adjacent and nearby land due to dust, noise, odour, use of chemicals and farm machinery, traffic and hours of operation.
   • Whether the dwelling will adversely effect the operation and expansion of adjoining and nearby agricultural uses.
   • The potential for the proposal to lead to a concentration or proliferation of dwellings in the area and the impact of this on the use of the land for agriculture.
4. There are various State and Local Planning policies of relevance in this application more particularly:
   • Clause 17.05 Agriculture. The objective of this clause is:

"To ensure that the state's agricultural base is protected from the unplanned loss of productive agriculture land due to permanent changes of land uses and to enable protection of productive farm land which is of strategic significance in the local or regional context.

1. Under the "General Implementation" section of Clause 17.05 one of the purposes states:

Permanent removal of productive agricultural land from the state's agricultural base must not be undertaken without consideration of its economic importance for the agricultural production and processing sectors. 2. There is also noteworthy guidance in Clauses 21.03-2, 21.05 and 21.06 of the Local Section of the Scheme and general requirements in Clause 65.

1. At the review hearing both Mr Haydon and Ms Wilkinson provided detailed written submissions and complimented these with oral presentations. Ms Dwyer and Ms Boisen made no presentations. Following the review hearing I undertook a view of the site and general locality.

1. I consider the Responsible Authority's decision to refuse the application on the basis of it being contrary to State and Local Planning policy was appropriate. The proposed use is not supported by the purposes of the Farming Zone and these are reinforced by the State and Local planning policies.
2. Whilst this decision may seem, on an individual basis to be harsh the planning scheme is quite clear in its intent that dwellings that are unrelated to agricultural practices are not appropriate in Farming Zones. I do not consider the placement of a few animals on the land to be a sufficient substitute for genuine farming practices.

1. The clearest direction given in the planning scheme is under "Dwelling Issues" in Clause 35.07-6. The five dot points in this section provide direction to a Responsible Authority about the inappropriateness of introducing a dwelling that has no relationship with agricultural activity in a Farming Zone.
2. Ms Wilkinson argued that the proposed dwelling will not impact on the viability of agricultural practices on adjoining land or that it will not be effected by those activities. The difficulty I have with this assertion is that a house which has no relationship with its surrounding farming uses is not encouraged in the planning scheme and it can lead to conflicts with agricultural activities on neighbouring farms.
3. Farms may need to operate 24 hours a day and these operations can include use of tractors or other noisy farm machinery unhindered. There are also other farm practices, such as spraying or corralling of farm animals for distribution to market or shearing that are not appropriate near residential uses, particularly if the residents have no direct understanding or relationship with the general farming activities in the locality.

1. As a Town Planner the notion of establishing a land use, such as a small house in the midst of an 11 acre land holding that has no relationship with its agricultural neighbours in a farming area is a poor planning outcome and could lead to potential conflicts with farming activities either in the immediate or long term future.
2. Whilst Ms Rose may be more tolerant of farming practices on adjoining sites there is nothing to say that this situation would continue. Further this property could be later to another person and that person may naively consider that the apparent serenity of the locality should be preserved and seek to ensure that residential amenity standards, which are expected in a residential zone, should apply.
3. I am also concerned that the establishment of a dwelling in the midst of a farm area will virtually remove another parcel of land from its intended purpose forever. Whilst I acknowledge Ms Wilkinson's argument that this is not high quality productive agricultural land but that is not to say it is useless as agricultural land. It may not be suited to intensive horticulture and certainly its size is unlikely to sustain a person in full time agricultural employment but that is not what is intended by the purposes of the Farming Zone. There is nothing to say that this parcel of land could not be joined with another agricultural land holding in the locality and complement another agricultural activity.
4. If anything the removal of this farm land from the agricultural pool tends to place pressure on legitimate farming operations and poses as a direct economic threat to those legitimate farmers who wish to purchase land holdings for agricultural purposes at agricultural land prices.

1. I am also concerned that the proposed placement of a dwelling will lead to further pressure on the Responsible Authority to issue for other people to seek similar types of permits and create a concentration or proliferation of dwellings that have no direct relationship with agriculture in this neighbourhood. This leads to further fragmentation of the farm resource and would clearly undermine the purposes of the farm zone and State and Local Planning policies which seek to protect opportunities for long term agricultural activities on the land.
2. I acknowledge that this part of Victoria has experienced severe drought in recent years but the selling off of relatively small farm parcel and conversion to dwelling or lifestyler activity in this locality can, in a cumulative sense, undermine the integrity of the purposes of the Farming Zone and Local planning policy.

1. There were various assertions made about the disagreeable impression that a small portable classroom would have on the serenity of the rural environment similarly there were arguments that it may devalue the area. I have no hesitation in accepting Ms Wilkinson's arguments that her client genuinely seeks to convert the building to a bona fide dwelling that can be converted to appear as a modest dwelling in the neighbourhood.
2. I am satisfied that Ms Rose would genuinely seek to meet all reasonable standards of habitation including septic tank connection, alternative power supply and sufficient storage of water for potable and fire fighting purposes. However even if I was inclined to allow this application, whether it was on hardship or other grounds, I consider this use fails the fundamental test found in the purposes of the zone and the decision guidelines in clause 35.07 before embarking on any analysis of the integrity of the building itself.

1. For the above mentioned reasons the Responsible Authority's decision is affirmed. It is directed that no permit issue in respect of planning permit application 2007/059.

[1] See schedule to the Farming Zone in the Northern Grampians Planning Scheme