1. The subject site is located on Wintles Road in Mount Best, which is on the southern slopes of the Strzelecki Ranges.
2. Although the site is in the Strzelecki Ranges which are known to have steep slopes in many parts, the subject site is better described topographically as undulating and is located partly along a ridge line that runs in a north-south direction. A waterway knows and Falls Creek is located at the northern boundary of the review site with a tributary of that creek running in a north-south direction in the northern part of the site.
3. There is an existing dwelling that is located at a high point on the review site, and which is centrally located in the southern portion of the site, accessed from a driveway at the south-eastern corner of the site.
4. The land is mostly cleared but has some areas of vegetation, particularly along the northern boundary near Falls Creek and along the tributary previously described.
5. The site is approximately 10 kilometres north-east of the town of Foster (in a direct line) and approximately 30 kilometres from Leongatha by road.
6. Mt Best is most appropriately described as a locality, with the only community facility being a hall. It is not specifically mentioned in local policy, in the township hierarchy.
7. The broader area is a mixture of lot layouts and sizes ranging broadly from 5000m2 to 192 hectares. The land uses also vary from purely residential small lots to hobby rural lifestyle properties through to commercial agricultural operations. Forestry plantations are also evident.
8. Some of these lots contain dwellings while others do not.
9. Waterways, rolling hills, as well as steep country and vegetation dominate the landscape, and they form the leading visual experience of the area.

Areial image of the review site, bordered in bolder yellow line.[3]

1. There is a plethora of policy in the South Gippsland planning scheme that seeks to protect agricultural land from inappropriate and incompatible uses, development and subdivision which may compromise the long-term future of agriculture within the municipality.
2. The FZ, at clause 35.07, includes the following purposes:

To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.

To provide for the use of land for agriculture.

To encourage the retention of productive agricultural land.

Primary industries, especially agriculture, combined with associated value-adding and food processing are the Shire's main economic driver.

...

The Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing industry sector makes the greatest contribution to economic output in the region and is also the largest employer.

1. Clause 02.02, Vision, includes the following aspirations:
   • To support the whole Shire in creating economic, environmental and social prosperity for this and future generations.

Strategic objectives to be balanced in support of the vision include:

• To build a sustainable and growing economy that attracts and supports businesses, broadens and strengthens industry sectors, creates sustainable employment and establishes the Shire as a 'food bowl' that feeds the State and beyond.

1. Clause 02.03-1, Settlement, seeks to direct growth to existing settlements in line with their role and function set out in this clause.
2. The planning scheme[4] also sets out that the municipality contains some of the most productive agricultural areas in Victoria and provides a significant proportion of Victoria's milk as well as beef, prime lamb and vegetables.
3. It also says that the region has strengths including its rich agricultural soils, high rainfall and proximity to Melbourne which are opportunities that should be promoted to attract new industries related to primary production. It also says that maintaining a viable and sustainable agricultural industry should be achieved by protecting high-quality agricultural land for primary production and to support diverse and sustainable agricultural industries that specifically support the agricultural sector and add value to primary produce.
4. The planning scheme also sets out[5] that prior practices have left a legacy of small lots scattered amongst larger farming lots which are isolated and surrounded by agricultural uses. The planning scheme also says that the conversion of agricultural land into rural residential land use results in a net loss to agriculture due to permanent land use changes. As a result, policy seeks to:
   • avoid the development dwellings on rural land that may prejudice existing agricultural activities,
   • maintain agricultural land in agricultural use, and
   • maintain cost-effective servicing of towns and communities by avoiding the impacts of a dispersed population base.
5. Furthermore, the planning scheme sets out[6] that the rural areas of the municipality have experienced a high level of land fragmentation from historical settlement patterns as well is less stringent planning policies under previous iterations of the planning scheme. This has resulted in implications for the supply of affordable agricultural land and therefore production and the Council seeks to limit the further fragmentation of rural land by subdivision and any lots resulting from subdivision are of a sufficient size to benefit agricultural production. The planning scheme also seeks to limit the cumulative impact of house lot excision is which includes serial small lot subdivisions.
6. State-level planning policy seeks to protect the state agricultural base by preserving productive farmland as well is to avoid permanent removal of productive agricultural land from the state agricultural base without consideration of the economic importance of the land for agricultural production and processing sectors.
7. There is a heavy emphasis within the planning scheme at both the state and local level to protect agricultural land from inappropriate use and development.[7] Local policy is particularly strong about the protection of agricultural land from such outcomes.
8. Policy at clause 14.01-1L includes the following:

• The dwelling is proposed in association with agriculture, is genuinely required to carry out a long-term agricultural activity on the land and will provide a net benefit to agricultural productivity.
• ...
• The agricultural activity requires the presence of a resident land manager.

Avoid dwellings in association with Grazing animal production or calf rearing.

Avoid dwellings in association with agricultural uses (other than Grazing animal production or calf rearing) unless:

• The dwelling is necessary for the operation of and secondary to the use of the land for agriculture.

1. Policy in the planning scheme contemplates the allowance of subdivision to accommodate an existing dwelling in certain circumstances including where the existing dwelling is no longer reasonably required for the agricultural use on the land and where there are beneficial outcomes for the land. The planning scheme also seeks to avoid the subdivision of existing lots that create new lots that are not viable for agricultural uses.
2. The key reasons advanced by the applicant as to why the proposed subdivision and new dwelling should be supported relate to the ongoing grazing of the land which currently occurs, the establishment of an unspecified horticultural use for which little detail was provided, and the continuation of the management of the land by the applicant's family.
3. Other reasons included the establishment of a bed-and-breakfast as part of the new dwelling which would support tourism, which is contemplated and encouraged by the planning scheme.[8]
4. It is evident to me from the material available, as well as the verbal submissions by the applicant at the hearing, that the proposed subdivision and new dwelling will have little, if any, benefit to agricultural production. Policy in the planning scheme discourages the outcome that would result in this instance.
5. The desire of the applicant to remain on the land is understandable, given her connection with it, and management of it for agricultural purposes over a significant period of time.
6. However, the planning scheme discourages the creation of further small lots in the FZ, as well as the establishment of new dwellings on small lots where there is no, or little, demonstrable benefit to agricultural production. Ongoing management of the land, which is consistent with the current grazing operation, is inadequate justification for the proposal. Policy does not contemplate this as sufficient basis upon which to justify it.
7. The absence of detail in relation to the proposed horticultural use, as well as that being something only referred to during the course of the hearing, makes it difficult to give much weight to those aspects of the applicant's case.
8. I also agree with the council's submissions where it was stated:
   1. In reality, having regard to the fact that permits run with the land, means that this proposal seeks a permit for a new dwelling (with no demonstrated agricultural link) on a small lot, that can be sold or transferred at any time. The applicant explains that the dwelling will be used to house family members who will assist in the farming of the larger lot. If the dwelling is sold or transferred, the supposed justification will then fall away yet the outcome will remain.
   2. In reality that would mean the proposal would directly lead to the loss and fragmentation of agricultural land, contradictory to clear and established planning policy.

1. The proposal itself (putting aside the applicant's justification for the moment) seeks to create a small lot, and develop it with a dwelling, where the use of that land would be purely residential. This is the very definition of fragmenting and removing productive agricultural land. This is an outcome which is heavily discouraged by both the zone and local policy.
2. The submissions by the applicant regarding aging in place, and tourism outcomes are outweighed in this case by the strong policy position the planning scheme sets out in relation to the substantive elements of the proposal which are inconsistent with policy, as set out above.
3. The planning scheme has a heavy emphasis on particular outcomes in agricultural areas, as well as avoiding certain outcomes. In my view, this proposal does not perform well when considered against that policy setting.

1. The plans before the Tribunal do not indicate that a bed-and-breakfast is proposed as part of the new dwelling. This is despite the subsequent plan prepared by the applicant referred to earlier which does indicate a layout that could accommodate such a use. However, this later plan has not been substituted to be part of the permit application. Therefore, I have not had any regard to it in arriving at my decision.
2. Issues related to bushfire planning and erosion management were also grounds of refusal by the council and to which the Council briefly addressed in its written submissions and at the hearing.
3. The applicant also addressed these matters during the course of the hearing.
4. Because I have directed that no permit be granted for the reasons set out above, and which go to fundamental policy reasons, I have not made any findings on issues related to bushfire and erosion.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.

[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.

[3] Source: Figure 2 of the council's written submissions dated 17 June 2025.

[8] At clause 02.03-7, Economic Development, 'Tourism'.