The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. In permit application 2006-422 no permit is granted.

1. This is an application to review the decision of the responsible authority to refuse permission for rural dwelling at 298 Stewart Road, Tatura. The responsible authority issued a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit for the following reasons:
   1. The proposed dwelling does not support the objectives of Clause 17.05 of the State Planning Policy Framework where it notes that the State's agricultural base should be protected fr4om the unplanned loss of productive agricultural land due to permanent changes in land use.
   2. The proposed dwelling does not support the objectives of Clause 21.07-3 of the Municipal Strategic Statement as follows:
      • That construction of dwellings on old and inappropriate lots throughout the municipality are discouraged.
   3. The proposed dwelling does not support the objectives of the Housing in Rural Areas Policy as follows:
      • The dwelling is not required to support the agricultural use of the land.
      • To discourage the development of dwellings which are unrelated to farming.
      • The construction of dwellings on small and inappropriate lots should be prevented.
      • Rural land should be protected for productive agricultural purposes.
2. The parties at the hearing of the application for review relied on both written and oral submissions and a number of photographs, plans and other documents were tendered to the Tribunal. The Tribunal inspected the subject land and its locality.

1. The subject land is a regular lot of 7.3 hectares located on the west side of Stewart Road north of the Rushworth - Tatura Road of hectares. The land is currently used for irrigated cropping. At present the land is planted out with a winter/spring crop of triticale or oats. Stewart road is an unsealed local road Rushworth - Tatura Road is in a Road Zone Category 1.
2. To the north of the land is similar lot[1] with an existing dwelling. There is some landscaping along the boundary of the two sites.
3. To the south and west is land used s a dairy farm with an overall area of approximately 100 hectares in at least 8 lots. The rotary dairy associated with the dairy farm is located adjacent to the south western corner of the land. The access track to the rotary dairy from Stewart Road abuts the south boundary of the land.
4. The wider locality generally comprises of small land holdings that are operated as a variety of agricultural uses. These uses include the holding of horses, dairy farms and hobby farms.

1. The proposal to use and develop the land for the purpose of a dwelling under the provisions of the Farming Zone.
2. Planning permits were granted in 1999 and 2002 for a dwelling on the land, both permits have expired. The applicants purchased the land in August 2002 at which time the second of the two permits granted was current.

1. The history of this land makes this decision which on the face of it should be straightforward, a difficult decision. The lot was created as a consequence of a relatively recent subdivision. The council has on two occasions in the relatively recent past granted permits for the use and development of the land for the purpose of a dwelling. The Applicants purchased the land with a permit for a dwelling which they allowed to expire. A decision to uphold the decision of the council will undoubtedly cause considerable hardship.
2. The Applicants in proposing to construct a dwelling are essentially seeking an identical outcome to that which exists on an essentially identical lot immediately to the north of the subject land. The aerial photograph tabled at the hearing indicates that this land continues to be used for an agricultural purpose in part.
3. However, the planning policy framework clearly seeks to constrain the development of dwellings on farmland where they are not required for the operation of an agricultural activity conducted on the land. Important purposes underlying this policy are to avoid the economic impact of dwellings on the value of farmland, and to avoid the conflict which can arise between residents of dwellings and legitimate farming activities.
4. Factors which are influential to my decision include:
   • The land has been successfully used in recent years for irrigated crop raising;
   • The Applicant's submission talks about calf raising as a possible intensive agricultural activity requiring the construction of a dwelling, but I am not satisfied that the land was purposively required for this activity and there was no evidence to demonstrate that this was a viable or practicable option for the use of the land;
   • Even if the balance of the land is used for irrigated crop raising, the creation of a "house paddock" reduces the capacity of the land for agriculture;
   • The presence of the rotary diary and its access track raises the possibility of future amenity conflicts.
5. These cases are never black and white, the impacts of each new dwelling is often marginal, there are usually examples of similar circumstances nearby, and in this case there is the history of permissions affecting the subject land. Nevertheless, I am of the view that the planning policy framework does not favour the establishment of new dwellings in circumstances such as this, and that the particular facts of the case do not support a departure from this policy position.