1. I have found that a permit for use and development of the land should not be granted. I reach that decision due to the risk arising from flooding of the access road combined with the lack of support in the Planning Scheme for dwelling use of a small lot in the Farming Zone. I address these issues in turn.

1. There is considerable emphasis in State and local planning policy on protecting life and property from flood hazard and siting development to minimise risk to life from natural hazards such as flood. These policy matters are called up in the purpose of the Farming Zone. In addition a decision guideline of Clause 65 requires consideration of the degree of flood hazard associated with the land.
2. Although the review site is not affected by flooding, I consider the potential flooding of the only recognised vehicle access to the site is a relevant matter to consider in determining whether or not to grant a permit. I reach this view having regard to the following Planning Scheme provisions and policies:
   • State policy relating to regional settlement[6] that seeks development that responds to the impacts of natural hazards and promotes community safety through siting new dwellings to minimise risk to life and property from natural hazards such as flooding.
   • State policy[7] that aims to support the protection of life and property from flood hazard.
   • Local policy[8] that seeks development in flood plains to be appropriately managed to minimise the risk and cost to both private landowner and the broader community.
   • Consideration of flood hazard associated with the location of the land and use of the land so as to minimise any such hazard that is required in the general decision guidelines.[9]
3. The view that flood risk is relevant even where there is no planning control related to flooding on the review site is consistent with the findings in Crawford v Surf Coast SC,[10] a decision referred to by the WGCMA and with clause 13.02-1 of the Planning Scheme.
4. The WGCMA 'Flood Guidelines- Guidelines for development in flood prone areas'[11] (CMA Guidelines) do not support residential development where the depth and flow of floodwaters either at the site or along its access route would be hazardous. The CMA Guidelines specify that approval of residential is unlikely to be supported if along the access route during a 1:100 year ARI flood event:
   • the depth exceeds 0.3 metres; or
   • the velocity exceeds 1.5metres per second; or
   • the vxd (velocity by depth) exceeds 0.3 square metres per second.
5. State planning policy at clause 13.02-1 requires that any flood plain management manual of policy and practice be considered where relevant. The CMA Guidelines are such a policy and are clearly relevant in this application.
6. The information provided by the WGCMA has identified two sites on the Lamont Drive/Franklin River Road where the road will flood in 1:100 year ARI flood event and this is reflected in the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) that now applies to these parts of the road.[12] Both these sites must be passed to exit from the review site.
7. The specific flood plain mapping produced by the WGCMA for 380 Lamont Drive and circulated prior to the hearing is a refinement of the modelling done to produce the LSIO and provides detail regarding the expected flood levels, depths and velocities on the two sites. This information makes it clear that in a 1:100 year ARI flood event the depth of floodwaters will exceed the safe depth of no greater than 0.3 metres. In the case of Site 1 the depth will be 0.5 metres and for Site 2 the depth will be 1.4 metres. Furthermore the velocity by depth at Site 2 exceeds the safety outcome substantially (1.1 square metres per second compared with 0.3 square metres per second) and is outside the safe threshold for the stability of all vehicles including a four wheel drive vehicle and for all pedestrians.
8. In addition to the risk from the depth of the flood waters in a 1:100 year ARI flood event, I agree with the WGCMA that the following factors add to the potential hazard:
   • The estimated rate of rise of floodwaters at 0.18 metres per hour indicates that it will take approximately 2 hours from when the road is first impacted to when the low hazard criteria for flood depth for cars is exceeded.
   • The road is narrow and proximate to the steep river gully.
   • The number of curves along the road limits the safe approach to the flooded access.
   • The lack of flood warnings.
   • The likelihood that the flood waters will contain debris such as tree branches, given the nature of the catchment.
   • The road is likely to be impacted by floods that happen more frequently than the 1:100 year ARI flood event.
   • The WGCMA advice that a miscalculation of flood depth in this particular location is likely to be fatal, with the chance of getting swept off the road and into the depths of the Franklin River itself very real.
9. It is my view that exposing additional persons to flood risk by allowing an additional dwelling where the only means of access to the property is subject to significant flood hazard is unacceptable and contrary to the Planning Scheme policies and provisions that seek to protect life and property from flood hazard.
10. The reliance on alternative access through adjoining private property does not allay my concerns about access at times of flood. There is no evidence of a formal agreement to allow access, no easement of way and I was not advised of any gates that would allow easy access over adjoining private property. While I accept that the rural community is likely to be supportive in times of natural hazard such access arrangements are not assured.
11. The anecdotal information provided by Council and the permit applicant does not override the flood level analysis of the WGCMA. Reference to local knowledge of staff who have been employed by the Shire (and its predecessor) without details of who these people are, what positions they have held, the extent of their likely knowledge of events in this location and the time period of their employment creates a tenuous basis upon which to make a decision. Similarly the permit applicant's reference to discussions with several farmers and residents about memories of flooding events on the road is not substantiated.
12. I acknowledge there are lots in the Farming Zone where a dwelling can be constructed without a planning permit and thus no consideration of flood risk to access would be made. This does not justify supporting a proposal which is subject to a permit and which has the potential to put additional people at risk in a flood event.
13. I do not find persuasive the argument made by Council and the permit applicant about the acceptance by residents in rural areas of higher risks from natural hazards, including that of bushfire. Flooding has some level of predictability and in this case the detailed examination of the access road by the WGCMA has established there will be impassable flooding at times. In these circumstances the risk is identifiable and increased risks can be minimised by limiting the additional number of people reliant on the road.
14. The lack of transparency for purchasers of land unaffected by specific flood controls, as referred to by Council, is acknowledged. However that does not change my view on the unacceptably of additional risk created by approval of this dwelling. I note that the planning information about the site obtainable online includes reference to and a map showing the LSIO over Lamont Road as 'other overlays in the vicinity'. I consider this could alert a potential purchaser to potential flooding nearby. Regardless the extent of due diligence by a potential purchaser is not relevant to making the planning decision in this application.

1. Although the WGCMA oppose the grant of a permit only for reasons relating to flooding, there are other matters that require consideration under the Planning Scheme provisions.
2. The provisions of the Farming Zone require a permit for use of land for a dwelling where the lot is less than 40 hectares. The purpose of the zone and the decision guidelines set out matters that must be considered in deciding if a permit should be granted. These include reference to State and local policies.
3. I am not persuaded that the use of a 2.55 hectare site is consistent with the provisions of the Farming Zone. I say this for the following reasons.
4. There is strong support in State policy to protect productive farmland and promote agriculture.[13] Strategies to protect rural productivity include limiting new housing in rural areas and discouraging development of isolated small lots for use as single dwellings. A house on the review site fails to accord with the outcomes sought.
5. The Municipal Strategic Statement[14] identifies the conflict between the attraction of the rolling hills of the agricultural districts as locations for those seeking a rural residential lifestyle, the protection of productive agricultural areas and the need to avoid servicing issues arising from dwellings not connected to agricultural activities. The review site adjoins farms to the north west, north and east and I consider a dwelling adds to the potential conflict between rural residential expectations and the activities associated with productive farming land.
6. Although the local policy on rural dwellings[15] provides strong discouragement for dwellings on lots over 4.1 hectares, this does not translate to encouragement of dwellings on lots less than 4.1 hectares. There is no policy imperative for the review site to be used for a dwelling. Indeed the policy basis for rural dwelling identifies that multi lot farms are the most common form of land tenure in the Shire with commercially viable production areas being formed by the aggregation of smaller lots. The decision guidelines in the Farming Zone require consideration of whether the dwelling will result in loss of productive agricultural land. The use and development of the lot for a dwelling will limit its future use for viable agricultural use in conjunction with adjoining farmland.

1. For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. No permit is to issue.

[1] I have considered the submissions of all the parties that appeared, all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed. I do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.

[2] The address 380 Lamont Drive includes two lots (4 & 5 on LP213074X). The review site is Lot 5 which is vacant. Lot 4 contains an existing house.

[3] A document entitled 380 Lamont Drive, Toora dated October 2016 was circulated to parties on 25 October 2016. It provides further information about the WGCMA flood modelling in response to a request by South Gippsland SC.

[4] Magnitude of a flood that has a 1% chance of occurring in any one year.

[10] [2013] VCAT 1660 at paragraph 4.

[11] West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority adopted by the Board of the Authority in 2012 and published in 2013.

[13] At clauses 11.05-3, 14.01-1 and 16.02-1.