1. The applicant/responsible authority has made an application for costs and reimbursement of application fees and hearing fees at the hearing on 7 July 2025.
2. By 4:00 pm on 14 August 2025, the applicant/responsible authority must give the Tribunal and the parties submissions supporting its application. The submissions must include the following information:
   1. The basis upon which costs and fee reimbursement are sought.
   2. The party that the applicant/responsible authority says should pay the costs sought and reimburse the fees sought.
   3. The amount and details of the costs claimed (including, if relevant, any itemised bills with invoices) and the fees paid.
   4. The basis on which the costs are calculated (for example, whether on a standard or indemnity basis, and whether on the County Court or Supreme Court scale.

[Note that under Rule 1.07 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2018 (Vic), the default scale of costs is the County Court costs scale as defined in Rule 1.13 of Chapter I of the Rules of the County Court as in force on 31 December 2024, being a fee, charge or amount that is 80 per cent of the applicable rate set out in Appendix A to Chapter I of the Rules of the Supreme Court as in force on 31 December 2024.]

1. The reasons why costs should be awarded having regard to the provisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic).
2. A copy of any document relied upon in the costs application or supporting submissions.

1. By 4:00 pm on 28 August 2025, any party who wishes to oppose or otherwise respond to the application for costs must give to the Tribunal and the parties:
   1. Submissions which explain their position in respect of the costs application, including any basis on which they oppose the application; and
   2. A copy of any documents relied on in their submissions.
2. Unless varied by further order of the Tribunal, the hearing of any application for costs will be conducted 'on the papers' at 10:00am on 27 October 2025. No attendance is required. If you are the applicant in this proceeding, you may be required to pay a daily hearing fee before the hearing commences.
3. If a party objects to the application for costs being determined 'on the papers', they must advise the Tribunal and the parties of this by 4:00 pm on 15 September 2025 and provide reasons for the objection
4. Any request for further or alternative procedural orders from the Tribunal in relation to costs must be made in writing and a copy must be given to all parties.

• Edwin Irvine, senior planning officer, West Wimmera Shire Council

1. The West Wimmera Shire Council ('Council') alleges the subject land is being used for the purposes of Accommodation without permission in contravention of the West Wimmera Planning Scheme ('planning scheme').
2. The Council has applied to the Tribunal to make an enforcement order against:

(a) each of the owners of the subject land, Jozsef Galambos and Sue Galambos ('first respondent' and 'second respondent', respectively); and

(b) the occupier of the subject land, who is the owners' son Zoltan Galambos ('third respondent').

1. In simple terms, the orders sought by the Council require the use to immediately cease.

1. Having reviewed the filed documents and considered the submissions and Mr Irvine's evidence at the hearing, I find the following relevant facts, generally in chronological order.
2. The subject land is at the southern entrance to Harrow and on the east side of Blair Street. It comprises seven Crown allotments in the Township of Harrow being land comprised in Certificates of Title Volume 9758 Folio 893, Volume 6921 Folio 041, Volume 4236 Folio 099, Volume 3237 Folio 310 and Volume 3237 Folio 309.
3. The rear of the subject land abuts the west bank of the Glenelg River. There is no dwelling on the land.
4. Since around 1988, the first respondent and second respondent have been the owners of the subject land
5. In August 2022, the Council observed more than two caravans on the land. The third respondent told the Council he wished to construct a dwelling on the land. He told the Council he was living in one or more caravans on the land and intended to do so until the dwelling was constructed, at which time he would move to the dwelling and remove the caravans.
6. In October 2022, the Council wrote to the third respondent and told him that:

(a) the land was subject to the provisions of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay ('LSIO'), Bushfire Management Overlay ('BMO') and Environmental Significance Overlay ('ESO') under the planning scheme; and

(b) permission to construct a dwelling was required under those provisions which were 'particularly complex' for the land and that the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority ('CMA') and the Country Fire Authority were 'relevant authorities' and may not support development of the land for a dwelling or another form of accommodation.

1. In January 2023, Mr Irvine noticed online advertisements inviting the public to camp on the land for a fee. The third respondent did not deny placing those advertisements.
2. The Council then formed the view that the third respondent was using the land for the purpose of a 'Camping and caravan park' and in contravention of the planning scheme because it had not granted permission for that use. The Council also formed the view that the use was a contravention of the Council's local law no. 9. The Council directed the third respondent to cease that use.
3. In February 2023, the third respondent lodged a building permit application with the Council to construct a dwelling on the land.
4. In March 2023, the Council gave the third respondent a request for 12 items of further information on the building permit application. Item 6 was that the Council considered permission under the planning scheme was necessary and he would need to obtain that permission before a building permit could issue.
5. The third respondent did not give and has not yet given the Council any of the required information and no building permit has issued to date.
6. In November 2023, the Council again directed the third respondent to cease using the land for a Camping and caravan park and remove the caravans and served him with a planning infringement notice.
7. Mr Irvine's evidence is that the third respondent told him that fee paying visitors had camped on the land from time to time and had accepted that the land was being used for a Camping and caravan park. In December 2023, the Council again made the direction to cease the use.
8. In February 2024, the Council formed the view that the use for a Camping and caravan park had not ceased and, in March 2024, again directed the third respondent to cease the use or apply for permission by 19 April 2024.
9. In March 2024, the third respondent wrote to the Council and said, in summary:
   • the source of the delay in advancing the building permit application was 'red tape with the [CMA] and their water modelling for the township of Harrow';
   • when the CMA had completed 'hydrological data', he intended to apply for planning permission and make a new application for building approval;
   • he wanted to stop living in the caravans as soon as possible and to move into the proposed dwelling; and
   • he cannot live elsewhere in the meantime because there are no dwellings for rent in Harrow.
10. By April 2024, the third respondent removed a number of caravans from the land. Thereafter the Council took no further action in relation to the alleged contravention of using the land for a Camping and caravan park.
11. Since at least 2024 the third respondent has been occupying the land living with his family (who he says is a partner and two children) in two caravans. He uses assorted structures (including caravan annexes and rudimentary sheds) and keeps some chickens and tends a garden and a small orchard in furtherance of what I will characterise as growing a small amount of food for domestic use.
12. In July 2024, the Council wrote to the third respondent and said that living in the caravans constituted use of the land for the purpose of Accommodation and, in the absence of permission, was a contravention of the planning scheme. The Council directed the third respondent to cease that use or apply for permission by 9 August 2024.
13. On 10 December 2024, the Council applied for an enforcement order because the third respondent had neither ceased the use (and removed the caravans) nor applied for permission to use the land for Accommodation.
14. On 19 January 2025, the third respondent lodged a statement of grounds opposing the Council's application for an enforcement order on the following grounds:

I have tried for over 24 months to communicate with and move forward with a building permit application with both the West Wimmera Shire Council and their associated Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority. I have gone to great lengths including trying to hire third party building consultants and professionals and all have withdrawn due to the negative unhelpful nature of these two organisations. It has due to no fault of my own taken this long to finally get the process to having a full building and planning permit ready to submit with all the requirements needed and it is my hope to finally stop living in a caravan and build the house and home that should have been built well over 12 months ago.

1. On 1 March 2025, the third respondent lodged an application for planning permission to construct a dwelling on that part of the land fronting Blair Street, being Crown allotments 6, 7 and 8. As required by the planning scheme, a copy of it was referred to the CMA and CFA.
2. On 25 March 2025, the CMA told the Council it objected to the grant of permission on the following grounds:
   1. The proposed development is likely to result in danger to the life, health, and safety of the occupants due to flooding of the site.
   2. The development relies on low level, flood affected access to and from the site.
   3. The development is likely to increase the burden on emergency services and the risk to emergency personnel.
   4. The development is likely to increase the amount of flood damage to private or public infrastructure and/or assets.
   5. The development is likely to obstruct flood flows or reduce natural flood storage. The capacity of land subject to inundation to convey and store floodwater must be maintained.
   6. The development is likely to be detrimental to natural habitats, waterway stability, water quality or sites of significance.
   7. The development is likely to increase the number of buildings located in a floodway area.
3. The CMA also told the Council that:
   • its 'best available' flood information was that the 1% AEP flood level was 100.31 metres AHD, based on the 2017 flood investigation report for Harrow;[2]
   • the minimum and maximum depths of flooding across the land were 0.78 metres and 1.27 metres at 1% AEP, respectively, and consequently the whole of the land would be subject to inundation;
   • access to the land would be cut by floodwater up to 1.21 metres in depth and 'this would pose an extreme level of hazard for anyone trying to gain access to or escape from the property during a flood of this magnitude'.
4. The Council said that, in the interests of trying to assist the third respondent, on 7 April 2025 it asked the CMA if there was any location on the land where the CMA could support the construction of a dwelling.
5. In the CMA reply dated on 28 April 2025, the CMA said, in summary:
   • the minimum and maximum depths of flooding across the land were 0.70 metres and 1.94 metres at 1% AEP, respectively, and consequently the whole of the land would remain subject to inundation;[3]
   • as the minimum depth exceeds 0.5 metres, the depth is considered to be high hazard and exceeds the safety criteria in the Victorian Guidelines for Development in Flood Affected Areas;
   • it 'is unlikely to provide support for a dwelling on this property, irrespective of building location due to the high flood hazard across the entire property ... [which] is based on the 1% AEP flood only which does not include consideration of climate change and its effect on flood behaviour';
   • at the 'climate change proxy event of 0.5% AEP', the minimum and maximum depth were 0.74 metres and 1.98 metres, respectively; and
   • before CMA could support development, there must be land for a building envelope and access to that land where floodwaters do not exceed 0.5 metres in depth and/or a velocity x depth product of 0.4m2/sec and any mitigation works would require hydraulic modelling to show no afflux offsite.
6. On 17 May 2025, the third respondent appealed to the Council to withdraw its enforcement order application and asked for permission to stay in the caravans on the land until he obtained building approval.
7. The Council is preparing Amendment C38wwim to the planning scheme to implement the 2017 Harrow Flood Investigation report. The Amendment has not yet reached the stage of public exhibition. The Council submits that 'as currently proposed' the Floodway Overlay will be applied to the whole of the subject land.
8. The Council's planning staff prepared a recommendation to the Council at its meeting on 16 July 2025 to refuse the third respondent's application for a permit to construct a dwelling.
9. After the hearing, I directed the Council to file updated information about progress with the third respondent's application for a permit to construct a dwelling. The Council confirmed that at its meeting on 16 July 2025, it refused to grant a permit on nine grounds relating to policy and flooding.

1. The current use of the land must first be characterised to determine its status under the planning scheme. The general task is to ascertain the real and substantial purpose of the use of the land. If that purpose is a satisfactory fit with a defined use in the planning scheme the defined use may be adopted as the purpose.
2. The Tribunal has previously characterised use if a caravan is being used for a longer term residence.
3. In Furness v South Gippsland SC[4] the caravan had been parked on the land for many years, had retained its wheels and towing gear, contained a sleeping and living area, kitchen facilities and a shower, and was connected to a septic tank. There was a nearby shed containing laundry facilities and a wash basin.
4. The Tribunal did not characterise the use as for the purpose of a dwelling because a dwelling was defined under the planning scheme to be a building and a caravan was held to be neither a building nor a structure. The Tribunal commented that a caravan on rural land is usually regarded as a temporary use intended for regulation under local laws.
5. The principles in Furness were adopted in East Gippsland SC v Bodey.[5] This was an enforcement order application in which the applicant municipal council contended the longer term use of a caravan on vacant land was use for the purpose of Accommodation.
6. Accommodation was defined at the time (and continues to be defined) in the Victoria Planning Provisions as:

1. The Tribunal in Bodey agreed that the use was not for the purpose of a dwelling and was for the purpose of Accommodation.
2. A relevant characteristic of the actual use in this proceeding is that the third respondent has occupied the relevant caravan(s) for at least 16 months and probably at least 33 months. The use is therefore not a temporary use. It is therefore subject to the land use provisions of the planning scheme.
3. The third respondent submitted that I should distinguish both Furness and Bodey on their facts. I agree that some of the facts were different in those cases. For example, the land in Furness contained a dwelling and the respondents in Bodey had no intention to construct a dwelling and had not made planning or building applications to construct a dwelling. Nonetheless, the principles in those cases remain applicable.
4. I agree with the reasoning in Furness and Bodey. I do not characterise the purpose of the use of the land as for a dwelling. I characterise the purpose of the use of the land for Accommodation.
5. The land is in a Township Zone ('TZ'). Land may only be used for 'Accommodation (other than Community care accommodation, Dwelling, Residential aged care facility, Rooming house and Small second dwelling)' in the TZ with planning permission. Such permission has neither been sought nor granted to use the land for Accommodation.

1. The third respondent submits that the current use is not a contravention of the planning scheme. His reasoning is not entirely clear.
2. First, to the extent that the third respondent submits the purpose of the use is for a dwelling and therefore does not require permission in the TZ, I disagree with that submission because it is inconsistent with the reasoning in Furness and Bodey.
3. Even if he was correct and the purpose should be characterised as for a dwelling, that would not obviate the need for permission. There are three mandatory requirements for use of land in a TZ for a dwelling.[6] On the information available to me and conceded by the third respondent, the first requirement relating to wastewater is not met. If one or more of the requirements are not met, the use is prohibited.
4. Second, to the extent that the third respondent submits that the use is only a temporary use that is not regulated by the planning scheme and is solely regulated by any relevant local law, the submission fails because it is and has not been temporary and regulation by a local law (even if there a relevant local law) does not oust the provisions of the planning scheme.
5. It follows that the past and present use and the future use of the subject land (unless constrained by an enforcement order) has been, is or would be a contravention of the planning scheme.

1. The making of an enforcement order is at the Tribunal's discretion.
2. The third respondent's submissions regarding discretion are not entirely clear.
3. I discern that the third respondent's primary submission is that discretion should not be exercised to make an enforcement order.
4. He submits that if an order is made requiring the use to immediately cease, he could not rent a dwelling in Harrow because none, he submits, are available. He submits that the nearest practicable locations to rent a dwelling are Warrnambool and Hamilton, being, he submits, at least 30 minutes drive away and impractical for maintaining the subject land.
5. He concedes he could stay with friends for a short period on nearby rural properties but this is not possible for the anticipated period until his proposed dwelling is approved and constructed. He therefore submits an order requiring immediate cessation would render him and his family 'homeless'.
6. I discern that the third respondent's secondary submission is that an enforcement order, if made, should require the use to cease and the caravans to be removed from the subject land on a future date at which the construction of the proposed dwelling on the subject land has been completed.
7. I do not support the third respondent's submissions and I would exercise discretion to make an enforcement order that requires prompt cessation of the use, for four main reasons.
8. First, each of the respondents has had repeated warnings for over twelve months about the contravention of the planning scheme and directions to cease the use for Accommodation and there has been no compliance with the directions.
9. Second, I must give weight to the 2017 Harrow Flood Investigation report because it the best information currently available and has been prepared by the floodplain authority. The report identifies the subject land's extreme flood risk to life and property associated with the occupation of caravans on the subject land.
10. Third, any remedy of the contravention is not imminent. The third respondent submits that the contravention will be remedied and the Accommodation use will cease when:

(a) the Council grants planning permission to construct a dwelling;

(b) building approval is subsequently granted;

(c) the construction of the dwelling is completed;

(d) he moves from the caravans to the dwelling; and

(e) the caravans are removed from the subject land.

1. The grant of a dwelling permit does not, in itself, remedy the contravention.
2. Completion of these steps is, at best, currently problematic and time consuming and, at worst, will not be able to be completed. The Council has refused to grant a dwelling permit. Consequently, to secure that permit, the third respondent would need to either:

(a) successfully apply to this Tribunal to review that decision; or

(b) succeed in making a fresh application to the Council after obtaining the hydraulic evidence that he submitted at the hearing that he was seeking.

1. Fourth, the third respondent's unsubstantiated submissions about resulting homelessness if an enforcement order were made are outweighed by the public interest of ensuring compliance with the planning scheme.
2. As a matter of completeness, the third respondent filed post-hearing submissions on 16, 22 and 24 July 2025. I am unable to consider those submissions and have not considered those submissions because the hearing was concluded and no leave was sought or granted for the third respondent to file further submissions.
3. I will make an enforcement order requiring the use to cease and the caravans and related structures to be removed by 1 September 2025.

1. At the hearing, the Council applied for costs and seeks an order that:

The Respondents must pay, within 30 days of the date of this order, the costs of the Responsible Authority in bringing this proceeding such costs to be either agreed or failing agreement taxed at the appropriate County Court Scale.

The Respondents must, within 30 days of the date of this order, reimburse the Responsible Authority for the filing fee and daily hearing fee in bringing this proceeding.

1. I will make appropriate procedural orders for costs submissions in this order.

Crown Allotments 1, 2, 3 and 4 Section 4A, and Crown Allotments 6, 7 and 8 Section 4, Township of Harrow, Blair Street, Harrow Vic 3317

Use of the subject land for the purposes of Accommodation without permission contrary to clause 32.05-2 of the West Wimmera Planning Scheme

1. By no later than 4:00 pm on 1 September 2025, the owner and occupier must cease the use of the subject land for the purposes of Accommodation by removing the caravans and structures and materials associated with the use from the subject land.
2. On the same day that order 1 is complied with, the owner and occupier must notify the responsible authority in writing that order 1 has been complied with.
3. From the date order 1 is complied with, the subject land must not be used for the purposes of Accommodation except in accordance with a permit issued under clause 32.05-2 of the West Wimmera Planning Scheme.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, the documents filed before 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] Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority, Harrow Flood Investigation - Final Report (June 2017).

[3] I observe this varies the depths the CMA specified on 25 March 2025.

[4] [2011] VCAT 192 ('Furness').

[5] [2017] VCAT 1988 ('Bodey').