In a ruling handed down last week, VCAT member Cindy Wilson overturned a decision by the council allowing a house on a 10-hectare farming property at Crossley.

The ruling comes after councillors rejected a planning officer’s recommendation that a permit for the building on the Koroit-Port Fairy Road should not be issued, warning it would create a proliferation of residential uses in an area that should be preserved for agriculture.

“(It) is likely to have a negative impact on the long-term continuation of primary production on the adjacent land with particular regard to land values,” the officer, Andrew Nield, told councillors at their June meeting.

Cr Colin Ryan initially moved the permit be refused and was supported by Cr Jill Parker, but their motion was lost on the votes of councillors Jim Doukas, Anthony Keane, Ralph Leutton, James Purcell and Mick Wolfe.

Cr Leutton then moved the permit be granted subject to 18 conditions, including the preparation of a farm management plan for the land. His motion was seconded by Cr Wolfe and supported by all councillors except Cr Ryan.

A planning permit was required because the home did not meet guidelines which require a 40-hectare minimum lot size for dwellings in farming areas.

The application, submitted by Nathan Divall from the Warrnambool-based Designing Spaces company, attempted to justify that a house was needed based on a farm management plan for small-scale Hereford cattle grazing and breeding.

One of the property owners was a descendant of the site’s original owners and planned to run between 40 and 100 cattle depending on feed availability. They hoped to lease and potentially purchase surrounding paddocks in the future and expected to supplement their returns with income raised off-farm.

Mr Nield told council the proposed house was “unusually large for a farm house and expensive to construct in relation to any income it can possibly sustain in the long term”.

He said two neighbours objected to the application, concerned that it was contrary to the shire’s planning scheme policies.

One of those objectors, Paul Lenehan, took the case to VCAT after the council approved the development.

Mr Lenehan told VCAT a house on a small lot was inconsistent with the purpose of the farming zone, would not support the protection of agriculture, would inflate land prices for agricultural use and increase land use conflicts.

Mr Divall said the proposed house would only use about three per cent of the site and would allow for the improved and intensified use and management of the remaining part of the property.

Handing down her decision, Ms Wilson said local planning framework listed agriculture as the most important sector of the local and regional economy in Moyne Shire.

“I have concerns about the relatively modest extent of agricultural activities proposed on the 10-hectare property that may signal a land use that is primarily residential rather than agriculture.”

She noted there was already a significant number of houses on lots of less than 40 hectares in the Crossley area, but said this was not a reason to approve yet another dwelling.

“Although I accept that the applicants for permit have experience and interest in agriculture, a planning permit relates to the land, which can change ownership.”

Ms Wilson agreed with a 2010 VCAT ruling by member John Bennett, who said some previous applications had been approved because Moyne Shire Council had taken a “lenient approach” to houses being built on small rural lots.

“In most of the cases I am aware of in Moyne Shire, the tribunal has rarely supported the council’s decision to grant dwelling permits,” Mr Bennett said at the time.