The year in review

1. The year in review A VCAT Perspective

2. Themes • The ‘Right to Farm’ • Broiler Farms • Cultural Heritage Management Plans • s.79 Applications and Fee Re-imbursements • What else has been on our plate? • Processes and procedures

3. The “Right to Farm” • Land use conflicts • Winchelsea Gun Club Inc v Surf Coast SC [2015] VCAT 1222 • Noise and impacts on the viability of long standing broad acre farming • Pullin v Greater Geelong CC [2015] VCAT 652 • A function centre use on a flower and bulb farm opposite a thoroughbred farming. • Brennan v Murrindindi SC [2015] VCAT 1863 • A small scale ‘farm to plate’ restaurant next door to an angus stud farm

4. The “Right to Farm” • Subdivisions and the prospect of future land uses – farming or defacto rural living? • Gibson v Bass Coast [2015] VCAT 857 • Assessing land capability and testing of evidence about future land use

5. The “Right to Farm” • When is farming intensive? • Yarra Ranges SC v Happy Valley Free Range Pty Ltd (Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 1058 • When is farming intensive or extensive? • (Not necessarily when it is claimed the animal husbandry is ‘free range’) • Turning minds to the (present) definitions under the scheme • Gaist v Campaspe SC (Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 1662 • Hatching eggs and cute arguments

6. Broiler Farms • Proposals for broiler farms outside ‘traditional’ near metropolitan areas • Proposals for ‘multiple farms’ in one application • Lewis v Central goldfields SC [2015] VCAT 410 • Vukadinovic v Mt Alexander SC (No 3) (Includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 1164 • Classification of farms under the Code and when is an Odour ERA required • Separation distances and claims about sterilising land • Approved measure E1 M1.3 – accounting for topography and meteorological conditions in assessing the adequacy of separation distances

7. Cultural Heritage Management Plans • The curly question of significant ground disturbance? • Mainstay, Azzure, and the AAV Practice Note - now there is: • Platinum King Investments Pty Ltd v Manningham CC (Corrected)(Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 1484 • Decision maker must be satisfied on the balance of evidence that ALL of the activity area has been subject to significant ground disturbance • Change is coming – What of upcoming amendments to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 • Capacity for proponents to undertake a Preliminary Aboriginal Heritage Test • Amendments to a CHMP through a separate process • Obligation remains for a decision maker to ensure approval of use or development of land consistent with the approved CHMP before granting an approval. • Conditions on an authorisation must also be consistent with conditions on a CHMP

8. Fee Re-imbursements • s.79 Applications and Fee Re-imbursements • Great Brothers Property Developments Group Pty Ltd v Monash CC (Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 1015 • Tiber Amber Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC (Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 965 • Burke Vue Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC (Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 1723 • Raydan v Bayside CC [2015] VCAT 1184 • Tanios v Moreland CC [2015] VCAT 1937

9. What else has been on our plate? • Rural Amenity • Calleja Properties Pty Ltd v Hume CC (Red Dot) [2016] 458 • Fleming v Moyne SC [2016] 643 • Land filling with ‘clean fill’ is a ‘use and development’ of land (disposal of fill; works; earthworks) • Not residential amenity in a rural zone (GWZ or FZ) but not a case of anything goes either; context is relevant to determining ‘reasonable’ amenity expectations • Applications need to address the management of potential conflict with ‘reasonable’ amenity expectations enjoyed on adjoining land

10. What else has been on our plate? • Dwellings in potable water supply catchments • Hillard v South Gippsland SC [2016] VCAT 449 • Free range farming • McDonald v Golden Plains SC [2016] VCAT 618

11. Process and procedures • Dates on initiating and subsequent orders • Amending plans • Emailing decisions • PNPE9 – revisions soon