1. The year in review A VCAT Perspective

2. 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 Themes

3. 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 The “Right to Farm” 3

4. 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 The “Right to Farm” 4

5. 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 The “Right to Farm” 5

6. 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 Broiler Farms 6

7. 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 Cultural Heritage Management Plans 7

8. 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 Fee Re-imbursements 8

9. 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 What else has been on our plate? 9

10. 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 What else has been on our plate? 10

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