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 ing decisions PNPE9 – revisions soon