Archive:   VCAT Puican Decision, House On Rural Lot

Last Updated  21/3/07

Macedon Ranges Doomed?  C48 Isn't Enough - We Need State Level Protection

(10/3/06 - P)  What's the point of having Local Policy?  C48 was only 4 days old when VCAT bowled it over

Many people have probably heard by now that VCAT has overturned a decision by our previous Council to refuse a permit for a house in a rural zone near Carlsruhe.   VCAT member Laurie Hewet overturned Council's refusal just 4 days after Amendment C48 was gazetted.  In reaching his decision, Member Hewet said that the new Agricultural Landscapes Local Policy, which says "construction of a dwelling is contrary to the continued use of the land for productive, sustainable agriculture", should not be used as a de facto prohibition and in essence, it was set aside.  VCAT P2563/2005

MRRA Says:

It would have been interesting to know what decision Member Hewet might have reached had he indicated as much note had been taken of Clause 12.03 Rural Residential (State Policy), the Minister's Guidelines for Open Potable Water Catchments (State Guidelines) and the newly introduced Clause 22.19 Northern Catchments Local Policy, and a 40ha minimum lot size (all of which also apply to this land), as was taken of Clause 22.20 Agricultural Landscapes Policy.  Yes, the land is within an open water catchment, and in the Bendigo Transport Corridor - aren't they two places where State policy says rural residential development should be controlled?

So much for Minister Hulls telling MRRA local policy is law, and anyone not implementing local policy is breaking the law.  Not working Minister - we need State level policy protection, as Yarra Ranges has.

And so much for Amendment C48 - this VCAT decision tells us our brand new local policies for rural land aren't likely to work at VCAT.  And so much for the new State rural zones, so far they're not helping us get the outcomes we need either.

Is it yet another  case of more Macedon Ranges' ratepayers money having been wasted on an incompetent or impotent amendment?  We say again, where's the Department of Sustainability and Environment's quality control?

We also note that the policy statement Member Hewet had so much difficulty accepting, "construction of a dwelling is contrary to the continued use of the land for productive, sustainable agriculture", was changed, without consultation, between exhibition of the C21 amendment and the Minister's approval of it.