Council
9 August, 2024
Corangamite rejects subdivision
CORANGAMITE Shire councillors were divided over a two-lot subdivision in Duverney at last month’s Ordinary Meeting of Council.
The subdivision at 175 Lower Darlington Road, Duverney was refused by four councillors, with two councillors against the motion.
A deputation was made at the meeting by applicant Lachlan Bridie and land surveyor Adam O’Halloran, who outlined their plans to council.
Mr O’Halloran said the application was not seeking to change the usage of the land or increase the number of lots on the property, but to realign the boundaries of two existing lots.
“One lot will be for all the farming land, which was approximately 86ha, and one lot is for the existing dwelling, associated shedding, yard trees and driveway,” he said.
“The proposed boundaries have been determined to accord with the existing uses and features on the site.
“It has been noted frequently in the planning report that the application will affect the farming operations – to impact the right to farm, potential to cause conflict of use, the need to protect productive land from inappropriate subdivision, and avoiding fragmentation of agricultural land.
“Our argument is that the realignment is trying not to do these things – we’re proposing the two 40ha lots that are both farming zones – we’re trying to incorporate all the farming land into one 80ha lot and just create the 3ha house lot.”
Mr O’Halloran also addressed the concerns outlined in the planner’s report to council regarding the possibility of further subdivision on the property.
“It’s correct that the 80ha would have a right of use for a new dwelling, but the 40ha lot also does at the moment,” he said.
“At the moment, there’s right of use for two dwellings – one on each lot – and aligning the boundaries isn’t changing that.
“The subdivision creating an 80ha lot under the planning scheme, you could potentially subdivide it.
“The easy way to fix that is just a restriction om the title or on the 173 agreement on the title restricting it to no further subdivisions.”
Mr Bridie, the applicant, thanked councillors who attended an on-site meeting earlier in the month.
“We’re not trying to change anything within the actual audit – we’re still going to be farming the country as it is,” he said.
“The land we’ve separated off is just isolating that portion of it out.
“When I look at what the council plan is in terms of a thriving community, focusing on and retaining the growing population as well as the key essential worker housing supply action plan.
“What we’re trying to do kind of enables that as well.”
Councillors Nick Cole and Jamie Vogels voted against the motion to refuse the subdivision, citing risks of burglaries in farming buildings and fire risks associated with torching abandoned houses.
Cr Vogels also cited the increase of derelict houses on farming land as part of his objection.
Cr Ruth Gstrein moved to reject the application, saying council has been seeing “so many” smaller subdivisions before them.
“While this one is different from the others in the fact that it’s in a completely different part of the shire - it’s not down to the south and it is cropping country not dairying country - there still is, certainly, a risk of creating an isolated rural residential lot in the farming zone,” she said.
“It’s also a concern that it is in a battle-axe configuration, so that the house will be completely surrounded by the farming operations.
“It isn’t connected with the farm, although I believe there is a proposed purchaser who was involved in the industry, this is no guarantee about who buys this property into the future and the potential impacts that they can have on this property from operating.
“We talked earlier about right to farm, and agriculture is really what Corangamite’s all about.
“We need to protect our agricultural land as much as we can.”
Cr Jo Beard seconded the motion to reject the application, saying council followed a “rulebook” for these types of decisions.
“It was of great importance to us, and it’s great to see the passion that you actually said around what you’re trying to do because we don’t always hear that,” she said.
“You can tell that you are genuine, and what we have to make our decision on is a pretty significant black-and-white rulebook when it comes to planning.
“A few years ago, we would have looked at this and it probably would have been a no-brainer to support you, but when we look at our planning scheme and the state planning laws around what we need to be protecting and it stands out pretty loud to me particularly that agriculture is our number one industry and we need to do all we can to not only support but to protect it.
“The biggest thing for me at the moment is not having an assumption that, even though you may have someone who’s prepared to buy it and is actually an agricultural contractor themselves, there’s no guarantee that will be the case in 12 months of two years’ time.”