Rural planning decisions update

Stay up to date with how the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) interprets rural planning matters.

Summaries are released every three months and highlight recent VCAT decisions about:

  • rural land use
  • development
  • subdivision.

It focuses on rural zones and includes links to the full cases. The summaries come directly from VCAT rulings to keep them accurate.

The update is highly valued by council planners and consultants. It supports consistent decision-making, builds awareness of emerging issues, and provides a quick, reliable reference for rural planning matters.

View the guide to zones and overlays to learn more about zone and overlay codes.

Subscribe for updates

To subscribe or request a copy of a previous update email agvic.planning@agriculture.vic.gov.au

Current edition: July 2026, covering cases from April to June 2026

Dwelling - use of land

+ Expand all- Collapse all

Michael Deidun, Member

Zone: FZ
Overlays: ESO1

Outcome: Council decision upheld, no permit granted

Summary:

  1. As set out earlier in these reasons, I agree with the applicant’s own description of this proposal as likely resulting in a residential lifestyle property. The creation of a residential lifestyle property on the review site is precisely the type of outcome sought to be avoided by the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme, as it will be contrary to:
    1. The purposes of the Farming Zone that seek to retain productive agricultural land, and to ensure that dwellings do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture;
    2. The Decision guidelines at Clause 35.07-6 of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme, which asks me to consider whether the use or development will support and enhance agricultural production, and whether the dwelling will result in fragmentation of rural land;
    3. Policy at Clause 02.03-6 of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme that supports rural residential development in the Rural Living Zone, as opposed to the Farming Zone that applies to the review site;
    4. Policy at Clause 14.01-1S, which seeks to protect productive agricultural land from unplanned loss due to permanent changes in land use, and limit new housing development outside of existing settlements; and,
    5. Policy at Clause 14.01-1L, which seeks to ensure any use of the land for residential activity is secondary or ancillary to the primary agricultural use of the land. As no details of the extent of the proposed agricultural activity has been provided, beyond the grazing of animals, I cannot be satisfied that this proposal is consistent with this policy guidance.
  2. … what is proposed here is a residential lifestyle property, as identified by the applicant’s own written submissions. Where the review site is capable of contributing to agricultural production, including when used in conjunction with other surrounding vacant farmland, the creation of a residential lifestyle property is not consistent with the guidance from the planning scheme.

View full case

Ian Potts, Senior Member

Zone: FZ
Overlays: ESO1, FO, LSIO, SCO

Outcome: Council decision upheld, no permit granted.

Summary:

  1. … I conclude the proposal for a dwelling would be exposed to unacceptable flood related risks that the planning scheme seeks to avoid or at least minimise to an acceptable level. I am also not persuaded that the dwelling will, on balance, result in an acceptable planning outcome for agricultural land use.

View full case

Michael Deidun, Member

Zone: FZ2
Overlays: BMO

Outcome: Council decision varied, permit granted.

Summary:

  1. This is the third time that the Tribunal has considered a proposal for a dwelling on the review site, and each occasion has comprised an application for review against the Council’s decision to grant a planning permit.
  1. This substantial difference of the intended levels of agricultural production is a relevant consideration in a repeat appeal such as this proceeding.  When comparing the proposed agricultural pursuits that were before the Tribunal previously, with that now proposed, it is evident that there are significant changes in the application itself that have responded well to the previous concerns identified by the Tribunal.

View full case

Michael Deidun, Member

Zone: GWZ2
Overlays: LSIO

Outcome: Council decision upheld, no permit granted.

Summary:

  1. Use and development of the land for a dwelling and an Intensive animal production (calf rearing)
  2. … the applicant has sought to justify why a permit should be granted, by putting forward an argument that the dwelling is required to support an agricultural activity on the land. The decision guidelines of the Green Wedge Zone … do not necessarily require a nexus to be established between the proposed agricultural pursuits on a site, and the need for a dwelling. However, in this case that is the reasoning given by the applicant as to why I should exercise my discretion …. As such, this proposal will rise or fall on whether the applicant has demonstrated that a dwelling is required to support the proposed agricultural production of the review site.
  3. For these reasons I find that the Farm Management Plan puts forward an agricultural activity that purports to demand a consistent on site presence, without providing the financial return that would enable an on site presence to be maintained during normal working hours.  …
  4. The fact that the applicants currently own and reside in a dwelling on the land immediately to the west of the review site, makes it difficult to justify the use and development of another dwelling, on the basis that it is required to provide supervision for the agricultural pursuits on the review site. …
  5. Fourthly, I find the prospect that the proposed agricultural activity may fall away, resulting in a purely residential use of land in the future, … The Farm Management Plan details that a high level of activity and effort is required …, for very limited financial return. … Again, if the agricultural activity falls over, then the review site will likely become a rural living property, and essentially an urban form of development that is strongly discouraged by the Cardinia Planning Scheme.

View full case

J Perlstein, Member

Zone: FZ
Overlays: ESO2, SLO1, BMO

Outcome: Council decision upheld, no certificate of compliance.

Summary:

  1. The applicant seeks a certificate stating that the dwelling at 918 Maldon-Newstead Road, Maldon ('subject site') has existing use rights.

View full case

Subdivisions

+ Expand all- Collapse all

Seuna Byrne, Member

Zone: FZ

Overlays: ESO1, LSIO, SCO2

Outcome: Council decision upheld, no permit granted

Summary:

  1. … a proposal to subdivide the land … into two lots. Proposed Lot 1 is … a 'house excision lot' with an area of 2.10 hectares … Proposed Lot 2 is … to have an area of 89.02 hectares ….
  2. The establishment of rural lifestyle lots in farming areas is discouraged by policy. These can give rise to land use conflict associated with noise, dust and spray drift and, while there are numerous examples of these in the locality, this is not justification for further such outcomes.
  3. I agree with Council that, while the current occupant may not find the amenity impacts arising from surrounding agricultural activity (including that on the subject land) unacceptable, future owner/occupiers may.
  4. The proposed subdivision, excising an existing dwelling and creating a balance lot that creates an opportunity for an additional dwelling (no permit required) where one does not currently exist, is not acceptable when assessed under cl 35.07 and relevant policy.

View full case

Alison Glynn, Senior Member
Peter Cole, Member

Zone: FZ
Overlays: ESO1, LSIO, SCO1

Outcome: Council decision set aside, no permit granted.

Summary:

  1. Subdivision of an existing 121 hectare farm in to six, approximately 20 hectare lots. The land … used for cropping … was previously … an irrigated dairy farm.
  2. …. In summary, the council determined to issue a notice of decision to grant a permit (‘NOD’) for the subdivision, despite the NCCMA recommendation, and an officer report that recommended the proposal be refused. The officer report recommended refusal because of the NCCMA concerns about floodplain management, and because the officers considered the proposal did not adequately address agricultural land use policy applying under the FZ.
  3. Having considered the submissions and evidence tabled, in context of the scheme and PE Act provisions we find that the objective of the LSIO to protect life property and community infrastructure from flood hazard is not met. Nor are we satisfied that the objectives of the FZ are met. Notably objectives to retain what is state significant productive agricultural land, and to ensure non-agricultural uses, including dwellings, do not adversely affect the use of the land for agriculture.

View full case

Uses associated with agriculture

None this quarter.

Agriculture use

None this quarter.

Other use

+ Expand all- Collapse all

Rachel Naylor, Senior Member
Michael Deidun, Member

Zone: RLZ
Overlays: SBO

Outcome: Council decision upheld, no permit granted.

Summary: Use and development of the land for a service station.

View full case

Member

Zone: GWZ1
Overlays: ESO3, VPO1

Outcome: Council decision set aside, permit granted.

Summary: Use and development of the site as a contractor’s depot.

View full case

Member

Zone: FZ
Overlays: ESO2, DDO2, BMO

Outcome: Council decision upheld, no permit granted.

Summary: Retrospective approval for the use and development of a motor racing track.

View full case

Member

Zone: GWAZ
Overlays: BMO

Outcome: Council decision varied, permit granted

Summary: Buildings and works associated with alterations and additions to an existing outbuilding and construction of a water tank.

View full case

Member

Zone: GWZ3
Overlays: EMO7, ESO1, PAO

Outcome: Council decision upheld, no certificate of compliance.

Summary: Existing use rights - Use of the land as a Store.

View full case

Ian Potts, Senior Member

Zone: GWZ4
Overlays: ESO1, SLO2, LSIO, BMO

Outcome: Council decision set aside, permit granted.

Summary: Retrospective approval is sought to place fill of more than one metres depth on the land.

View full case

Ian Potts, Senior Member

Zone: FZ
Overlays: none

Outcome: Council decision set aside, permit granted.

Summary: Use and development land for earth and energy resources industry (Mining).

View full case

Alison Glynn, Senior Member
Joel Templar, Member

Zone: FZ
Overlays: none

Outcome: Council decision upheld, no permit granted

Summary: To use and develop part of the land for a function centre.  This includes use of the proposed venues for events between 11:00am and 11:00pm Monday to Saturday and 11:00am and 10:00pm on Sundays and public holidays.

View full case

Judith Perlstein, Presiding Member
Claire Bennett, Member

Zone: GWZ
Overlays: BMO, ESO1, LSIO, EMO3, SLO6, HO217

Outcome: Council decision upheld, no permit granted

Summary:

  1. This is an application for review of the decision of the Yarra Ranges Shire Council ('council') to refuse to grant a permit for, broadly, disposal of clean fill on part of the land located at 465 Lysterfield Road, Lysterfield ('land').

View full case

Seuna Byrne, Member

Zone: GWZ3
Overlays: ESO3, ESO8, ESO17, ESO28, VPO2, SLO1, SLO6, EMO7, BMO

Outcome: Council decision set aside, permit granted.

Summary: It is proposed to remove a Silver-leaved Stringybark (Eucalyptus cephalocarpa) tree, which is a native species, indigenous to the municipality.

View full case

This quarter's case in focus

None this quarter.

Guide to zones and overlays

+ Expand all- Collapse all

Rural zones

Residential zones

Commercial zones

Industrial zones

Public land zones

Special purpose zones

Environmental / landscape overlays

Heritage / built form overlays

Land management / hazard overlays

Other overlays

Page last updated: 08 Jul 2026