Council
4 March, 2026
Councillors deny planning permit
CORANGAMITE Shire Council has denied another planning permit which would create a two-lot subdivision in Jancourt East, citing the right to farm and planning policy as reasons for their refusal.
The subdivision would include the creation of a small lot to excise the dwelling from the balance farmland, creating one lot of 74.26 hectares including the balance farmland and one lot of 0.68 hectares containing the existing dwelling.
The officer’s recommendation was to issue a notice of decision to refuse to grant a permit, which councillors moved 5-2 at last month’s Ordinary Meeting of Council.
Councillor Geraldine Conheady moved the motion and said council had to look at the long-term when it came to planning.
“The issues which have been raised in the report as to fragmentation, land use conflict, right to farm and productive agricultural uses – they are very important issues to consider and have formed part of our planning policy framework with regard to agricultural land for some time,” she said.
“When we’re talking about planning, it’s long-term where our focus ought to be because that’s what planning is about, it’s about long-term visionary, forward thinking planning to ensure that we make the right decisions for the shire of Corangamite.
“There is no way of knowing if any occupant of a property would understand the agricultural environment but the risks which are managed through our planning policies are there regardless and include the potential for additional dwellings on the balance lot because that is an ‘as of right’ that the balance lot – even if the proponent or applicant might say there is no intention, there’s no guarantee there wouldn’t be a dwelling built on the balance block in the future.
“I do appreciate the perspectives of the applicant but I don’t think there is an argument which is compelling enough to grant the permit and we are not removing other choices for the applicant by refusing the permit.
“I do believe that we, and I always have, do need to respect our planning policy framework because it has evolved with good reason and through experience and I think the key aim of it is to protect the farming zone.”
Councillor Ruth Gstrein seconded the motion and said Cr Conheady made significant points.
“This subdivision doesn’t provide any benefit to agriculture and in fact has the potential to create land use conflicts, not perhaps with the current owner but in future – if somebody doesn’t understand agricultural practises then it becomes an issue for right to farm when their amenity in a country setting is impacted by farming operations,” she said.
“This lot would have no direct connection to agriculture and we say in our planning document these types of subdivisions should be encouraged near a township which can provide the amenity for a rural residential lot, which this would ultimately become.”
There was some disagreement amongst councillors, as both councillor Jamie Vogels and Laurie Hickey supported granting a permit in this case.
“I do appreciate the work the officers have put into this assessment and I absolutely support the importance of protecting agricultural land but in this case I’m not convinced refusing the applicant achieves a better long-term planning outcome,” Cr Vogels said.
“Yes, this policy discourages fragmentation, but the policy also allows for house lot excisions where farming can continue unhindered and where the dwelling is no longer required for agricultural purposes.
“I think the refusal doesn’t strengthen agriculture, it just limits the flexibility of our landowners without a clear agricultural gain.
“We need to be careful we don’t apply policy so rigidly that we remove reasonable discretion built into the farming zone provisions.
“In my view this is a modest contained excision and does not materially undermine agriculture productivity in this locality where it is and, for that reason, I won’t be supporting the officer’s recommendation to refuse.”
Cr Hickey supported Cr Vogels and said he understood there was a policy to protect but felt there was room to approve the permit in this instance.
“I can’t see this being an excision that’s going to dramatically affect the land around the agricultural area,” he said.
“I don’t believe there’s any intention to rebuild on this land, however we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future so there is a grey area there as far as I’m concerned but I think by limiting the sale of properties and excisions on such properties it does limit development from cash generated from sales of small allotments like this.
“Again, it also allows a younger, more progressive person an opportunity to be able to purchase a block where you may be able to operate a small business from it.”
Councillor Jo Beard said when it came to planning policy, there could be no grey areas to work in.
“None of this is easy, we’ve always said our planning decisions are one of the hardest things as councillors we have to do but for me it’s fairly straightforward,” she said.
“Whether I like it or not we have a rule book, a planning scheme, and it’s evident by the officer’s recommendation and the reports which have gone in here as to how this doesn’t align so Cr Hickey I could acknowledge what you said about the grey area.
“We can’t work in the grey area when it comes to planning and it’s hard when we have these planning inspections and we’re very respectful of those planning inspections where we’re able to gain more information around the applications and on their merit.
“We always have the best intentions when you hear things aren’t planned but we can’t make decisions based on things which aren’t planned because we don’t know what can happen in the future.
“For me, when making decisions, it has to come down to supporting the planning scheme and in this case it’s going to be with the officer’s recommendation.”
Mayor councillor Kate Makin said ultimately the planning policy needed to be respected and the policy intended to prevent the fragmentation of farming land.
“A house is being separated from a farming lot,” she said.
“There were no objections received, the authorities have said it was okay and technically the farming zone allows us to consider such an application.
“But planning decisions are not made on technicalities alone – they are made on strategies and they are made on long-term outcomes and they are made with the broader interest of our community.
“Our municipal planning strategy is clear, it seeks to limit fragmentation of rural land and avoid subdivisions that may impact the right to farm.
“The fragmentation part of it, to me, is what really brings this application undone.”
Cr Makin said as one of the most productive agricultural regions in Victoria, Corangamite Shire had to protect agricultural land.
“The potential of the conflict of the smaller rural lot of the fragmentation of this land is the noise, the dust, the spraying and the stock movements of the person who may move into that home,” she said.
“They will not understand what farming operations are all about so that is a huge concern of mine knowing what may or may not happen.
“Corangamite is one of the most productive agricultural regions in Victoria – agriculture underpins our economy, our employment and our identity.
“We’ve recently adopted strategies enforcing that agriculture is the backbone of our shire, so we need to support agriculture going forward and that’s what we’re doing and maintaining the integrity of our farming zone and in preventing fragmentation I’ll be supporting the officer’s recommendation on those grounds.”
Read More: local