Planning decision sparks new debate over protection of valuable farm land

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal this week overturned a local council's decision to refuse an application to build a temple on a lifestyle property in a Green Wedge Zone.

The proposal is to build a temple and convert a rural building into a multi-faith place of worship between Sunbury and Gisborne on a block taking in 8.34 hectares (21 acres) on the north-western side of Mundy Road near Sunbury.

The Hume City Council had refused the plan citing the zone's aims to protect and conserve valuable agricultural land.

But the role of local councils in allowing subdivisions in farm areas for lifestyle blocks has come into question for already thwarting the efforts of planners to protect agricultural production.

Local landholders had supported the council refusal.

The VCAT hearing was told the neighbours considered there would be unreasonable adverse impacts on their amenity and on established agricultural activity in the area.

There are 12 designated green wedge areas across 17 municipalities (including Hume) which form a ring around the city.

The local GWZ planning document states its zone "will be valued and enjoyed by the community for its rural atmosphere, rich biodiversity, cultural heritage and scenic landscape".

Regarding the development of green wedge zones, the Victorian government said: "Some of Victoria's most productive agricultural land is within 100km of central Melbourne.

"The land is also an attractive location for urban development and rural living due to its rural scenic values.

"These urban uses often compete with agriculture, resulting in the permanent loss of agricultural land and associated businesses.

"As our climate changes and our growth areas experience a rapid pace of change, protection of agricultural land becomes even more important to Victoria's food production."

But this week, VCAT senior member Ian Potts set aside the council's decision on the Sunbury application following a hearing back in October.

Because the original application was a proposal to accommodate 1000 people, local landowners worried there would be later applications to expand the use and development.

The proposal considered by Mr Potts was for 100 people.

Mr Potts said the proposed temple structure would "not have a detrimental impact on the rural landscape of this area" of the zone, "is acceptably responsive to adjoining land uses and would not be in conflict with them" and "would not prevent agricultural land use of the subject land or adjoining land".

The effectiveness of the GWZ also came in for comment with Mr Potts saying the area "has been subject to a degree of fragmentation into rural lifestyle lots, where productive agricultural activity has limited capacity to occur".

"The fragmentation of agricultural land in this area, is on any view, a fait accompli given the division of this locality into small rural lifestyle lots," Mr Potts said.

"The fragmentation of agricultural land that rural and agricultural planning policy seeks to prevent is directed to the prevention of small lots in rural areas," he said.

"I reject the notion that this same policy can be applied to individual lots."

He said there was "an implied acceptance" in planning laws "that in some circumstances a place of worship in a GWZ is acceptable".

Under conditions imposed by Mr Potts, the temple can operate between Friday and Sunday from 9am-5pm and is restricted to 100 patrons with 31 car parking spaces at the rear of the proposed temple building.

He said the proposal would provide a social benefit and plans to maintain "some agricultural use" of the land.

He said views of the temple structure would be "limited and moderated" by road side vegetation and the deep setback of the building.

"The existing farm dwelling form would be retained and is largely screened by existing vegetation," Mr Potts said.

Plans show the property would be split into 3.6 hectares for agriculture and 3.1ha for the place of worship.

The temple building would have a maximum height of 4.3 metres, increasing to 5.5 metres to the top of the glazed dome feature.

Opponents and the local council had raised an issue of increased bushfire risk from the development.

The distance between the development and neighbours range from 240 metres to 320 metres.

There is a nearby vineyard, olive grove, equestrian centre and otherwise open grazing land.

City Planning and Places director Rachel Dapiran said the decision would not be appealed.

"A VCAT decision can only be reviewed based on a misapplication of the law in the Supreme Court, which does not apply in this decision.

"Therefore the decision of the independent member will apply."