VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P511/2023
Permit Application no. PlnApp22/174 	
CATCHWORDS	
Farming Zone; Re-subdivision of two lots to create a small lot containing a house and a large balance lot for agricultural production; New access to a road in a Transport Zone.	

Applicant	Malcolm Carson & Leonie Carson	

Responsible Authority	Rural City of Wangaratta Council	

SUBJECT LAND	1622 Wangaratta-Whitfield Road
DOCKER VIC 3678	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATEs OF HEARING	11 August & 28 September 2023	

DATE OF ORDER	30 November 2023	

CITATION	Carson v Wangaratta Rural CC [2023] VCAT 1326 	

Order
Amend permit application
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
Prepared by:	Paul F Kenny Consulting. Land Surveyor	
Drawing numbers:	Proposed subdivision plan Version No. 1 Sheet 2 (undated)
Information Plan Version No. 1 Sheet 1 (undated)	
Permit granted
2	In application P511/2023 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application PLNAPP22/174 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 1622 Wangaratta-Whitfield Road Docker VIC 3678  in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows the re-subdivision of two lots of two lots in the Farming Zone, the subdivision of land adjacent to a road in a Transport Zone (TRZ2) and to create access to a road in a Transport Zone (TRZ2).  

Rachel Naylor
Senior Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Leanne Maxwell of Regional Planning Services	
For responsible authority	Nick Vlahandreas of Mountain Planning	

Information
Land description	The site comprises Lots 1 and 2 on TP328642.  Lot 1 has an active permit for the development of a dwelling, which is nearing completion.  Lot 2 is the larger allotment and does not have legal access to a road.  Overall, the site has an irregular shape and a total area of 78.29 hectares.  It is largely cleared and is used for farming with nearby land in the same family ownership.  	
Description of proposal	To re-subdivide the existing two lots.  
(As the substituted amended plans are undated and a few plans have been lodged during the processing of this review application, extracts of the two substituted plans are shown below.)  
Proposed Lot 1 will be a smaller lot of 3,545sqm containing the nearly completed dwelling.  It will also have a new driveway and crossover to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road.  
Proposed Lot 2 will have an area of 77.41 hectares and contain the agricultural land with the existing access to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road.    	

Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Wangaratta Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Farming Zone (FZ)
Wangaratta-Whitfield Road is in the principal road network in the Transport Zone (TRZ2)
No overlay controls apply	
Permit requirements	Clause 35.07-3  To subdivide land in FZ
The FZ schedule nominates a minimum subdivision area for all land of 40 hectares.  Clause 35.07-3 states a permit may be granted to create smaller lots if any one of three circumstances apply.  In this case, the parties agree the circumstance relevant to this proposal is:
•	The subdivision is the re-subdivision of existing lots and the number of lots is not increased.
Clause 52.29-2  To subdivide land adjacent to a road in TRZ2 and to create access to a road in TRZ2	
Procedural matters	The hearing of this matter began on 11 August 2023, but it was adjourned as a few preliminary matters were identified.  It was agreed that updated information would be provided by the Applicant and then the Council and the referral authorities would be given a fair opportunity to consider the updated information.  Further details about this are contained in the Order dated 11 August 2023.  
The status of the referral authorities following the Order dated 11 August 2023 is as follows:
•	Head, Transport for Victoria (TfV) is not a party to the proceeding.  It lodged a statement of grounds (SOG) following the lodgement of this review application stating that it did not wish to participate in the hearing.  The SOG states it does not object to the proposal subject to conditions including that there will only be one access point to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road.  Following the Order dated 11 August 2023, the Applicant advised TfV it was opposing this condition.  TfV was invited in the Order to submit a revised SOG and/or attend the hearing.  TfV did neither.  
•	Goulburn Murray Water (GMW) is not a party to the proceeding.  GMW were given notice of the review application just prior to 11 August 2023, so the Order dated 11 August 2023 allowed time for GMW to respond and participate if it wished.  GMW submitted a SOG advising it does not object to the proposal subject to three conditions.  It also stated that GMW did not wish to participate in the hearing.	

Reasons
Overview
1	Mr and Mrs Carson (the Applicant) seek a review of the decision by the Rural City of Wangaratta (the Council) to refuse to grant a permit for the re-subdivision of the two existing lots located at 1622 Wangaratta-Whitfield Road, Docker (the/this site).
2	The proposal seeks planning permission to re-subdivide two existing lots.

Council illustration of the two existing lots

3	The Council is concerned the proposal creates a residential lot resulting in the loss of agriculturally productive land, which is in direct conflict with the Farming Zone and relevant policy.  It is also concerned that the re-subdivision is not associated with, is not necessary to, and does not support or improve agricultural production.  The Council considers this proposal is borne of personal circumstances and seeks to address financial and estate planning rather than town planning outcomes.  The Council submits this proposal results in the permanent loss and removal of highly productive agricultural land as it creates a rural residential style of lot and will negatively impact on land values.
4	The Applicant explains the main aim for the proposal is to facilitate succession planning as they want their son to continue the agricultural activities and purchase most of the land from them.  The Applicant points out the proposal retains the status quo of the site as it retains the two lots and the existing house.  The Applicant is willing to accept restrictions in the conditions of a planning permit to give priority to the agricultural activities intended on the larger balance lot.
5	Having regard to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), the relevant planning scheme provisions and policies, the submissions and statements of grounds received, and the material provided by the parties and contained in the Tribunal’s electronic file, I have decided to grant a permit.  The key reasons why I have reached this decision are focussed upon the following issues:
•	The acceptability of creating a small lot; and
•	The acceptability of creating a new access to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road.
The acceptability of creating a small lot
Existing and proposed lot sizes
6	The site comprises of two lots that are 24.51 and 53.53 hectares in size.  The proposal is to re-subdivide these two lots.  One lot will be limited to a small area of 3,545 square metres (Lot 1) and will be around the dwelling that is currently located on the 24.51 hectare lot.  The remainder of the land will be contained in a larger lot of 77.414 hectares (Lot 2).
Farming Zone provisions
7	The Farming Zone states that a permit is required to subdivide land and each lot must be at least the area specified in a schedule to this zone, or if none is specified, each lot must be at least 40 hectares.  In this planning scheme, the schedule states the minimum subdivision area is 40 hectares.  Proposed Lot 1 is not a minimum of 40 hectares, but proposed Lot 2 well exceeds this minimum lot size.  The Farming Zone states a permit may be granted to create smaller lots if any of the following circumstances apply:
•	The subdivision is to create a lot for an existing dwelling. The subdivision must be a two lot subdivision.
•	The subdivision is the re-subdivision of existing lots and the number of lots is not increased.
•	The subdivision is by a public authority or utility service provider to create a lot for a utility installation.
8	The parties agree that the relevant circumstance in this case is the second dot point – that this is a re-subdivision, and the number of lots (two) is not increased.  
9	The Council acknowledged that the first dot point is otherwise described in some of the relevant planning policies as a ‘house lot excision’.  The Applicant has referred to this aspect of the proposal in its submission as part of its reasoning as to why this is an acceptable planning outcome.  As such, this is a matter that I make reference to later in these reasons.  
10	The Council submits the ‘primary purpose’ of the Farming Zone is to utilise the land for agriculture and to retain productive agricultural land; and that there is also a purpose that dwellings do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture.  I am not persuaded of the use of the term ‘primary purpose’.  There are a total of seven purposes listed in the zone.  There is nothing in the planning scheme to suggest that their order is hierarchical in terms of importance.  Hence, the seven purposes are of equal value.  What is telling in the purposes is that several are supportive of the use of land for agriculture.  One of the purposes gives recognition to the existence and potential existence of non-agricultural uses, including dwellings.  It does not suggest dwellings cannot be permitted.  Rather, the purpose is to ensure that dwellings and other non-agricultural uses do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture.  
11	The Farming Zone contains a range of decision guidelines to consider as appropriate.  Having regard to the existing conditions of the site and surrounds and the details of the proposal, some of the relevant decision guidelines in this case include:
•	The capability of the land to accommodate the proposal, including the disposal of effluent.
•	How the proposal relates to sustainable land management.
•	Whether the site is suitable for the proposal and whether the proposal is compatible with adjoining and nearby land uses.
•	How the proposal makes use of existing infrastructure and services.
•	Whether the proposal will support and enhance agricultural production.
•	Whether the proposal will permanently remove land from agricultural production.
•	The potential for the proposal to limit the operation and expansion of adjoining and nearby agricultural uses.
•	The capacity of the site to sustain the agricultural use.
•	The agricultural qualities of the land, such as soil quality, access to water and access to rural infrastructure.
•	Any integrated land management plan prepared for the site.
Relevance of personal and financial circumstances 
12	There is nothing in the above decision guidelines that specifically relate to the personal and/or financial circumstances of the Applicant.  The Council quoted a decision I made some years ago about the personal and financial reasons for that particular subdivision not being given any significant weight in making a decision on the planning merits.  Such a finding is dependent upon the specific circumstances of the particular case.  The circumstances in that decision are different to this proceeding.  In Liprino, the proposed two lot subdivision was required for financial reasons.  The applicant wished to establish a commercial walnut plantation and needed a mortgage but did not want this over the entire lot (including the dwelling on the lot).  Hence, the proposal was to subdivide the lot so that one lot could be mortgaged and leased for grazing or sold off as a last resort.  It was in this context that I made the finding in paragraph 18 – that the personal and financial reasons for that particular subdivision were not matters that could be given any significant weight in the decision-making.  
13	The Farming Zone decision guidelines do require consideration of sustainable land management, supporting and enhancing agricultural production, and any integrated land management plan prepared for the site.  Whilst a farm management plan is not a Farming Zone requirement for a re-subdivision, there is a local policy guideline about whether a subdivision in a High agricultural versatility area can be substantiated by a ‘whole farm plan’.  The Applicant provided a report that addressed the relationship between farm succession, expansion of the farming business and the proposed subdivision at this hearing.  The aim is to produce 12,000 round bales and 7,000 small bales of Lucerne hay for the farm and the local market, and have 80 beef breeding cows, 25 replacement heifers and 400 steers.
14	Farming businesses are often unique.  Each farmer or farming family is aware of the challenges associated with running a successful and profitable agricultural business.  Farm holdings are becoming larger, and farming is often diversified these days to offset against economic challenges when a particular segment of the agricultural related markets is struggling.  As such, one farm is not the same as another, and each farmer or farming family will find ways to make their farm best work for them individually in order to maintain and enhance their agricultural production.  
15	In addition to the two lots that are the subject of this planning application, this farming family own another 10 allotments including a property on the opposite side of Wangaratta-Whitfield Road that also has a house on it.  They supply cattle to abattoirs and are interested in broadening their agricultural production to include breeding cattle.  The older generation in the family (the Applicant) are looking to wind back and retire on the smaller proposed Lot 1 over the next eight years or so.  The intention is that the next generation will purchase the remaining land holdings.  It is hoped then hoped in the future that the younger generation of grandchildren will also continue the family legacy of agricultural production.  It was suggested that a member of this younger generation could occupy the house on proposed Lot 1 in the longer term future.  In other words, this subdivision is motivated by the desire for sustainable land management of the larger farm holding.  It does not necessarily mean that the smaller lot will be sold off.  
The agricultural qualities of the land and the removal of Lot 1 from agricultural production
16	The Applicant agrees with the Council that the site is located within a High Versatility Class within the Versatility of Agricultural Land (DNRE 2000).  The Council submits land should be maintained for agricultural production within high agricultural versatility areas, and this proposed re-subdivision of the land limits its agricultural versatility.  I am not persuaded by this submission.  
17	The Council acknowledges that there are some dwellings on smaller allotments dispersed throughout the locality and that the locality has a rural feel and there is a distinct lack of a town centre or township pattern.  Some of the adjoining uses do contain dwellings on smaller allotments but there are predominantly larger allotments where agricultural production is occurring.  The Council submits the creation of a residential use on proposed Lot 1 would be incompatible with the surrounding land uses.
18	The Council’s concerns focus upon the intent to create a small lot around the dwelling it approved in 2015 on the existing 24.51 hectare lot within this site.  The Council considers the dwelling could be occupied for ‘rural lifestyle purposes with resulting amenity conflicts with the rural use of adjoining land’.  
19	The potential for residential land use or a rural lifestyle purpose already exists on this site as the Council has already approved the development of the dwelling.  The Applicant points out there is no certainty that a lot of 24.51 hectares would be independently farmed as even a lot of this size has limitations for agricultural production.  Hence, the potential for a rural lifestyle purpose already exists on this site.  The difference between the existing condition and the proposal is the lot size – that proposed Lot 1 is 3,545 square metres rather than the existing lot size of 24.51 hectares.  
20	Having a small lot is consistent with the subdivision strategy concerning house lot excisions and balance lots in clause 14.01-1L:
Minimise the parcel size around an existing house that is to be excised and maintain a large vacant balance of land for agricultural purposes.  
21	Relevant policy guidelines in clause 14.01-1L include:
•	Whether there is the need to consolidate land in a ‘high’ or ‘very high’ agricultural versatility area, if consolidation would protect the existing and future productive use of rural and agricultural land.
•	Requiring a minimum setback of 30 metres between any dwelling and an agricultural use on adjoining land.
•	Requiring screen planting between any dwelling and an agricultural use on adjoining land to limit impacts between the two uses.
22	The Council submits the dwelling location does not meet the 30 metre minimum setback (Council described this as a ‘buffer distance’) required under this policy, as the greatest setback proposed in Lot 1 is only 20 metres from the northern boundary.  During the hearing, I asked whether the 30 metre minimum setback was in the planning scheme policies in 2015 when the permit for the dwelling was issued by the Council.  The Council provided me with a copy of clause 21.05 and submits it was not.  However, after the hearing, I noted the end of clause 21.05 highlighted that clause 22.01 was also relevant to clause 21.05.  Upon reviewing the version of clause 22.01 that existed in 2015, I note it did have a performance measure for:
•	A minimum setback of 30 metres from the proposed dwelling from any agricultural activity or rural industry on any adjoining land, and the provision of screen planting on the land to limit the likely impacts between the two uses.
23	Despite this performance measure, the original 2015 permit and endorsed plans contain a 20 metre setback from the northern boundary and no requirement for screen planting.  The dwelling in the secondary consent endorsed plans is also located 20 metres from the northern boundary.  So, the 20 metre northern setback is consistent with the proposed subdivision plan.  This is not new and is a level of separation that the Council has already found to be acceptable without any screen planting.  
24	The substituted amended Information Plan (extract on the following page) shows the house set back 17.6 metres from the west boundary and 10.2 metres from the south boundary of proposed Lot 1.  These setbacks have been chosen in part by existing conditions on the site such as the location of trees, infrastructure and roads, and the topography.  The Council is seeking visual separation through landscape buffers, which the Applicant agrees to.  The Applicant is agreeable to the inclusion of a 3.0 metre wide landscape buffer of screen planting along these two boundaries.  Given these circumstances, this is an acceptable design response to the relevant policy guidelines.  Furthermore, the consolidation of land currently in the 24.51 hectare lot into the balance lot that will continue to be used for agricultural production is in accordance with the policy guideline about consolidating land to protect the existing and future productive use of rural and agricultural land.

Extract of substituted amended Information Plan

25	It is foreshadowed in the Applicant’s submission that this house could be occupied by other family members or workers and their families in the future, so it is not a given that proposed Lot 1 will be sold off, rather it is a possible land use outcome.  In terms of amenity conflicts, the potentially worst affected agricultural production business is the Applicant’s land as proposed Lot 2 will share two of the three boundaries surrounding proposed Lot 1.  
26	The Council points out the boundary setbacks on proposed Lot 1 will not address any acoustic issues associated with agricultural production, and I agree.  However, I am not persuaded a 30 metre setback would address this either as this extent of separation is not a magic number that removes all potential amenity impacts for a residential or rural lifestyle land use.  The Council suggested an amenity restriction in its draft section 173 agreement condition, albeit the Council submits such a restriction is very hard to impossible to enforce.  The Applicant is agreeable to this restriction and, as already stated, it is likely that Lot 2 will be the most affected agricultural business in the future as it shares two of the three side and rear boundaries of proposed Lot 1.  It is also the case that all three boundaries of proposed Lot 1 will be adjacent to large agricultural allotments.  As such, there is the possibility of any future issues potentially being able to be managed to minimise the impacts given the generous size of these land holdings (i.e., that some agricultural activities may be able to be minimised or limited immediately adjacent to proposed Lot 1 if need be).  It is this particular physical context and current ownership and farm succession planning together with the proposed section 173 restriction that satisfies me that any risk to agricultural production is limited.  
27	The Council submits this proposal is an incremental loss of agricultural land that has ongoing and significant impacts on the supply of land available for agricultural production in the State.  As the Council pointed out earlier, some of the adjoining uses do contain dwellings on smaller allotments but there are predominantly larger allotments where agricultural production is occurring.  This means the area is achieving and maintaining its role as part of the agriculturally productive land in the State.  However, that does not mean there can never be smaller lots.  The applicant points out a solar farm has also been approved nearby so the character of the area is changing.  On the one hand, smaller lots can be considered undesirable in planning terms.  On the other hand, the planning scheme still enables the creation of smaller lots in particular circumstances.  In this planning scheme those circumstances are sought to be articulated in, for example, both the subdivision and house lot excision policies.  The house lot excision policy requirements are met by this proposal even though they do not apply.  For the reasons already explained, various policy aspirations relevant to a re-subdivision are also met, and this proposal is an acceptable outcome.  
28	There are also benefits that flow from this planning proposal.  The Applicant is correct in pointing out that there can be difficulties in farming a lot of about 25 hectares (as per the existing lot size).  The larger the allotment for agricultural production, the better the chances of its maintenance long term.  Hence the gains for productive agricultural land in this case are a consolidated large agricultural land holding with restrictions that will prevent its further subdivision and a house being built upon it.  On balance, this is a good planning outcome that contributes to the maintenance of a greater proportion of productive agricultural land across the two existing lots.  
The acceptability of creating a new access to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road 
29	Head, Transport for Victoria (TfV) does not object to the permit application subject to four conditions.  The first condition requires only one access from the site to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road and the second condition requires amended plans to illustrate this including shared common property access for Lots 1 and 2 to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road.  The Applicant opposes these conditions.  TfV was advised of this and has not provided any further response/submission.
30	The material that I have before me is:
i	A referral response letter from TfV to the Council dated 3 January 2023 stating TfV does not object subject to the four conditions;
ii	An email from TfV to the Applicant dated 28 February 2023 asking for more information including why the additional access is required;
iii	A document from the Applicant dated 1 March 2023 explaining why the access is required; and 
iv	A statement of grounds from TfV to the Tribunal dated 22 June 2023 stating that it did not wish to participate in the hearing and advising it does not object if the permit contains the four requested conditions.  
31	The Council submits:
… the existing access to the land will be retained for access to proposed Lot 2. The creation of common property over this accessway to provide access to proposed Lot 1 would remove further land from agricultural production and it may result in the driveway for proposed Lot 2 being moved closer to the dwelling under construction which would create amenity impacts on the residents of the dwelling.
32	The Council advises it has no opinion either way on the conditions in dispute and defers to TfV.  
33	The Applicant’s 1 March 2023 document contains an illustration (extract below).

34	This document explains:
•	A separate access for the dwelling would mean cars would not have to compete with cattle and farm vehicles and would not have to open and close the gates so cattle do not escape;
•	The cattle and farm access across Wangaratta-Whitfield Road is directly opposite each other on either side of the road;
•	With separate access there is no chance of cars needing to interact with cattle and farm vehicles and therefore would not affect the farming operation; and
•	No roadside trees are affected by the location of the proposed driveway.
35	The decision guidelines at clause 52.29-6 of the planning scheme require consideration of the following before deciding on an application:
•	The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
•	The views of the relevant road authority.
•	The effect of the proposal on the operation of the road and on public safety.
•	Any policy made by the relevant road authority pursuant to schedule 2, clause 3 of the Road Management Act 2004 regarding access between a controlled access road and adjacent land.
36	There is no explanation from TfV as to why a single access is sought for this proposal.  I have no material before me to indicate that the proposal has an unacceptable effect on the operation of the road or on public safety.  I also have no material before me about any policy under the Road Management Act relevant to this proposal regarding access between a controlled access road and adjacent land.  Neither the parties nor TfV in its correspondence have identified any relevant planning policies in the Planning Policy Framework that ought to be specifically considered in regard to making a decision on this planning permission for access to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road.  
37	Rather, the only material before me is the material from the Applicant and the submission of the Council.  This demonstrates that there are clear benefits for agricultural land management and road safety by separating the farm activities from the dwelling.  In absence of any submissions or material to the contrary, having two separate access points is an acceptable planning outcome.  
Conclusion
38	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Rachel Naylor
Senior Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PlnApp22/174 - S201321J	
Land	1622 Wangaratta-Whitfield Road
DOCKER VIC 3678	

What the permit allowS	
Re-subdivision of two lots in the Farming Zone, the subdivision of land adjacent to a road in a Transport Zone (TRZ2) and to create access to a road in a Transport Zone (TRZ2) in accordance with the endorsed plans.	

Conditions
Amended Plans
1	Prior to Certification of a Plan of Subdivision, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.   When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit.   The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions.  The plans must be generally in accordance with the VCAT substituted amended plans (prepared by Paul F Kenny Consulting. Land Surveyor and titled Proposed subdivision plan Version No. 1 Sheet 2 (undated) and Information Plan Version No. 1 Sheet 1 (undated)), but modified to show:
(a)	Nominate the hatching shown on the internal side of the southern boundary of Lot 1 as a 3m wide landscape buffer. 
(b)	Provision of a 3m wide landscape buffer on the internal side of the western boundary of Lot 1.
Endorsed Plans
2	The subdivision layout as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Mandatory Subdivision Conditions
3	The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, electricity and gas services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authority’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time. 
4	All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created. 
5	The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8 of that Act.
Conditions Registered on Title
6	Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner of the land must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority, in a form satisfactory to the Responsible Authority, under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide for the following:
(a)	The land shall not be further subdivided in a manner that creates additional lots. 
(b)	The land shall not be subdivided (or re-subdivided) in a manner that increases the size of Lot 1. 
(c)	No dwelling is to be constructed on Lot 2.
(d)	The landscaping buffers within Lot 1 as shown on the endorsed plans and described in Planning Permit PlnApp22/174 must be maintained on an ongoing basis including that any dead or diseased plants or trees are replaced.
(e)	The owner of Lot 1 acknowledges the Farming Zoning of the land and the surrounding area which is used for farming purposes.   The owner acknowledges these activities and the rights of adjoining properties to undertake agricultural activities and the potential offsite impacts of such activities.   The owner relinquishes the right to make complaint, object to, or otherwise hinder the continuation, expansion of, or establishment of agricultural activities on adjoining or nearby land because of an expectation of residential amenity or rights. 
The owner/operator under this Permit must pay the full costs of preparing, executing and registering the Agreement.   Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, confirmation that the Agreement/s have been registered in accordance with Section 181 of the Act must be provided in the form of both:
(a)	A registered copy of the property Title or Titles that identifies the registered Agreement/s.     
(b)	A registered copy of the corresponding Agreement/s identified on the property Title. 
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Access
7	Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance the permit holder must satisfy the Responsible Authority that a vehicle crossing has been designed and constructed for Lot 1 in accordance Department of Transport and Planning requirements.  
Landscape Buffer
8	Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, a landscaping buffer must be established along the full extent of the western and southern internal boundaries of Lot 1, or a suitable alternative arrangement is made which may include a landscape bond to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The landscaping buffer must have a minimum width of 3m.   Plantings must comprise a mix of non-deciduous shrub and tree species planted at appropriate overlapping intervals and rows to ensure that upon maturity a continuous visual screen will be established to a height of no less than 3m.
Construction 
9	Before any construction works commence, and during construction, effective measures must be taken to:
(a)	Secure occupational health and safety; and
(b)	Locate any existing underground services; and
(c)	Implement effective traffic management and environmental controls; and
(d)	Establish and maintain safe construction vehicle access to the site; and
(e)	Maintain vehicle and machinery hygiene; and 
(f)	Avoid the spread of soil-borne pathogens and weeds; and
(g)	Minimise erosion, sedimentation, and contamination; and
(h)	Reduce the impact of noise, dust, and other emissions; and
(i)	Prevent mud, dirt, sand, soil, clay, or stones from entering the drainage system; and
(j)	Avoid having such materials deposited on public land by construction vehicles.
10	No excavated or construction materials may be placed or stored outside the site area or on adjoining road reserves or nature strips unless required for works located within the road reserve and approved by the relevant responsible authority.
11	Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, all areas, Council assets and underground services external of the site disturbed in the course of works must be restored to their original condition, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Subdivision Expiry
12	This permit as it relates to development (subdivision) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The plan of subdivision has not been certified under the Subdivision Act 1988 within 2 years of the issued date of this permit.
(b)	A statement of compliance is not issued within 5 years of the date of certification.
In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
Department of Transport and Planning Conditions
13	Prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria. When approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria, the plans must be endorsed by the Responsible Authority and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans endorsed under condition 1 and detail the construction of the new access from Lot 1 to Wangaratta-Whitfield Road.  
14	Prior to the release of a statement of compliance, the proposed access must be constructed and sealed in accordance with the approved plans to the satisfaction of and at no cost to Head, Transport for Victoria.
15	The driveway of Lot 1 must be maintained in a fit and proper state so as not to compromise the ability of vehicles to enter and exit the site in a safe manner or compromise operational efficiency of the road or public safety (e.g., by spilling gravel onto the roadway).
Goulburn Murray Water Conditions
16	All construction and ongoing activities must be in accordance with sediment control principles outlined in ‘Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control’ (EPA 1991)
17	Any Plan of Subdivision lodged for certification must be referred to Goulburn-Murray Rural Water Corporation pursuant to Section 8(1)(a) of the Subdivision Act.
18	The existing on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems for Lot 1 must be wholly contained within the boundaries of the lot created by this subdivision.
– End of conditions –