VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1000/2024
Permit Application no. P001/23 	

Applicant	Steve Jakovljevic	

Responsible Authority	Mansfield Shire Council	
RespondentS	Ian Douglas Galbraith	
	John Eisner	
	Karen Dodd	
	Prue Shepherd	

SUBJECT LAND	446 Monkey Gully Road
MANSFIELD VIC 3722	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	4 March 2025	

DATE OF ORDER	2 April 2025	

CITATION	Jakovljevic v Mansfield SC [2025] VCAT 249	
Order
No permit granted
1	In application P1000/2024 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
2	In planning permit application P001/23 no permit is granted.

Jane Tait
Member			

Appearances
For Steve Jakovljevic	Troy Spencer, town planner, Planography	
For Mansfield Shire Council	Tim Berger, town planner, Hatch Planning	
For Ian Douglas Galbraith	In person	
For John Eisner	In person 	
For Karen Dodd	In person	
For Prue Shepherd	In person	
Information
Description of proposal	Use and development of the land for rural industry (farm machinery repairs), display of a business identification sign and a reduction of the car parking requirements. 	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Mansfield Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Rural Living Zone – Schedule 1 (‘RLZ1’)	
Permit requirements	Clause 35.03-1 – Use of land for rural industry 
Clause 35.03-4 – Construct or carry out works for a Section 2 use 
Clause 52.05-2 – Construct or display a business identification sign
Clause 52.06-3 – Reduction of car parking requirements 	
Land description	The review site is on the west side of Monkey Gully Road, approximately five kilometres south of Mansfield town centre.  It has a frontage of 144.34 metres, depth of 432 metres and site area of 6.146 hectares.  It contains a single storey dwelling and domestic outbuildings.  
The review site contains a gully as the land falls from the frontage to the centre of the site and then rises to the rear.  There are scattered trees and three dams on the site.
Surrounding land uses to the north and south contain similar rural lifestyle properties with single dwellings and outbuildings.  To the east and west (rear) are agricultural properties that include a dwelling and associated outbuildings that used in association with grazing and animal production.	
Tribunal inspection	An unaccompanied site inspection of the review site, the respondents’ properties and Mansfield township (including the industrial areas) were conducted after the hearing.	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Steve Jakovljevic (the ‘applicant’) applied to Mansfield Shire Council (the ‘Council’) for the construction of a large shed to be used for the service and repair of plant used in agriculture (rural industry) at 446 Monkey Gully Road, Macedon.  
2	The shed is to be used for storage of spare parts and equipment, and the repair and service of farm equipment such as hay rakes, mowers, balers and feeding cart.  The business is to operate from 8:00am to 6:00pm, Monday to Friday and 8:00am to 1:00pm on Saturdays.
3	The shed is to be setback 20 metres from the frontage and has a floor area of 450 square metres.  The design of the shed is shown in Figures 1-3.
Figure 1 – Detailed Site Plan

Figure 2 – Floor Plan

Figure 3 – North Elevation

4	Council has refused the application on three grounds including:
a	Lack of compatibility with the surrounding land uses; 
b	Detriment to amenity of immediate surrounds; and 
c	Does not contribute to Councils’ strategy of vibrant liveability [sic] for the Shire. 
5	Council submits the unplanned expansion of industrial uses in a Rural Living Zone (‘RLZ’) will have undesirable outcomes including land use conflict with sensitive uses in that zone.  It says the proposal undermines settlement strategy that directs urban uses, such as industry, to appropriate industrial areas in the township.
6	The applicant submits rural living, and agricultural uses are well established in this area.  He says that expectations of agriculturally related businesses, such as the repair of farm machinery, is acceptable and consistent with many uses in this area.  He considers the proposal is very small and minor and the amenity and operation of the business, as well as the visual aspects, can be addressed through conditions on the permit.
7	The respondents own and occupy four rural living properties and/or farms abutting and near the review site. They support Council’s grounds of refusal and submit that the use will cause unreasonable amenity impacts such as noise, increased traffic and visual impacts from the shed.  They submit the RLZ is a residential zone in a rural environment and the proposal amounts to ‘industrial creep’ in this zone.
What are the key issues?
8	Taking into consideration the submissions regarding the applicable policies and provisions of the Mansfield Planning Scheme (the ‘Planning Scheme’), the key issues are whether the use and development for rural industry is an acceptable response to the zoning and policy context and whether it will result in unacceptable amenity impacts on nearby properties.
9	Planning does not seek ideal outcomes, or outcomes which respond positively to every relevant policy.  Rather, acceptable outcomes are the measure by which planning decisions are to be made. I must decide whether the use and development permit will produce an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the Planning Scheme.  Clause 71.02-3 requires the decision-maker to:
integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development. 
10	I have decided to affirm Council’s decision to refuse the application.  I find the use is contrary to the purposes and decision guidelines of the RLZ which is to provide for residential uses in a rural environment.  This is also reiterated in local and State policies that have a clear policy expectation to facilitate industrial uses on industrially zone land at the periphery of the Mansfield township, and not within the RLZ.  
11	I also find that the applicant has provided insufficient information to demonstrate how the use will not cause unreasonable amenity impacts on nearby rural residential properties.  
12	My reasons follow.
What is the physical context?
13	The review site is on the west side of Monkey Gully Road, Mansfield.  It has a total area of 6.146 hectares and contains a dwelling, domestic outbuildings and three dams.  The land contains a central gully that transverses the site, with scattered vegetation throughout.  There is an existing driveway and crossover in the north-east corner that leads to the dwelling.  
14	There are seven properties within the RLZ on the west side of road, including the review site.  These properties contain dwellings and associated outbuildings and have an area of approximately 4-6 hectares.  
15	Directly west is land within the Farming Zone (‘FZ’) that is approximately 231 hectares.  The property is used for grazing and animal production and contains a dwelling and outbuildings.  Land on the opposite side of the road is also within a FZ.  Council highlighted the topography of the land to the east is undulating which results in less viable farming/grazing land and denser vegetation on the slope.  It says this results in the land used for rural lifestyle instead of agriculture. This is evident on the aerial photograph shown in Figure 4.
16	The review site is approximately five kilometres south of Mansfield township.  There is a larger area of RLZ to the north, along Merinda Way, that extends to the southern edge of the township.
17	My inspection revealed that there are several areas containing industrial land in the township, including at the northern edge, along Dead Horse Lane and the Midland Highway.  This area contains both developed and undeveloped industrial land.  Other pockets of industrial land are found at Mt Buller Road and on Rifle Butts Road.
Figure 4 – Aerial Photograph

Review Site 

18	The applicant considers the area is best described as an:
undulating landscape consisting of farmland with broadacre dry land agricultural enterprises with a hint of rural residential developed mixed in.
19	Council contests the applicant’s assessment and submits that there is more than a ‘hint’ of rural residential development in this area.  The respondents agree and say this area is characterised by small rural residential properties and that larger farms are located further away from this area and the township.
20	Based on my site inspection and the aerial photographs I agree with Council and the respondents.  I observed that the immediate area contains rural living properties with single dwellings and associated outbuildings, some of which operate as hobby farms for the grazing of sheep, cattle, alpacas and horses.  This characteristic extends further north along Monkey Gully Road and Merinda Way that contains smaller lots of approximately 4-6 hectares.
What is the zoning and policy context?
21	The review site is within an RLZ that contains purposes:
•	To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. 
•	To provide for residential use in a rural environment. 
•	To provide for agricultural land uses which do not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding land uses. 
•	To protect and enhance the natural resources, biodiversity and landscape and heritage values of the area. 
•	To encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision.
22	The decision guidelines of the zone contain general issues to consider including whether the site is suitable for the use or development and whether the proposal is compatible with adjoining and nearby land uses.  Agricultural issues include whether the proposal has the potential for the future expansion and the impact of this on adjoining and nearby agricultural and other land uses.
23	The Municipal Planning Strategy (‘MPS’) contains a range of clauses that are relevant to my decision including:
•	Clause 02.03-1 – Settlement – This clause notes that Mansfield is a sub-regional moderate growth centre in the Central Hume sub-region.  It is the only urban centre with significant growth potential in the Shire and there is a need for more industrial land to service demand.
•	Clause 02.03-2 – Environmental and landscape values – This clause has a strategy to protect environmental, landscape and visual significance of rural areas.
•	Clause 02.03-4 – Natural resource management – The clause has a strategy to protect productive agricultural land from land fragmentation and incompatible use and development. The review site is also within a Declared Special Water Supply Catchment that has a strategic direction to avoid development that is detrimental to water quality.
•	Clause 02.03-6 – Housing – The clause states that areas zoned Rural Living seek to recognise existing developed areas able to support a mix of small-scale commercial farming operations and rural living situations.
•	Clause 02.03-7 – Economic Development – The clause notes that Mansfield Township is the only location that provides significant industrial development opportunities. Its strategic direction is to support viable industrial business opportunities and support environmentally sustainable industries as alternatives to the traditional forms of industry. 
24	The Planning Policy Framework (‘PPF’) also contains policies that are relevant to this application including:
•	Clause 11.01-1L-01 – Mansfield Township – The policy has objectives to:
To support the growth of Mansfield township as the focus of development in the Shire. 
…
To protect the development and future growth of the Lakins Road precinct as the Shire’s primary industrial area.
•	Clause 12.05-2L – Significant landscapes, ridge lines and alpine approaches. – The clause contains a strategy to site and design development to be responsive to the topography of the land and unobtrusive in the landscape. 
•	Clause 13.05-1S – Noise abatement – The clause has an objective to assist the management of noise effects on sensitive land uses.
•	Clause 13.07-1S – Land use compatibility - To protect community amenity, human health and safety while facilitating appropriate commercial, industrial, infrastructure or other uses with potential adverse off-site impacts.
•	Clause 13.02-1S – Bushfire Planning – There is an objective to strengthen the resilience of settlements and communities to bushfire through risk-based planning that prioritises the protection of human life.
•	Clause 14.02-1L – Catchment planning and management – There is a strategy to minimise adverse impacts from wastewater management systems (both individually and cumulatively) on catchment health and water quality. 
•	Clause 15.01-6S – Design for rural areas – This clause has an objective to ensure development respects valued areas of rural character. 
•	Clause 16.01-3L – Rural residential development – There is an objective to protect productive agricultural land by directing rural living to areas based on their suitability and land capability.
25	Specific policies for industrial use and development are found at Clause 11.01-1L-01 – Mansfield Township which are to:
Encourage relocation of service industries, light industrial, rural supplies and vehicle repair uses from the town centre to new industrial areas, including Mount Buller Road and Lakins Road once subdivided. Protect Lakins Road industrial precinct from residential encroachment. 
…
Support the continuity of the Dead Horse Lane industrial area as an established industrial area. 
Support the rejuvenation and redevelopment of Dead Horse Lane through improved road infrastructure. 
…
Encourage relocation of manufacturing, construction, rural supplies and vehicle repair uses to new industrial land in Dead Horse Lane. 
26	This is also reiterated in Clause 17.03-1L – Industrial development that contains a strategy to reduce the potential for land use conflict by minimising the incidence of incompatible land uses and ensuring buffers are applied between growing residential uses and established industrial areas. 
does the proposal respond to the zoning and policy context?
27	Council argues the RLZ is focused on providing for residential land use in a rural context.  It says that agriculture (i.e. hobby farming) is secondary to the primary residential use and that there is a reasonable expectation of residential amenity that seeks to avoid land use conflict.  It submits the decision guidelines broadly seek to ensure development is compatible with adjoining and nearby land uses and avoids impacting agricultural and other land uses.
28	Whilst Council acknowledges that rural industry is not a prohibited use in an RLZ, it argues that only the most exceptional circumstances justify this discretion being exercised when:
(a)	There is a clear inability for the use to be accommodated within a nominated industrial precinct; 
(b)	There are no amenity impacts to other sensitive uses; 
(c)	The site context is such that it can be readily distinguished from other rural living contexts. 
29	Council submits land use planning around industrial uses, particularly near the Mansfield township, has been carefully considered to direct these uses towards nominated areas.  It says that gazettal of Amendment C51mansPt1 in September 2022, and the inclusion of Clause 17.03-1L – Industrial Development into the Planning Scheme, provides clear direction for industrial uses.  This amendment created a new/expanded industrial precinct at 175 Dead Horse Lane, Mansfield that has over 30 hectares of additional industrial land to service the Mansfield district.  It says this these are the areas where industrial uses are directed or the existing industrial areas.  
30	The respondents agree with Council and say the RLZ is for residential uses in a rural setting.  They say they choose to live in a rural environment for the health benefits and consider the use will not support the agricultural use of the surrounding land.  They consider policies, such as Clause 14.01-1L – Protection of Agricultural Land – Macedon Ranges, strongly discourages uses which do not have a link to agriculture.  They submit approval of this use will lead to industrial creep in this area. 
31	The applicant submits the proposed use is part of what makes this a living and working zone.  He considers the servicing and repair of agricultural equipment is compatible with rural living and agricultural production.  He also submits the use does not need to be in an industrial zone as there are already many workshops, contained in large outbuildings, in the RLZ.  
32	The applicant submits that it is unreasonable to expect him to buy industrially zoned land for his business. He is also concerned that farmers/clients will have to drive their farm equipment from their farms to the industrial land in the township. 
33	The applicant says the provision of an outbuilding on his land is the most cost-effective way to run his business and the site will be convenient for farmers to deliver or collect agricultural equipment.  Currently he operates a mobile service where he goes to farms to repair equipment.  However, he says the new outbuilding is required for servicing and repair of machinery that cannot be conducted on site (such as welding).
Tribunal findings
34	I acknowledge that rural industry is a permitted use in the RLZ, but I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant approval of this use at this location.  I have come to this conclusion as the RLZ is a residential zone that contains a purpose for residential use in a rural environment.  Whilst the zone provides for agricultural land uses, they must not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding land uses.  This zone differs from a Farming Zone (‘FZ’) that has purposes such as the provision of use of land for agriculture and the encouragement of retention of productive agricultural land.
35	Planning Practice Note 42- Applying the Rural Zones, aptly describes RLZs are designed to be applied to areas where:
•	the rural land has a mainly residential function. 
•	farming may take place on the land, but this is subordinate to the residential use. 
•	residents require certainty about the residential amenity of the area and are protected from potentially incompatible land uses.
•	farming is of a nature or scale that will not conflict with housing.
•	residents will have access to most of the normal services and infrastructure provided in urban areas.
36	I am also not satisfied the site context is suitable for a rural industry.  Based on my site inspection, I observed the review site abuts RLZ land to the north and south and the land opposite is also used for rural living purposes.  The review site, and the other six lots in the RLZ in Monkey Gully Road, are just south of a larger RLZ in Merinda Way that extends north to abut the southern edge of the Mansfield township.  I find the immediate area contains smaller lots with dwellings and associated outbuildings, and are not characterised by large, expansive farmland and/or intensive agricultural activity.
37	I therefore agree with Council that there is nothing in this context that readily distinguishes it from other rural living contexts to justify a rural industrial use at this location.
38	I also find the Planning Scheme specifically encourages industrial uses, such as that proposed by the applicant, to locate within the existing and emerging industrial areas in Mansfield.  Clause 17.03-1L – Industrial Development, contains strategies to encourage service-based industries in new and assessable industrial precincts, such as Dead Horse Lane or the existing industrial areas in Monkey Gully Road, or adjacent to the recycling centre.  
39	I inspected these industrial zones and noted that they are located on the periphery of the township.  I observed they contain a variety of uses, including vehicle servicing within existing industrial buildings.  I consider these industrial properties could be suitable for the proposed use and are just as accessible for farmers of nearby larger agricultural holdings to transport agricultural equipment for servicing or repair.
40	The applicant submits that there are already existing large workshops in RLZ.  Whilst I agree large outbuildings are found nearby, they are generally used for the storage of farm equipment, mowers, and domestic goods, such as caravans and boats, and not for more intense industrial activity, such as the repair and servicing of agricultural machinery.
Will the proposal result in unacceptable amenity impacts?
41	The decision guidelines for the RLZ require consideration of whether the proposal is compatible with adjoining and nearby land uses.  The decision guidelines also seek to avoid impacting agricultural and other land uses.
42	Council argues that given the zones’ purpose, amenity impacts are a relevant consideration.  It submits that a common amenity impact, such as noise in the RLZ, would generally be associated with agricultural activities within the nearby or abutting FZ.  
43	It says whilst the amenity expectations of residents in the RLZ should be tempered, they are still entitled to a high standard of amenity with appropriate regard to the potential impacts. It submits there is a reasonable expectation of residential amenity to avoid land use conflict.
44	The applicant submits the use is a small-scale operation and it is in keeping with the purpose of the RLZ, which is to support agriculture.  He considers that amenity impacts can be satisfactorily addressed by permit conditions.
45	All the respondents have concerns about the amenity impacts from operation of the business in the outbuilding, including noise, traffic and visual impacts. 
Noise impacts
46	Council argues that no material has been submitted by the applicant that proves the use will not result in off-site amenity impacts, such as noise.  It states the extent of consideration is limited to the following notes on the plans:
Sound attenuation
Whilst noise will be produced by this premise, it will be kept to a minimum and restricted within normal working hours. 
The mechanical means to reduce the impact of any noise will be to utilise a system such as or equivalent to ‘FLEXISHIELD SONIC SYSTEM ACCOUSTIC MODULAR PANELS’. 
These are modular panels that can be applied to the inner walls and ceiling of the active parts of the workshop (refer to the plan to see extent) to both absorb sound and insulate from sound. 
The main doors to the workshop are sliding timber doors which will also have a sound attenuation quality.
47	Council is concerned that:
the paucity of material to support an assertion that acoustic impacts are acceptable is wholly unsatisfactory.
48	It says there has been no assessment of the current acoustic conditions to determine whether the treatments will be effective to mitigate noise or whether they will meet the relevant EPA standards.  
49	The respondents submit that given the review site is in a valley, noise from the outbuilding will travel onto their properties. They are concerned that the operators will be tempted to conduct their business outside the outbuilding as the plans show the provision of an external concrete apron/wash area.
50	They also submit that operation of the business six days per week (i.e. 8:00am – 6:00pm, Monday to Friday and 8:00am to 1:00pm, Saturdays) is excessive and it will disrupt the tranquillity and peace of the valley.  They are concerned that the use may operate outside the nominated hours and that it may include the servicing of vehicles not used in agriculture.
51	The applicant argues that measures, such as acoustic treatment of the walls and ceiling will reduce potential noise impacts.  It also says that the outbuilding will be air conditioned and thus the doors will be closed.  It says this measure will enable sound to be retained within the building.
Tribunal findings
52	I agree with Council that potential noise associated with the service and repair of agricultural equipment could include banging of equipment, welding, machining of metal and testing of machinery pre and post service.  
53	The applicable noise standard is found in the Environment Protection Authority (‘EPA’) Publication 1826.4.  Whilst the applicant says he is going to install ‘Flexishield Sonic System Accoustic Modular Panels’, I have received no information about their acoustic properties and whether they will be effective in mitigating noise impacts to meet the relevant EPA standards.  
54	The absence of this information is a fundamental shortcoming of this application as I have no evidence that the use will be compatible with rural residential properties nearby.  I am therefore not satisfied that the inclusion of conditions on a permit to address noise is the answer given the absence of any acoustic report/testing or information about the proposed sound attenuation measures.  
55	I also agree with the respondents that it will be difficult to monitor the use given that the doors will have to opened to allow the movement of equipment to and from the shed throughout the day.  The inclusion of a wash area outside the building is also a concern as this area is likely to generate noise from the cleaning of equipment prior or post service or repair.
Traffic 
56	Council submits that there will be noise associated with the delivery and pick up of machinery and goods associated for servicing and repair.  The respondents say Monkey Gully Road is narrow and unsuitable for the delivery of bulky machinery.  They also say this use will conflict with the operation of the road as a tourist bicycle route.
Tribunal findings
57	I am not refusing this application based on potential traffic impacts.  Whilst Monkey Gully Road is not particularly wide, I consider that the number of vehicles floating or driving agricultural machinery could be accommodated on the existing road network.
58	However, in terms of noise associated with the delivery of machinery, I have not been provided with any evidence that there the noise impacts on nearby properties can meet relevant EPA standards.
What does case law say about amenity in RLZs?
59	Council referred me to the findings in Cosmic Kennels v Greater Geelong CC (‘Cosmic’) that says amenity impacts are a relevant consideration that should be given weight.  It highlighted that the Tribunal stated:
I generally agree with Mr Gray that the RLZ contemplates residential uses and a range of agricultural, commercial, tourism and some retail uses. It is an active, working zone and not only a residential zone. While the amenity expectations of residents can be high, they should appreciate that from time to time they are likely to experience noise and other impacts from non-residential uses.
60	The applicant submits that the Tribunal has previously determined the protection of residential amenity is not a key objective for an RLZ.  He cited the findings in White v Greater Geelong CC [2018] VCAT 500 (‘White’) that stated standard residential amenity is tempered by surrounding permissible land uses. 
61	He also referred me to DP & JL Dunoon Pty Ltd trading as Newcomb Soil and Sand Supplies v Greater Geelong CC [2018] VCAT 816 (‘Dunoon’) whereby the Tribunal considered that a RLZ is both a residential zone and working rural zone.  He noted that the Tribunal also stated that the main issue is how responsive the proposal is in managing amenity and whether they are acceptable impacts.
62	The third decision cited by the applicant cites was Kania v Greater Geelong CC [2016] VCAT 1473 (‘Kania’).  He highlighted that the Tribunal commented that residential is not the primary purpose of the zone, but it is zone where agricultural uses are encouraged, and other commercial activities may occur which may impact that standard of residential amenity.
63	The applicant used these findings to justify his proposition that consideration should be given to the other uses taking place around the land within the RLZ and FZ.  He considers that given primary production is conducted nearby, the area already experiences noise, odour, large shedding and after-hours tractor driving.  He submits this is expected and normal to rural areas. 
64	Council questioned the applicability of the decisions cited by the applicant.  It says that in Dunoon, the proposal was for extension of an existing contractor’s depot that was bounded by other non-residential uses.  It says White is different as it was an application to amend an existing permit to allow for storage and some maintenance associated with the business within an existing outbuilding.  In that case, the outbuilding was to be primarily used for storage and minor repairs in preparation for repairs and servicing that was conducted off-site.
65	Council says that Kania is not applicable as context was completely different it related to boat and caravan storage facility that was opposite land within an industrial zone.  
Tribunal findings
66	I agree with Council that it is important to review the relevance of other decisions in the context upon which the findings were made.  Whilst all cases referred to land within an RLZ, the comparisons end there as the context and type of use was different to that is what is before me.  However, what I can take away from these decisions is that consideration must be given to the context of the abutting and nearby permitted land uses, whether the proposed use can manage potential amenity impacts and whether these impacts are acceptable.
67	Based on my site inspection, it is evident this area contains a rural residential character with some ancillary agricultural activities.  I accept the submissions of the respondents that the area does not contain intensive agricultural activities on nearby farmland that substantially impacts their residential amenity on an on-going basis.
68	I have not been persuaded by the information provided by the applicant that the potential amenity impacts that may arise from the use, that operates six days per week, can be adequately addressed by permit conditions.
Is the built form and environmental response acceptable?
69	The respondents are concerned about the scale and setback of the proposed outbuilding.  They say it will not blend in with the landscape character of the area. They also submit there is the excessive storage of goods and vehicles along the periphery of the site that will add to the visual clutter on the site.
70	The applicant submits the outbuilding is a low-key design that respects the landscape environment.  It says the building has appropriate setbacks, muted colours and is partially excavated into the slope.  He says there is a lot of room for native vegetative screening, including along the boundaries of the site.  
71	When questioned, Council advised that it does not have any concerns with the built form response of the outbuilding.  It says the siting is acceptable as it is to be set back 20 metres from the frontage, it is not overly large, and therefore it will not be obtrusive in the landscape.  It submits the proposed landscaping around the building will not control noise and it will not adequately screen the structure as the landscape plan schedule includes the planting of deciduous species.
Tribunal findings
72	I find the design of outbuilding acceptable as it is proposed to be set back 20 metres from the frontage and accessed from the existing crossover onto Monkey Gully Road. 
73	I consider it will be is a low-key structure as it has a maximum height of 5.8 metres and is partially excavated into the site.  This will assist in reducing the scale of the structure when viewed from the frontage and side boundaries.  The design also includes use of Colorbond walls and roofing, which is consistent with existing outbuildings in the area. 
74	The outbuilding will be partially screened by existing vegetation throughout the site and no significant trees are proposed to be removed.  
75	I am satisfied that views of the outbuilding will not be obtrusive when viewed from adjoining properties given the structure is proposed to be setback 30 metres from the south boundary.  Even if there is some visibility of the structure, this is consistent with other outbuildings associated with dwellings found in the surrounding area.
76	I note the outbuilding and wastewater treatment system are set back over 30 metres from the watercourse and thus satisfy the requirements of Goulburn Murray Water, who is a referral authority.  This is in accordance with the policies in the Planning Scheme to maintain water quality in a Declared Special Water Supply Catchment. 
Are there any other issues?
Business Sign
77	The application proposed the display of a business identification sign (1.265 square metres) on the front gate. As I am affirming Council's decision to refuse this application, I make no findings about the sign.
Conclusion
78	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.  No permit is granted.

Jane Tait
Member