EVANS v WAKEFIELD REGIONAL COUNCIL [2009] SAERDC 19 (20 April 2009)

Last Updated: 22 April 2009

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated.

EVANS v WAKEFIELD REGIONAL COUNCIL

[2009] SAERDC 19

Judgment of Commissioner Green

20 April 2009

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Development Act 1993 - applicant appeal - against refusal of the Council to grant Development Plan Consent to application for a change of use/conversion of existing farm dwelling to a feedlot manager’s residence and a new dwelling on an allotment - Primary Industry Zone - open cropping/grazing land with sheep feedlot on site - nature of the composite development; land use - zoning intent; character and visual amenity impact; access - traffic safety; farm productivity - efficiency impacts; effect on adjoining land; and potential for fragmentation of rural land - new dwelling essentially for residential purposes - insufficient justification on rural areas retention/productivity/efficiency grounds - sufficient departure from Development Plan - appeal dismissed - decision of the Council upheld.

Development Act 1993; Development Regulations 2008, referred to.

Town of Gawler v Impact Investment Corporation Pty Ltd (2007) SASC 356, considered.

EVANS v WAKEFIELD REGIONAL COUNCIL
[2009] SAERDC 19

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

1. This matter is an applicant appeal against the decision of the Wakefield Regional Council (“the Council”), to refuse Development Plan Consent to Development Application No. 373/061/08, made under the Development Act 1993, for development seeking to construct a new dwelling and convert an existing farm dwelling to a feedlot manager’s residence on the Balaklava/Mallala Road, near Owen.
2. In its refusal, the Council’s Development Assessment Panel merely quoted several provisions of the Primary Industry Zone and Council Wide sections of the Development Plan with a statement that the proposal was at variance with those provisions. No detailed reasons were forthcoming.
3. A summary of some of the relevant details in this matter is as follows:

Registration date of application:	1 April 2008
Subject land address:	s.341, Hundred of Dalkey, Balaklava/Mallala Road, Owen (Certificate of Title Vol. 5484, Fol. 793)
Existing use:	Farm dwelling, sheep feed lot and cropping
Development proposal:	Erect a new dwelling with garaging and landscaping; use/convert existing dwelling for feed lot manager’s residence
Relevant authority:	Wakefield Regional Council
Relevant/appropriate Development Plan:	Wakefield Regional Council consolidated version 25 January 2007
Relevant Zone/Area:	Primary Industry Zone (PIZ hereafter), MAP WakR/3
Date of decision:	9 October 2008
Appeal lodged:	24 October 2008
Conference concluded:	3 December 2008

4. The Court viewed the subject land and the locality on the morning of Tuesday, 10 March 2009 in the presence of the parties.
5. Witnesses providing evidence to assist the Court and to which regard is given comprised, for the appellant, the appellant in person with respect to history, needs, intentions and management purposes, Mr M Rolfe, an experienced independent consultant town planner (refer Exhibit A3) and Mr S Ellis, an experienced agricultural consultant and adviser, particularly with respect to sheep and cattle (refer Exhibit A4); and for the respondent Council, Ms J Nolan, also an experienced independent planning consultant (refer Exhibit R2).

The Subject Land

6. The subject land is located in the north-eastern corner of the Balaklava/Mallala Road and Pinery/Owen Road intersection, approximately 5 kms west of Owen. It is an irregular shaped allotment with large road frontages of some 1.1 and 1.6 kms, and with an area of approximately 132.3 ha. The land currently contains a large feed lot (refer Exhibit R3 – original approval 2005, with a variation approval in 2007 and with feed lots and holding lots catering for up to 4640 sheep), in the north-western corner of the land, together with associated farm buildings. A derelict stone dwelling said to have been established in the 1880s and an inhabited dwelling (likely built in the 1960s and with an area of approximately 140 square metres with three bedrooms, an office, living area, amenities and carport – the residence of the appellant and his family), are also located towards to the north-western corner of the site. Most of the site is used for cropping and pasture and a power line traverses it with a few stobie poles. Two horses are also kept on the land.
7. The land is generally flat with red brown earth and an average annual rainfall of approximately 390 mm and with a few scattered trees and native vegetation around the buildings and feed lot, as well as along the roadside verges. It has a slope down in an easterly direction. Generally it is of an open agricultural character quite typical of the mid-north area. Photos were provided by Mr Rolfe (Exhibit A3 at pp 3-8).
8. It is noted that there are existing approvals over the subject land for two farm sheds (one near the proposed dwelling siting and the other near the feed lot, that have not yet been acted upon - refer Exhibit R4).

The Development Proposal

9. The proposed development (Exhibits A1 and A2, and Exhibit R1 at p 24), as well as in part expanded upon/explained by the appellant in his evidence, has two main elements:
   • construction of a large dwelling to be sited relatively centrally to the cropping use to be occupied by the appellant and his family; and
     
   • conversion of the existing dwelling (situated near the sheep feed lot) to the feed lot manager’s residence with staff facilities/office administration area, ancillary to the sheep feed lot activity together with facilities to be used by visitors and other part-time staff.
     
10. Detailed plans are shown for the new dwelling and the proposal includes access via a new driveway onto the Balaklava/Mallala Road utilising an informal existing farm access point. The new dwelling is of substantial proportions (with 6 bedrooms and multiple bathrooms and living areas, with dwelling area in the order of 560 square metres, verandahs in the order of 265 square metres and garaging in the order of 67 square metres with a total roofed area in the order of 900 square metres) and it has been designed to appear much like a traditional (albeit large) farm homestead. It is to be located on a defined site some 400 metres from the existing feedlot with its own access as referred to above and located some 160 metres from the Balaklava/Mallala Road near to an existing stobie pole.
11. The conversion of the existing dwelling to the feedlot manager’s residence, office and store, and shared use of the kitchen, laundry/shower, toilet and passage, involves no external or internal modifications of any note, or building work. It is located some 180 metres from the feedlot.
12. The true nature of the development and correct description of it are discussed below under the heading Planning Assessment.

The Locality

13. Comprising that part of the area surrounding the subject land of tangible influence on it and that the specific proposal affects, to a notable degree, I find that the locality is to be based on visual amenity and perception of character criteria. I note the locality boundary defined by Mr Rolfe in Exhibit A3, and that by Ms Nolan did not define a locality but in oral evidence acknowledged and generally accepted that put forward by Mr Rolfe. I find that the locality extends for approximately 1 km in all directions from the proposed manager’s residence (existing dwelling) and the new dwelling. This area encompasses the adjoining farms on either side of the now bituminised Balaklava/Mallala Road and Pinery/Owen Road.
14. The locality contains entirely farming activities, mostly cropping (excluding the intensive animal feedlot use on the subject land), and there are two additional dwellings within the locality, one to the south and one to the west (refer Exhibit A2 with the aerial photo site plan indicating such features).
15. The allotment sizes are generally large, typical of farm holdings in the wider region and used for cereal/broad-acre cropping and to a lesser extent sheep grazing. The location of other dwellings and associated clusters of farm buildings varies, with one building complex being located close to a road and the other being located some 150-200 metres inward from a road towards the centre of paddocks. Existing dwellings in the locality and that on the subject land are separated by distances of at least 500 metres creating a sense of separation typical of rural dwellings in the region.
16. The land form of the locality is relatively flat with remnant vegetation following road reserves and some property boundaries and is a notable feature. In addition to roadside vegetation there are a few sparse pockets of remnant vegetation and clusters around existing buildings, and these features reinforce the generally open broad-acre cropping land as the dominant feature. The overall development pattern in the locality is discernible from the aerial photograph (site plan aerial photograph in Exhibit A2 and in Mr Rolfe’s statement Exhibit A3, the locality plan with aerial photograph base).

Relevant Development Plan Provisions

17. Having regard to the expert evidence and the submissions and to my own assessment, I find that the following provisions in the relevant Development Plan provide the most useful guidance, particularly with respect to the main issues in focus in this matter and they are summarised as follows:

COUNCIL WIDE
Introduction
Background
Strategic Aim
Objectives: 1-3, 6-7, 9-15, 29, 38-40, 44, 49, 53, 54, 74 and 75; and
Principles of Development Control: 1, 3, 6-8, 12, 16, 17, 20, 23, 26, 45-47, 49, 51, 54, 77-79, 82, 90, 96-98, 101, 103, 104, 109, 111, 118, 121, 168, 169,172, 206, 207 and 212.

Primary Industry Zone
Strategic Aim/Background/Opportunities
Objectives: 1-4 and 7; and
Principles of Development Control: 1-4, 6, 10, 12, 15, 25 and 26.

General Industry Zone
Principle of Development Control: 10.

Light Industry Zone
Principle of Development Control: 14.

Industry (Bowmans) Zone
Principle of Development Control: 24.

Tables WakR/1, 2 and 3.

MAPS WakR/1 (Overlay 1) and WakR/3.

Bushfire Protection Areas Fig.WakR(BPA)/1.

18. Mr Rolfe referred particularly to the principles in the various industry zones where reference is made to the concept of a manager’s or a caretaker’s residence. He considers this terminology as being potentially relevant to a careful consideration of the subject proposal. I note also that in the Coastal Zone and Principle 5 there is reference to the singular term “dwelling”.

Processing

19. The development proposal was assessed by the Council to be a Category 1 development with no formal public notification and with no public representations apparent. It would also appear that a referral was undertaken to the Commissioner of Highways pursuant to Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008 and that there was both verbal and written advice (though not sighted by the Court), as referenced in Exhibit A3 at p 25 in para 3.

Assessment Approach

20. Section 33(a) of the Act requires the relevant authority (the Council) and on appeal this Court, to assess a development application against the provisions of the appropriate Development Plan and s 35(2) specifies that where a development is assessed as being seriously at variance with the Development Plan, it must not be granted consent. The whole of the Development Plan must be assessed, including on appeal. The relevant guidelines in the Plan provide the firm basis for decision-making together with a consideration of any other relevant matters.
21. In terms of s 35(5) and the provisions of the relevant Development Plan, this proposal is for consideration on its merits against the Development Plan guidelines and involves weighing up the pros and cons and considering whether it is sufficiently conducive to the overall intent, purpose and desired character and amenity of the PIZ, tested in the specific site and locality context. The Development Plan is also to be utilised as a flexible, advisory planning policy document, not as a mandatory legal statute and as a practical guide for practical application, superimposed upon an existing state of development on the site and in the relevant locality. Ultimately, a planning judgment is to be made on a fact and degree basis as to whether the specific proposal sufficiently meets the Development Plan and having regard to all relevant matters, warrants consent.
22. Whilst I have noted that the Development Plan guidelines are not mandatory, and are directory and persuasive, nevertheless it would normally be expected that a planning authority would apply them unless, as a matter of planning judgment, there is good reason to depart. I have also noted the approach of the Supreme Court in Town of Gawler v Impact Investment Corporation Pty Ltd (2007) SASC 356 at para 81 which outlined a 10 point approach to consideration of relevant matters in assessing whether a departure from a clearly expressed policy is justifiable. That may or may not be in question with respect to PIZ Principle 3 depending on my determination of the nature of the development.

Planning Assessment
True Nature of the Development

23. The most significant and major feature of the development proposal is the proposed very large dwelling for the appellant and his family, although I accept that the secondary element – refer below – is an important one in the mind of the appellant.
24. The evidence is that the appellant works essentially full time in Adelaide but is a backup “set of eyes” for the feedlot manager with respect to security of the feedlot in particular and that he gives broad directions to the cropping share farmer, apparently on a fairly infrequent basis.
25. It was, agreed by the appellant, that the new dwelling is intended primarily for residential purposes. An access is to be shared with the cropping (farming) use and the water supply shared with the feedlot and existing dwelling, and the new dwelling will not be held exclusively on a site with its own separate tenure. I find that this dwelling is not a detached dwelling (as defined – with the absence of frontage of the site to a public road, in terms of confirmed land tenure, nor exclusivity of the site for the dwelling), nor a dwelling in the form of a manager’s or caretaker’s residence with respect to cropping activities as that is not the primary nor a major purpose of it, but that it is an independent dwelling associated with farming and a feedlot and not on a site (as defined) used exclusively with that dwelling.
26. The secondary, but nevertheless important element from the appellant’s perspective, is the conversion of the existing farm dwelling to the feedlot manager’s residence. It previously was a dwelling ancillary to farming. It is proposed to be a dwelling (manager’s residence) ancillary to the feedlot. The evidence of the appellant and others is that there is no intent to divide the land to place the dwellings on separate titles, nor to sell any part of it.
27. Hence, I conclude that the development is for the erection of a new independent dwelling associated with farming and a feedlot and conversion – change of use of the existing dwelling ancillary to farming to a dwelling ancillary to the feedlot (manager’s – caretaker’s residence). It is noted that a dwelling cannot be a Farm Building (as defined).
28. I note, given the zoning provisions, that such a determination or description of the nature of the development has no effect on whether the development is complying or non-complying development given Principles 25 and 26. The allotment on which the new dwelling is proposed is also well over 40 hectares and the new dwelling is to be much further than 500 metres from the land fill operations on nominated sections in the Hundred of Inkerman.
29. Hence, I do not consider that the technical interpretation question requires more rigorous analysis or conclusion. The rural planning and Development Plan intent and those consequences, outcomes and impacts, are the most important aspects for consideration in determining this matter.

Land Use – Zoning Intent

30. The main land use intent and thrust for the PIZ is gleaned from several of its provisions, as follows:

STRATEGIC AIM
A primary industry zone accommodating a wide range of farming practices which contribute to local employment, and the local economy, where sustainable farm management is practised and where an attractive well vegetated landscape exists.
Background
This zone is shown on Map WakR/3 to 28 and 30, covers the majority of the council area, excluding the townships and several special zones. The predominant uses are livestock grazing and cereal cropping which are generally farmed on relatively large land holdings as well as intensive animal keeping.
Agricultural production within the region contributes the most significant component to the local economy, and generates additional employment and revenue through related spin-off activities including processing, manufacturing, transportation and local service towns. The climate, soil and landform characteristics of this zone favour the continuance of agricultural production and livestock grazing and it is desirable not only that these activities continue as the primary economic base to the district, but also that good land management techniques be continued to control proclaimed pest plants, vermin, and soil erosion. The pattern of occupation with homesteads, ancillary buildings, and paddocks enclosing crops and livestock dominate the environment and firmly establish an open, rural appearance.
...
Little intensification of the present extent of settlement is warranted. In many ways, a proliferation of intensive development and occupation of the zone would threaten its proper function and render the rural landscape susceptible to competing demands and undesirable change. To maintain the agricultural importance and stability of the zone, it is vital that the size of the land holdings is not significantly reduced, or densities increased, and that future pressures for development in the zone will not result in the conversion of agricultural land to less productive uses.
Opportunities
The natural conditions existing throughout the region are well suited to support a highly productive agricultural industry. Rural-based activities should continue to operate and expand within the region, provided sound management techniques can be demonstrated, and the long-term productivity of the land is ensured.
... “Value-adding” industries (located within suitable zones) should be developed to compliment and expand upon the existing rural activities within the region. ...
OBJECTIVES
Objective 1: Development primarily for farming with a diversified rural-based industry which enhances the viability of the agricultural sector.
Objective2: Reinforcement and enhancement of the rural character of the area.
This zone should continue to accommodate grazing and cropping and intensive animal keeping as the dominant land uses without restricting other forms of compatible development, including land-based aquaculture, which contribute to agricultural productivity and the rural character.
Objective 3: Amalgamation of sections, allotments and settlements into farm holdings and their continued use for rural purposes.
There are a number of small settlements and sections which exist throughout the zone. In many instances these remain in agricultural production or vacant. Few have dwellings, however significant potential exists for the fragmentation of rural land and subsequent erosion of agricultural productivity. Development of the closely divided areas for residential and non-agricultural purposes creates undesirable demands on public infrastructure, roads and resources that the community cannot afford. Urban development should therefore occur within defined townships.
...
PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

1. All forms of development should satisfy the intent of the requirements specified in Tables WakR/1, 2 and 3 in addition to the principles of development control of the district as may be relevant, and be primarily for agricultural production and livestock grazing on large land holdings.
2. Buildings and structures erected in this zone should be primarily those required for the proper and efficient management of farming activities.

3 Not more than one detached dwelling should be erected on an allotment.
...
8 Development of an industrial nature may take place if it:
(a) is associated with the processing or handling of primary produce, is for the purpose of organic waste processing, adds value to the rural activity and would be of benefit to the rural community;
(b) would not cause traffic problems or ribbon development along roads;
(c) is near a major transport corridor and fronts a sealed road;
(d) would not impair the amenity of the locality; and
(e) is on land not subject to flooding.

9. Tourist and visitor accommodation should be limited to that in the form of a farm hosting facility and provided that:

(a) it is of a minor nature and ancillary to the rural function of the land;
(b) it is developed as an integral part of the farm complex; and
(c) the siting, design, and appearance of the development is compatible with the rural features and character of the landscape.
10 Intensive animal keeping should only be undertaken if:
(a) it is to be located more than three kilometres from any defined and zoned township or settlement as delineated in this Development Plan and/or established residential area, and
(b) it complies with general principles of development control contained within this Plan;
(c) the facilities are located not less than 20 metres from any boundary of the allotment;
(d) no nuisance through the creation of smell, noise or other disturbance is likely to be created to adjoining residences;
(e) all buildings, pens, yards, runs, holding yards and waste management facilities, including dog kennels and stables, are at least 500 metres from any dwelling other than a dwelling on the subject land.
...
13 The development of pig keeping facilities should only be operated where it:
(a) is consistent with Principle 10 above;
(b) is compatible with other developments in the locality; and
(c) has a minimum allotment area of 20 hectares.
COUNCIL WIDE
...
Objective 10: Productive rural land retained in primary production.
...
Objective 18: Residential development and business, service and community facilities located and contained within defined township and settlement areas.
PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
...

109. Keeping of animals on land for commercial purposes, such as breeding, boarding, training or sale should not occur unless a dwelling exists on the property where the animals are kept and the dwelling is permanently occupied by the person or persons caring for the animals.

...

168. Development in rural areas should be principally associated with farming and be designed, sited and constructed to complement the rural character of the district.
169. Development liable to remove land from agriculture, or reduce its overall productivity for primary production, should not be undertaken unless the removed land is required for public purposes, or will result in a development generating significant employment opportunities without creating significant environmental impacts, or for other uses consistent with the objectives for the council area.
31. These clearly do not envisage or encourage residential development or dwellings in a general sense and they seek to minimise development pressures that may lead to diminished agricultural production or negative impacts on efficiency and productivity, or pressure for land division of rural holdings. Further, Principle 25 (complying development) for the Zone, includes no residential development or use opportunities and the policy expression implicit within Principle 26 (non-complying development) provides limited opportunity, but via analogy/comparison with other zone non-complying list guidelines in the Development Plan, it also does not expressly envisage the concept of a manager’s or a caretaker’s residential either.
32. Hence, I conclude there to be limited policy intent supporting residential development or the development of new dwellings and only limited support to dwellings ancillary to farming and feedlot uses for the likes of say a caretaker’s/manager’s residence. In-principle, the new additional dwelling is borderline, whilst there is greater policy logic, substance and support for a caretaker’s residence/use/designation of the existing dwelling to support the efficiency, productivity and security of the intensive, high value add, feedlot use (PIZ Principle 2 and others).
33. I also find that Principle 3 is not technically offended as the proposal does not include a new detached dwelling (as defined) and there is justification for the use or development of a dwelling to be used as the residence of the feedlot manager. However, I find no real or sufficient justification for the new second dwelling – essentially for residential land use. It is the choice of the owner as to whether he chooses to live in the existing dwelling with his caretaker residing in the local township of Owen less than 5 minutes away or vice-versa with the appellant residing in Owen nearby (or elsewhere), either in an older or new dwelling and with the feedlot caretaker residing in the existing dwelling.

Character and Visual Amenity

34. There are a number of essentially repetitive guidelines within the Council Wide provisions namely Objectives 11 and 53 and Principles 20, 97, 98, 103 and 168 and PIZ Objective 2 and Principles 6 and 15.
35. The planning evidence was that the change of use of the existing dwelling to a feedlot manager’s residence had no affect on amenity or character and that due to the spacing, siting, design and landscaping of the proposed dwelling, whilst a very large dwelling, it would also have no, or minimal impact on visual amenity, scenic qualities or the existing rural character.
36. I generally agree with that evidence and opinion but hold some reservations about additional (and in this case large) building (although it is relatively low in profile), particularly if it were to lead to or prompt further development across the relatively open farming landscape in the locality and beyond. That is a risk, but there is nothing formally to suggest that that is a likelihood.
37. Hence, this consideration is not a crucial one or a fatal factor weighing against the development proposal.

Access – Traffic Safety

38. Council Wide Objectives 38 and 39 and Principles 45 and 47 generally seek and guide new access points to be safe and convenient and not to affect the free flow nor safety conditions for traffic on adjoining roadways.
39. On the evidence, and from my assessment and inspection on the view, there is no safety or traffic engineering issues or problem with the proposed access/driveway to service the new dwelling. Adequate space for parking and manoeuvring is also to be provided on the subject land. In theory, a condition of consent(s) could be framed to ensure safe sightlines where the access point connects onto the secondary arterial road (with perhaps minor, low level vegetation trimming required).

Farm Productivity – Efficiency Impacts

40. Council Wide Objectives 9 to 15 are clear in their general intent to retain and strengthen productive rural areas for primary production and associated value adding rural industries and uses. Development in rural areas is principally to be associated with farming (Council wide Principle 168) and Council Wide Principle 169 states:
    169. Development liable to remove land from agriculture, or reduce its overall productivity for primary production, should not be undertaken unless the removed land is required for public purposes, or will result in a development generating significant employment opportunities without creating significant environmental impacts, or for other uses consistent with the objectives for the council area.
41. The evidence is that the existing dwelling, to be used for the feedlot manager’s residence (with certain facilities shared with other staff/visitors), will support the feedlot use and facilitate its greater security and greater efficiency for that manager (that is, convenience being on-site at most times rather than having to travel from his residence in Owen at short notice if there are unscheduled or delayed arrivals or departures or other emergency events).
42. From my assessment and having regard to the evidence, this “change of use” element, will accord with and assist achievement of the rural development objectives and principles of the Plan.
43. The proposed new dwelling, for occupancy of the appellant (owner of the land) and his family, is, together with its curtilage, to be placed on productive land, previously used (obviously) for cropping as per the balance of the paddock. A small percentage only would be lost production. Nevertheless, this dwelling does not, given its primary purpose, support rural production or facilitate, at least to any great degree, improved farm efficiency or productivity. It does comprise a convenient location for the appellant owner to overview the work of the share farmer with respect to cropping activities and to provide a backup and second “set of eyes” over the feedlot operations, but not much in the way of value add or improvement to rural productivity.
44. The appellant could build a new dwelling (if need be) or reside in an older dwelling within Owen some 5 minutes away (or elsewhere) and still achieve much if not most of these goals. Alternatively he could choose to replace the existing dwelling with a new larger purpose designed one. I find there to be little to justify an additional new large dwelling on the land whilst retaining/converting the existing one, though the latter is supportable and beneficial.
45. Though relatively minor in degree, the proposed new dwelling development is at variance with Principle 169.
    

Affect on Adjoining Land

46. The key Development Plan guide is Council Wide Principle 7 as follows:
    7. Development which is liable to be prejudicial to the effective development of other land in the locality in accordance with the relevant objectives should not be undertaken.
47. The changed use of the existing dwelling will have no direct affect on rural production of adjoining/adjacent land to the west or north.
48. The location of the new dwelling has some chance of marginally constraining the location of any further intensive animal keeping use – for example on land to the west across Balaklava/Mallala Road, being within a 500 metre radius of it (noting the guides in Council Wide Principle 111 and PIZ Principle 10). However, that is not a significant negative factor.

Fragmentation/Land Division Pressure

49. I note the evidence that there is no intention to seek to divide the existing allotment in the future, for example, to place each dwelling on separate allotments and titles. A number of the guidelines (Aims/Objectives/Principles) in the Development Plan seek to minimise the pressure to divide, fragment and reduce the size of rural holdings.
50. The key guides are Council Wide Objective 13, PIZ Strategic Aim – para 6; spirit of PIZ Objective 3 and paragraph thereafter and PIZ Principles 3 and 4.
51. Whilst there is no present intention, I consider there to be some likelihood that in future years, with two substantial (one very large) dwellings, there will arise pressure and some desire of existing or future owners for such division. Experience tends to show that two or more dwellings on one allotment often triggers such a wish (or need) in future, if not current owners.
52. Approval to the development proposal may increase the risk of that likelihood arising and in due course may lead to diminished rural production and productivity. Of course there are a lot of variables as to how the future may transpire with limited certainties.
53. I do not place great weight or reliance on this consideration as a factor negative to the proposal, but it is of some relevance and should not be ignored.

The Evidence

54. The conclusions, though not all of the reasoning of Ms Nolan (Exhibit R2 in particular p 9), align with my assessment and key conclusion. Mr Rolfe’s evidence is not so different to that of Ms Nolan, but he seems to put more weight on technical-terminology arguments and the advantages/benefits of the “conversion – change of use” of the existing dwelling to the feedlot manager’s residence to mask or outweigh the risks and negatives of a new large dwelling on the allotment within the cropping paddock.
55. Mr Ellis’s evidence convincingly supports the feedlot manager’s residence change of use, but relied on advantages of the new dwelling proposal including additional wind break and shade/shelter native vegetation planting to offset the small loss of productive agricultural land and inconvenience of working around the new dwelling site curtilage. He did not consider the risk of fragmentation of rural land upon long-term rural land productivity nor undertook a thorough consideration of the Development Plan guidelines and rural planning considerations.

Conclusions

56. On careful consideration of the evidence, what I observed on the view, my own assessment of the proposal against the Development Plan and weighing up both the pros and cons of the composite proposal (both change of use conversion of a dwelling to feedlot manager’s residence; and new large dwelling for the appellant and his family) I conclude that this proposal does not sufficiently meet the spirit or intent nor key strategy aims and objectives of the Development Plan and is thus not worthy of Development Plan Consent.
57. Whilst the Council did not detail the reasoning of its refusal, a number of the Development Plan clauses it referred to, particularly, Council Wide Strategic Aim (in my view para 2), Objectives 10, 18 and 20, and Principles 3, 168 and 169; and PIZ Strategic Aim (in my view para 6) and Objective 1 and Principle 2, are not sufficiently achieved by the development proposal and I find that the proposal is sufficiently at variance with the Development Plan as a whole to warrant that decision. I agree with and accept the conclusions of Ms Nolan, a most experienced urban, regional and environmental planner.

Decision

58. The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Council upheld. There will be an Order to that effect.