Plans for a Kyneton special needs family refuge have been approved in a VCAT appeal despite its Farm Zone location.
Mark’s Country Place proposes an outdoor recreation facility with activity rooms and offices for 3.9ha of Farm Zone land at Deep Lead Lane.
The proposal also includes car parking for two buses and 22 vehicles and a service dog area as well as sensory gardens, orchards, vegetable gardens and woodland area and a maze.
Mark’s Country Place co-founders and directors, Sue and Stuart Colvin, said the VCAT decision was “great news following many months of uncertainty and anxiety”.
“At last we can look to the future and begin the work of developing the site as we have planned and visualised for so long,” they told supporters via a blog last week.
The vision for the facility is described as “a place where people with special needs and their families can go to seek refuge, relax, learn and enjoy activities not often available in normal domestic settings”.
Applicants say the rural setting is vital to ensure peace and tranquility for clients who are from a broad base and catchment including schools, aged care facilities, community groups and families.
“Clients could have special needs for a variety of reasons: an intellectual disability, be on the spectrum, have Downes Syndrome, have PTSD, be visually or hearing impaired, or have a mental health condition,” they said.
Macedon Ranges Shire Council refused plans earlier this year on six grounds relating to relating to the facility location.
They argued the proposal fragments and removes productive farmland, adversely affects nearby land uses, and was contrary to the Farm Zone.
The proposal also builds a community facility outside the established built up area, the council said.
But VCAT senior member Laurie Hewet said the proposed use was discretionary for the zone, had limited impacts and, on balance, found the proposal acceptable.
“The planning scheme encourages integrated decision making, with responsible authorities required to integrate relevant planning policies and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development,” Hewet said.
“In this case the proposal does not lead to any significant loss of productive agricultural land and it does not adversely affect the operation of productive agricultural land in the area more generally.”
VCAT also ruled that the additional vehicle movements generated by the proposal do not warrant a condition requiring the applicant to carry out road improvements sought by the council.
