A longstanding farm zone permit dispute between a Lancefield property owner and Macedon Ranges Shire Council has ended in the applicant’s favour.
Councillors voted 7-1 to approve use and development of an existing building, which council planning staff previously determined derelict and inhabitable.
The house at the 9.421ha Three Chain Road property has remained on site for about 140 years but its occupation history has been disputed, leading to the need for a new permit to enable living on site.
Applicant Ray Wittmer told councillors he had purchased the property under belief the building was fit for renovation to be occupied with existing use rights.
He applied for a permit to extend the existing building in 2015 but it was refused as planning staff said the application failed to demonstrate existing use rights – occupation in the past two years.
“Information on council’s records system indicated that the building had not been occupied for 40 years from the previous owner of the site,” planning staff stated.
Mr Wittmer carried out renovation works to the building without a permit and was fined following a site inspection in 2020.
His son and son’s partner, who were living at the property at the time, were forced to leave.
The council’s Health Department also raised concerns in relation to the wastewater system and issued further building orders in 2021.
Mr Wittmer applied for certificate of compliance to have existing use rights for a dwelling on the land in 2022, which was again refused.
But earlier this month, councillors were asked to decide on a new application for use and development of the dwelling, excluding any claim of existing use rights.
Spearheading a motion for approval, Cr Bill West said the matter had been “one of the most prolonged, time-consuming and frustrating disputes to appear before council”.
“Granting this permit does not put an extra house on the land but enables one to be extended and put to good use,” he said.
He gained the support of Crs Geoff Neil and Janet Pearce who reasoned the footprint of the house was already on the land.
Cr Pearce indicated the property owner would not be required to remove the existing structure, only its use would change.
“That built form is going to remain. It’s already fragmented,” she said.
But approval went against advice of council officers who stated the application did not adequately justify a dwelling in the Farm Zone, would not result in agricultural use and would further fragment farming land.
The application did not include a farm plan to demonstrate the need for a dwelling in association with an agricultural use.
Cr Jennifer Anderson said councillors needed to consider the application on planning grounds and challenged permitting this use in the Farm Zone.
“We need to make sure that we are careful about granting permits and whether it is for the right reason,” she said.
“This is in the Farm Zone and if the applicant is willing to work with the planning department then really there should have been in this application about how this house contributes to the Farm Zone. We also have to look at other sites around it and setting a precedent.”
Cr Rob Guthrie agreed that approval would be “setting a nasty retrospective precedent”.
“The applicant has gone ahead with substantial works without a permit. You need a building permit to do building works – that’s fairly basic,” he said.
Councillors in favour of granting the permit were: West, Neil, Pearce, Guthrie, Bonanno, Death and Ridgeway. Cr Anderson was the only councillor to vote against the move.
