Councillors fear farm land loss after house approved in Castlemaine

The permit was granted following a lengthy debate which divided the Mount Alexander Shire councillors at their meeting on Tuesday, February 20.

The proposal was to build a house on a 3.12-hectare site located on a 54-hectare farm at 6 Watson Street, Castlemaine.

The farm has been owned by the one family for 150 years.

The family already had one house on the property.

A planning permit was needed for the house as it was located in a farming zone in the shire's planning scheme.

Shire staff recommended council reject the application, fearing the loss of agricultural land.

Staff said if councillors approved the development, the family would have to consolidate all of the 11 titles on the farm into one.

Cr Stephen Gardner said consolidating the titles would avoid "development by stealth" as the family might propose to build more houses on all the titles.

"If they do choose to go and put on extra houses, they could come back with a proper proposal and have it all done properly," he said.

Cr Bill Maltby, who moved the applicants would only need to consolidate the two titles the house would be built on, said there was "no need" for all the titles to be put together.

"The people want to keep running a farm there," he said.

"It's just giving the house the proper title, whereas the other blocks of titled land, don't affect anything.

"Maybe in a hundred years time that's a different story, but right now all they're asking for is a consolidation of two titles to build a second dwelling on 150-acre farm property."

Cr Tony Cordy, who supported Cr Maltby, said consolidating all of the farm's allotments would create more problems for the family.

"What we're talking about here is a single dwelling ... they're not seeking to develop those other [allotments]," he said.

"It's right on the outskirt of town and it's directly opposite existing residential properties.

"But we're not talking about the residential nature at this stage, we're talking about one house for the applicant and I don't see a problem."

Cr Gary McClure said he was disappointed councillors were ignoring the the shire's planning team, which made a recommendation "for reasons that we probably aren't aware of".

"There's a real danger that if this planning application gets up then we're going to be inundated by applications," he said.

"My fear is that if we let this one through, and there are good reasons probably why we could, but the good reasons aren't good planning policy."

Cr McClure said approving the house went against the shire's policy to preserve farming land for agriculture.

Cr Henderson, who voted with Cr McClure, said approving the permit could lead to "unregulated, uncontrolled development" on farming land.

"Orderly planning is what I think we're meant to be about in this shire, so I wanted to see some orderly planning," she said.

But Cr Maltby said councillors' fears about developments on farming land were unwarranted.

"The fact is, it's zoned farming and any further application will have to come back through the system," he said.

"If that is the case, the planning officers and planning department and then the council will look at the matter. It's not automatic because it's still zoned farming."

He said "common sense" was to "allow these people to build a house".

The vote was split with Cr McClure, Cr Henderson and Cr Gardner voting against approving the house, and Cr Maltby, Cr Cordy, and Mayor Cr Matthew Driscoll voting in favour.

Cr Rosie Annear had a conflict of interest in the issue and was not present in the debate.

Cr Driscoll ultimately used his casting vote as mayor to approve the application four votes to three.

He said there had been no objections from surrounding neighbours and referral authorities Coliban Water, Goulburn Murray Water and the North Central Catchment Management Authority.

"I feel that this amendment is consistent with the purpose and decision guidelines of the farming zone," he said.

"The key components being that the dwelling will not adversely affect the use of the subject land for agriculture nor will it adversely affect the operation of nearby agricultural land use."