Farmer outcry at proposed planning controls

Phillip Island farmers say they have been blindsided by the state government’s proposed planning changes that will leave them unable to work their properties without costly red tape.

And the farmers have the support of the state’s peak agricultural body, the Victorian Farmers Federation, who say the state government needs to re-think the draft Bass Coast Statement of Planning Policy (SPP), currently out for community feedback until April 29.

The draft SPP locks in Phillip Island’s current town boundaries, while there will also be a series of beefed-up landscape planning controls to protect significant landscapes around the island, including the coast and hinterland between Cape Woolamai and Ventnor, as well as the Rhyll Inlet, and areas north of Cowes-Rhyll Road to Newhaven.

However, VFF Bass Coast vice president Bill Cleeland – who has a 450-acre beef cattle farm at Surf Beach – said the planning controls, called Significant Landscape Overlays (SLOs), would severely impact farm operations.

Furthermore, farmers had not been consulted on the changes and last week they sought an urgent Zoom meeting with government representatives.

“They haven’t thought this one through,” said Bill, a fourth-generation farmer.

“They’ve made no attempt to consult with farmers, which is disappointing because we established the local rural engagement group to stop this kind of thing happening. They’ve taken four years to get this draft out but are now rushing consultation.”

Red tape

Bill said any farmers under the proposed SLO areas would be required to get a planning permit to build a post and wire fence.

“On our farm, for instance, it puts us in a difficult situation. Our place is next to the main road and we can get cars through fences,” Bill said. “Technically we could now be prosecuted for putting up a fence without a permit.”

He said in contrast post and rail fences – which are more costly and elaborate – don’t require permits.

“They use these on the Mornington Peninsula in horse properties. Some kid has come out of university and thought this is a good idea. If they had consulted with us they would realise the impact.”

Bill said farmers in SLO areas would, under the SPP, be required to apply for planning permits for significant excavation work.

“The draft SPP is an obscure, vague document and it’s hard to get details on what is significant. This control could include ploughing a paddock, digging a dam or a driveway entrance.”

He said they had already applied for a permit to excavate a dam with Southern Rural Water, and an added permit would be unnecessary red tape.

The draft SPP also puts controls and restrictions on farm sheds, including colours to sensitively match the environment.

“I sort of agree with that one,” Bill said.

Sheds over five metres will not be allowed under new rules, which, he said would impact dairy farmers who stack round hay bales to just under five metres.

“So they won’t be able to do that with the height limit. There’s no point making up a height figure unless it’s fit for purpose. They seem to come up with ideas that don’t work in practical instances.”

Sheds also won’t be allowed to be sited on heights above 25 metre sea level without a planning permit, in order for them not to be seen on significant landscapes.

“That will force us to build at lower levels, which farmers try and avoid in winter when those areas get waterlogged,” Bill said. “Farmers like to keep infrastructure all together, but this will force us to scatter infrastructure, which adds to costs such as power and new tracks.”

Finally, he said, it was unclear how beefed-up planning controls would impact vegetation clearing, with Bill suggesting planning permits could even be required to remove weeds such as boxthorn and pittosporum.

He said adding to farmer frustration was the fact the government’s website on the draft SPP was not working correctly, stopping them accessing information.

The Advertiser contacted the state government’s Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning for comment but received no reply at the time of going to press.