Hands off Bass Coast farming: DAL panel told
TYPICALLY, a medium-sized, three-bay hay shed is about 100sqM in size.
If you’re a farmer in the Bass hills and some other parts of the Bass Coast Shire, and you want to build anything bigger than that, you’ll need a permit from the shire.
That’s if the Draft Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) put out under the controversial Bass Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape (DAL) process stays as is.
Again, typically, a shed like that would be under 5 metres in height, but if you wanted to build a 6-metre-high machinery shed, for example, you’d need a permit.
If you own an undulating to hilly farm in the Bass Hills, Bass River Valley and coastal plains in the western part of the shire, and the shed you need is going to be sited more than 200 metres above sea level, you’ll need a permit.
If you want to build a fence, any height, excluding a post and rail fence up to 1.8 metres, you’ll need a permit.
A permit is required to remove native vegetation and tree belts, to use building materials and colours not included on the list and to site farm sheds in certain locations.
In short, the draft SPP being proposed by the State Government is a potential nightmare of red tape for affected farmers, but without any support from government coming back the other way in its distinctive areas plan.
And the Victorian Farmers Federation has seen red.
As well as a formal submission, back in April 2022, by VFF President Emma Germano, a VFF representative from head office, senior policy advisor Lisa Gervasoni and Bass stud breeder, Faye Tuchtan, representing the Bass Coast VFF Branch, appeared at a hearing into the DAL on Thursday, March 30.
Each was scathing in their assessment of the Draft Statement of Planning Policy with Ms Gervasoni providing the following recommendation on behalf of members:
“If a statement of planning of policy is to be progressed, it is critical that it be revised to ensure that it supports state planning and agriculture policy. Landscape controls should then be developed to support the ability of agriculture to grow and implement climate resilient production systems,” Ms Gervasoni said on behalf of the VFF.
“If the statement progresses without including a fulsome consideration of the requirements of s46AP (1)(d) (including productive farm land as significant) we request that the Panel recommends that specific landscape and other controls are not implemented on agricultural land.”
It’s a clear, simple message from the VFF – hands off our farms.
The draft SSP does say:
“A key aspect of the proposed SLO is to balance the need to protect the significant landscapes with ensuring the continuation of agricultural uses: the draft Bass Coast SPP supports the protection and continued use of agricultural land and recognises agriculture as important to the local economy.”
But there’s precious little practical support and no research of the sector locally.
The Strategic Agricultural Land Project that became Protecting Melbourne’s Green Wedges and Agricultural land study were projects undertaken on behalf of the Minister for Planning. They were based on a view that all agricultural land within 100km of Melbourne is strategic agricultural land that must be protected.
Unless the government is prepared to carry out a proper assessment of agriculture in Bass Coast, they say, as part of its Distinctive Areas and Landscapes (DAL) process, the Victorian Farmers Federation is calling on the panel to recommend no changes impacting farming in the shire.
Ms Tuchtan made a compelling submission as a commercial farmer operating in the area.
“We note that the focus of the SPP for the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes appears to be on settlement boundaries and landscape at the exclusion of agriculture.
“But the Regional Growth Plan for Gippsland (page 27) states that protecting and maintaining Gippsland’s strategic and productive agricultural land is essential for the continued growth of the food manufacturing sector.”
Ms Tuchtan said there was no meaningful consideration of the importance of agriculture in the Bass Coast DAL process.
“We consider that an essential part of the landscape in rural areas is the farmscape, whether it be dairying, livestock, viticulture, cropping or horticulture.
Therefore, part of the rural outlook is the vista of farm sheds, silos and stockyards,” she said.
“As well as tourism, agriculture is an essential part of Bass Coast Shire. The current agricultural strategy for Victoria recognises Victorian agriculture is a cornerstone of our economy. Victoria’s farmers, agribusiness and surrounding communities are an integral part of our way of life.
They feed us, clothe us, and export our products to the world. Agriculture creates essential jobs in our regions and supports the productive management of our landscapes”.
“Upon reading the SPP, I wonder whether the authors have visited the region – they state that Grantville has a police station, a school and a supermarket – in fact, Grantville has none of these!
The proposals in the SPP appear to take control over our agriculture and agricultural land. This must not happen, farmers must be able to run their business in the best way they can,” said Ms Tuchtan, calling the proposed controls a “complete overkill”, bringing with them large costs associated with planning applications and compliance.
“I question where the idea of only post and rail fences came from – do we actually have enough timber or money to install rail fences?
While we wait for a planning permit to be approved for a post and wire fence, stock will be out on the road.
“Farmers are best to look after all farm fencing – new, upgrades, repairs. They have been doing this since settlement without any restrictions or regulations or input by any government or quasi regulators.”
Ms Tuchtan continued on systematically taking apart every aspect of the DAL and SPP as it proposed place extra burdens on farming.
You can’t help thinking, however that the proposed regulations are something of a blueprint for a new attitude to planning rules governing farming.
Faye Tuchtan’s submission
Faye Tuchtan’s submission on behalf of the Victorian Farmers Federation, Bass Coast Branch
Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss the Bass Coast DAL on behalf of the members of the Bass Coast Branch of the Victorian Farmers Federation.
While we do not have “Expert Witnesses” as such, the farmers themselves are expert witnesses as we speak about our professional business.
We note that the focus of the SPP for the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes appears to be on settlement boundaries and landscape at the exclusion of agriculture.
Document 029l Regional Growth Plan for Gippsland on page 27 states that Protecting and maintaining Gippsland’s strategic and productive agricultural land is therefore essential for the continued growth of the food manufacturing sector. However, as agriculture is recognised as a DAL consideration it is surprising that no meaningful consideration of agriculture has occurred or the impact of urban focused controls on food and fibre production has been considered.
We consider that an essential part of the landscape in rural areas is the farmscape, whether it be dairying, livestock, viticulture, cropping or horticulture.
Therefore, part of the rural outlook is the vista of farm sheds, silos and stockyards.
As well as tourism, agriculture is an essential part of Bass Coast Shire. The current agricultural strategy for Victoria recognises Victorian agriculture is “a cornerstone of our economy. Victoria’s farmers, agribusiness and surrounding communities are an integral part of our way of life.
They feed us, clothe us and export our products to the world. Agriculture creates essential jobs in our regions and supports the productive management of our landscapes”.
Upon reading the SPP, I wonder whether the authors have visited all the region – they state that Grantville has a police station, a school and a supermarket – in fact, Grantville has none of these!
The proposals in the SPP appear to take control over our agriculture and agricultural land. This must not happen, farmers must be able to run their business in the best way they can.
The proposals to require a planning permit for so many essential farm business operations is completely overkill – there are the large costs associated with these applications, there is the time to have these applications approved.
Farmers are on the whole very busy and do not have skills and time to make these applications to the required standards and may have to employ others to do it, resulting in costing several thousand dollars.
Farm fences – I question where the idea of only post and rail fences came from – do we have enough timber or money to install rail fences? While we wait for a planning permit to be approved for a fence and wire fence, stock will be out on the road. Farmers are best to look after all farm fencing – new, upgrades, repairs.
They have been doing this since settlement without any restrictions or regulations or input by any government or quasi regulators. Post and rail fencing shows the poor level of understanding on this and other farming matters in the original DAL proposal.
Farm sheds – I would consider part of the rural landscape is to see farm sheds on a farm.
To run a farming business, the requirement for farm sheds is of a size that can be used to house farm machinery, fodder, livestock housing or a dairy. This certainly will require an area of more than 100 square metres and often more than 5 metres in height.
There are times that Colorbond is the material of choice but often zincalume or timber is more appropriate.
Practical logistics form the efficiencies for managing a farm. Sheds must be sited in a position most convenient to running the business, for example, not down in a gully that will get wet in winter and therefore not accessible for livestock or a tractor, or at the far corner of the farm where it is not economical to be feeding out fodder. Biosecurity is an essential consideration on all farms.
We must not have milk tankers, cattle trucks or farm supply deliveries traversing through the farm. Therefore sheds, silos and yards must be sited appropriately.
While not wanting to construct a building on a ridgeline, many farms are on hills and thus sheds could well be required to be above 200 metres AHD, let alone the 150metres AHD proposed for Phillip Island. I still consider that farm sheds are part of the rural landscape.
During these hearings, I heard an expert witness state that since she did her initial report, she has seen 2 large sheds erected which are visible from the main road.
I think I know one that she is referring to. A rotary dairy at Anderson. To my eyes, it is a part of the agricultural scene.
Isn’t it part of the tourist attraction to see big lines of dairy cows in a line walking to and from milking? A major tourist attraction is on the South Gippsland Highway at Caldermeade Farm.
Dairy is a key element of the Regional Growth Plan for Gippsland.1 Dairy in Gippsland is one fifth of the national production, it is an important commodity for the domestic market and is a key export for Australia. Dairies not only need to be located at a location that works for access by the herd on a twice daily basis, they need to be located near power and with good road access for large vehicles.
A landscape assessment should understand that farms need infrastructure, and this infrastructure should be understood as part of an agricultural landscape.
Screening buildings can present their own problems, trees do drop branches or fall from time to time. No one wants them to fall on their shed. Trees are always a threat if there is a fire, too close to a shed and you lose your hay or your tractor.
Again, let me emphasise that I consider Farm sheds are part of the rural landscape.
Tree Lopping – a planning permit should not be required for the removal or lopping a tree.
By the time a planning permit is issued, a tree has fallen on a fence and livestock could be out on the road or it has fallen on your new shed or over the power lines.
It must be noted by the Panel that most farmers in Bass Coast have planted trees on their farms as shelter belts and these do form bio-links. We consider these bio-links essential for native flora, fauna including many native birds. We have a very active Landcare network with many active members, by far the majority being farmers.
Extractive Industries – we note there are areas marked for extractive industry works and extractive industry interest areas within the draft SPP.
On these maps, some areas appear to be located within State Parks and Conservation Reserves, which have been documented to have some very rare flora and fauna in some of these areas. While farmers are planting trees and creating bio-links, we hate to see these areas could be destroyed by mining interests.
It is noted that most of the landscape has been viewed from the highway but comment has been made of the “magnificent views” from The Shuntoff. This view looks over farmland before the Westernport view.
There are farm sheds in this vista, and they do not detract from the view. In fact, I personally think the best views in Bass Coast are a drive along Mill Road, either going south or to the north. Travelling along this road, I do not notice the farm infrastructure, it all blends in with the landscape.
It should be remembered that we run a farming business and we believe, as does the Bass Coast Shire Council, that it is equally important forming part of the tourism industry and that the DAL should give due consideration to productive land of significance.
Faye Tuchtan, Representing Bass Coast Branch, Victorian Farmers Federation
Speaking notes: The trend to larger farm sizes today for Dairy, Beef and Horticulture requires larger shed to be strategically built for optimum logistics.
Then there is the trend to smaller lifestyle family farm properties (peri-urban farmers) which physically have less choice for infrastructure sites and it is not reasonable that they be restricted in their farm plan in the positioning of sheds etc.. BCSC are very strong on promoting agritourism, recognising the need to assist and encourage good farming practice as an amenity to tourism. We have several wineries, both on the mainland and on PI, plus farm produce enterprises such as Bassine Cheese and Maccas Farm.
Reference 1: Page 28 Regional Growth Plan for Gippsland Dairy
Dairy production is a major contributor to the Gippsland economy, being valued at close to £1 billion and employing around 6800 people on-farm and in related processing (eight per cent of the region’s workforce).
Gippsland produces approximately one-third of Victoria’s total dairy production and around one-fifth of Australia’s dairy production. Gippsland holds a competitive advantage in dairying due to productive soils and high and reliable rainfall. There is also a significant level of investment in land irrigation, dairy processing plants and infrastructure that in turn supports food manufacturing and value-adding within the region.
Milk produced in Gippsland supports 16 dairy factories that manufacture products for domestic and export markets. A secure supply of raw milk product is critical to maintaining the secondary processing sector. There is opportunity for further growth in the industry with likely growth in herd size, spare capacity within processing plants, and additional water available for irrigation from infrastructure modernisation.
The road freight transport network is a key link connecting the major dairy processing centres at Leongatha, Korumburra and Maffra to distribution and export hubs in Melbourne.
The dairy sector provides opportunities for the region to realise its aims for value-adding in agribusiness, and to provide a greater diversity of local employment including more high skilled jobs.
In addition, there is the potential to further enhance Gippsland’s profile as a food producer of state and national significance.