The appeal was allowed: the Tribunal set aside the Council's decision to grant a permit and refused Loreto's application for a 34-unit assisted housing facility adjacent to an existing rehabilitation centre on agricultural land. The Tribunal held that the access road (a right of way over agricultural land) was a subservient part of the residential use under cl 6.2.2 and therefore subject to Agriculture Zone standards, and that cl 21.3.1 P4(b) was not satisfied because the site was capable of supporting agricultural use and the proposal would confine and restrain adjoining agricultural operations. On the meaning of 'prohibited' in cl 7.6.1, the Tribunal held — following Winter v Kingborough Council — that the term encompasses uses that fail performance criteria, not only uses formally designated Prohibited in a Use Table, but nonetheless refused to exercise the cl 7.6.1 discretion given the cumulative potential for land use conflict and the paramountcy of agricultural land protection under the PAL Policy. The question of the correct characterisation of the proposed use (assisted housing versus multiple dwellings) was raised but not determined.
The full text is available to signed-in members.