Permit refused for a 24-hour service station on a highway corner in a protected landscape area (VCAT, 2026)

What happened

The land is a 4,069 square metre corner block on the north-western side of the intersection of the Midland Highway and Clyde Hill Road at Bannockburn. It has about 83.83 metres of frontage to the highway and 45.07 metres to Clyde Hill Road, and at the time of the hearing it held a single storey house with its driveway off Clyde Hill Road. There are several houses on smaller rural living blocks to the north, farmland to the west and east, and low density residential land across the highway to the south-west.

The applicant company asked the council for a planning permit to use and develop the land as a 24-hour service station, including removing trees and putting up signs. A planning permit is written permission from the council, as the "responsible authority", to use or build on land in a particular way. The land is in a Rural Activity Zone (Schedule 2) and is also covered by a Significant Landscape Overlay (Schedule 2), an extra planning control that applies to the Russell's Bridge landscape and is aimed at protecting the river valley, ridgelines and river plain. The council refused the permit by notice of decision dated 29 October 2025, and the company applied to VCAT to review that refusal. The cover page names Golden Plains Shire Council as the responsible authority; parts of the reasons also refer to Greater Geelong City Council and the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, so the naming in the published text is not consistent.

The hearing ran over three days and the member inspected the site. Along the way the member raised whether a permit was needed to remove native vegetation under the landscape overlay and whether some of the proposed signs would be prohibited. The parties agreed the larger pole signs would be prohibited and could be dealt with by permit conditions. After looking at earlier tribunal decisions, the company withdrew its argument that no vegetation permit was needed and accepted that a permit was required and had not been advertised. With the parties' consent the application was amended to include that permission, and amended plans dated 29 May 2026 (Revision C) and an arborist report were added. The council was invited to reconsider its decision and decided to stick with its refusal.

A neighbour was joined as a respondent and supported the council, arguing the use would cause traffic problems on Clyde Hill Road and affect the amenity of the surrounding residential area. Other people sent in statements of grounds without becoming parties, and the member took those into account.

What each side wanted

The company argued the proposal fitted the strategic and statutory setting of the site: the Midland Highway is a key regional route and freight link, the upgraded Clyde Hill Road intersection had improved access, there were limited fuel options for southbound traffic (it said this was the first service station with direct highway access for about 62 kilometres from Ballarat), the site is in a designated tourism area, and the block is small, not farmed and has limited agricultural potential. It said the design was a "light touch" sitting discreetly in a landscaped setting, and that the site is not visible from the former Russell's Bridge township or the river valley. The council argued the proposal sat outside the proposed growth boundary on the Bannockburn Framework Plan, promoted out-of-centre development, and would present as a "visually assertive" and commercially branded urban intrusion that was too close to the road and boundaries with insufficient landscaping, contrary to the zone and the landscape overlay. The neighbour said the site forms part of the entry to the protected landscape and raised traffic safety for right-turning vehicles and loss of amenity.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal affirmed the council's decision. The orders read: "In application P980/2025 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. In planning permit application P25033 no permit is granted."

No money was ordered to be paid either way in the text, and no conditions were set because no permit was issued.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The member worked through the planning scheme rather than deciding on the highway location alone. She accepted the use had a direct relationship with the highway and that a main road position is a normal, often necessary, location for a service station. She found it was not an "out of centre" proposal, because of its link to the main road and the upgraded intersection, and that it was not within the 1,000 metre buffer where the scheme actively discourages business development. She also accepted that the block's size and current use meant it had limited farming potential, and that the use could serve tourism, recreation and agriculture in line with the purposes of the Rural Activity Zone. On need, she found there was no need for the use that weighed in favour of the proposal. Clause 17.02-2S discourages out-of-centre development unless it delivers a net community benefit or small-scale local convenience, and the scheme required her to weigh competing policies in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.

The decisive issue was the Significant Landscape Overlay (Schedule 2). Its objectives are to recognise and protect the landscape values of the former Russell's Bridge settlement, the Moorabool River valley, ridgelines and river plain, to protect significant views into and out of the area, to minimise the visual impact of inappropriate development, and to encourage siting, bulk, form, design and materials that respond to the landscape. The member noted no statement of significance had been produced for the area, so the words of the overlay itself had to be given significant weight, and those words point to topographic features rather than cultural heritage. She agreed with the council and the neighbour that the views to be protected are mainly public views, including views into the overlay area from the Midland Highway.

No visual or landscape impact assessment had been filed. The member accepted the amended plans were an improvement: softer colours, less advertising, lower pole signs (7.0 metres with a 5.31 square metre display area, and 4.5 metres with 3.00 square metres), and retention of boundary and frontage trees, which she accepted made the vegetation removal acceptable. Even so, she found the site sits on the edge of the valley ridgeline, that it would be seen in the context of the river valley by drivers for 200 to 300 metres approaching from the east and in the broader landscape heading east, and that the built form, hardstand and signage in the foreground of those rural landscape views would have an unacceptable impact under the overlay's decision guidelines. She was not concerned about views from the former settlement, the historic bridge or the valley itself, or about southbound views on Clyde Hill Road.

On the other issues she was largely satisfied. Transport for Victoria did not object subject to conditions and the council's traffic engineers were satisfied subject to conditions, including a road safety audit; the member accepted the traffic arrangements were acceptable subject to conditions, while saying she would have preferred larger vehicles not to circulate along the northern boundary. Noise, light spill, odour and litter could be managed by conditions, and contamination is regulated under other laws including the general environmental duty under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic). She had concerns about the buffer to the northern residential interface and would have required more than a Colorbond fence and a few new canopy trees. Her conclusion was that the proposal could deliver a significant community benefit on a key regional road, but she was not persuaded it would sit comfortably within the protected landscape, so the refusal stood.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how a planning permit is assessed as a whole rather than on one favourable fact. A good location on a main road, an upgraded intersection and a use that genuinely serves passing traffic were all accepted here, and still did not carry the application, because an extra control over the land, a landscape overlay, set objectives the design could not meet. Where an overlay applies, the words of that overlay and its decision guidelines do a lot of the work, especially when no statement of significance exists to explain it.

The case also shows the weight evidence carries. The company improved its plans during the case by lowering signs, softening colours and retaining trees, and the tribunal credited each of those changes. What was missing was a visual or landscape impact assessment of the views the overlay protects, and the tribunal reached its own view of those views from the plans, the renders and a site inspection. It is also a reminder that permit requirements can be larger than first assumed: the vegetation permit under the overlay had not been identified or advertised, and the application had to be amended mid-case to cover it.

In most disputes of this kind the first step people take is in writing, before any tribunal application: a clear letter to the council setting out what is proposed, what controls the council says apply and what information it wants, so the issues and the evidence needed are on paper. If the council still refuses or will not deal with it, the next step is an application to the tribunal for review within the time limits that apply.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a VCAT application. More decisions: VCAT cases and other civil disputes.

Source: BWK Properties Pty Ltd v Golden Plains SC [2026] VCAT 802 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.