The property in question was Location 1035, deemed a Buffer Conservation Area, which allowed for six rural lots in the 2006 Witchcliffe Village Strategy.

In June 2007, Council resolved to review three parcels of land surrounding the Witchcliffe Village Strategy, and how they might be better incorporated.

These were Location 1017, Location 1035 and Location 2812.

Landowners challenged the Strategy, saying the plans did not adequately transition from residential to rural blocks.

They instead suggested a 60 metre treed buffer on Location 1035 to separate rural activities in the north to residential development in the south.

“This buffer provides a better interface between residential activity and rural activity, than just a fence line,” Richard Vos, who owns a 40 hectare block in Location 1035, said.

Mr Vos asked shire officers to investigate better use of Location 1035.

In a report back to Council, shire officers recommended one hectare lots, but Council instead passed a motion for five hectare lots.

“We wondered where did five hectare lots come from?” Mr Vos said.

“Five hectare lots are probably too big for buffer conservation lifestyle development and are of little farming use.”

Landowners then approached town planner Rob Paull for advice who liaised with the shire officers and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

Subsequently a new submission went to a Council requesting a 25 hectare conservation lot and 15 hectare development and two hectare rural subdivisions.

The council dismissed the officers recommendation and new motion lot 1035 was deleted from the strategy.

Minutes of that May 28 Council meeting then said 1035 was not in the Witchcliffe Village Strategy.

“Very peculiar because Location 1035 was endorsed into the original village strategy,” Mr Vos said.