Is Baw Baw Shire’s current farm zoning holding it back from tourist dollars?
A proposal to build two glamping pods sparked a lengthy debate on whether the council should approve more developments on agricultural land.
Jacob Wallace
October 29, 2025
When Eli Fratkin purchased 11 hectares of steep grazing farmland in Baw Baw Shire he thought he'd found the perfect spot for his eco-tourism dream. Instead, he found himself in a planning policy minefield.
What happened? A proposal for two accommodation pods on farming land in Mountain View has exposed deep divisions during a Baw Baw Shire Council meeting on October 22.
The disagreement: Fratkin had proposed to build two glamping pods - compact cabin structures that provide an alternative to camping - and a shed, which he claimed would cover less than 500 square metres of his 11 hectare property in Mountain View.
The pods would be able to accommodate four people at a time.
However, councillors disagreed on how the farming zone should balance agricultural protection with rural tourism.
Farm zones are areas focussed on protecting and promoting agriculture. They are designated by state and local governments.
In favour of the proposal: Councillors Brendan Kingwill and Ben Lucas argued the two pods fit with the council's “open for business" approach to development.
🗣️ "This is about diversification, supporting farmers to supplement incomes while maintaining agricultural use," Kingwill said.
Kingwill argued the proposal fit the council's own strategic goals:
Promoting overnight visitor growth
Addressing a clear shortfall in tourist accommodation
Strengthening the local economy through sustainable tourism
Kingwill said this small scale accommodation had been successful across Victoria, from the Yarra Ranges to East Gippsland.
🗣️ “Additions are so minor they won’t have any meaningful impact on the farming use for the land,” said Kingwill.
🗣️ Lucas noted the council's own strategic plan encourages "innovation ecosystem for niche farms".
Opposition: Councillor Kate Wilson said she had gone back and forth on her decision but ultimately said: "I'm a ‘no’ for now, not forever”.
Wilson argued the council had knocked back numerous similar proposals in the past.
She said the problem wasn’t with this individual submission but rather the council’s current farm zoning definition.
🗣️ “They all got a ‘no’ because of the policy that we’re in and what the farming zone is for.”
Zoning needs work: Wilson said she would like to see the council review its planning scheme and consider carefully which parts of their farm zone should be rezoned to allow for these sorts of developments.
Councillor Adam Sheehan agreed with Wilson that the council’s farming zone requires revision.
Sheehan said zoning was “failing to help us properly determine what we consider to be prime agricultural land”.
Sheehan noted the site's steep, exposed character doesn't represent "prime agricultural land" but couldn't support approval without broader farm zone policy review.
Mayor Danny Goss said “we don’t want a proliferation of houses and businesses in the farm zone” because the land is meant for agricultural purposes.
Vote: The council voted 6-3 against the development.
