By AIDAN KNIGHT
A CONTENTIOUS planning dispute involving a Traralgon East property owner and neighbouring residents dominated last month’s Latrobe City Council meeting.
It prompted councillors to bring the matter forward immediately after public submission
The application concerned 140 Burnets Road, Traralgon East – the former site of Traralgon Vineyard and All Occasions Wedding Venue.
The land was sold in January 2023 to Matthew Degrandi, proprietor of Changed Latitude Civil, a company specialising in subdivisions and civil construction.
Neighbouring residents alleged heavy machinery and business-related activity began occurring on the farming-zoned property before planning approval for the current use had been granted.
Residents also raised concerns regarding earthworks, culvert installation and the construction of an access road on the site.
One neighbour, Rhonda O’Dea, phoned council and was told there was no application on record for any of these works taking place.
She alleges in the three years, four months, 28 days since, herself and the other neighbours adjacent to Mr Degrandi’s property suffered quality of life impacts caused directly by the business operations on the property.
After the residents lodged complaints, Mr Degrandi constructed a shed on the southwestern corner of the block, close to Ms O’Dea and her neighbour, Scott Postill, before being issued an official warning from council on May 28, 2025 for using the property as a store while the outbuilding was still under construction.
By September 17, he had lodged an application prepared by planning consultants Miller Merrigan to begin legally using the shed as a store for his business vehicles and machinery.
Council officers responded with a request for further information on October 21, which was complied by November 20, nearly two weeks after plans were revised to meet council requirements more adequately.
Council officers conducted a site visit in January 2026 and sought to distinguish the use from a “contractors depot”, which would not meet compliance with the zoning.
The permit to store was granted the following month, before Mr Degrandi lodged an amendment on March 6, strictly defining the use as vehicle storage, proposing specific operating hours, and agreeing to conditions such as sealing the western accessway to prevent dust and installing 1.8m tall timber fencing.
Council followed due procedure and advertised the application to the community, which received four objections – all from neighbours, concerning noise, dust, traffic, and various industrial impacts on the road, and it’s surrounds.
The matter was called in for a council decision by Deputy Mayor Dale Harriman (Loy Yang Ward) following presentations from residents.
The first speaker was Chris Constantine, an employee of Miller Merrigan acting on behalf of Mr Degrandi, who argued that the land is zoned farming, not rural residential, and therefore heavy machinery, both in use and storage, would not be uncharacteristic for the area.
He claimed that the “illegal access point’ has been ticked off by council, forfeiting that point, and that the objections came into the categories of the current zoning.
“Farming allows a large community, whether that is for a civil business or an agricultural business,” Mr Constantine said.
Councillors had no questions for the consultant.
The next speaker was Mr Postill’s wife, Sharon, who argued for the further restriction of heavy vehicles, the distance being only 10 metres from the family home, which suffers from substantial dust that covers the whole front and side of the house when vehicles drive past.
“Our children ride horses for a living and our horse arena backs right onto the shed that been built – we’ve had near accidents where trucks have spooked horses,” she said.
Ms Postill also referenced the flood area of the block, which has seen excessive clay running through the Postills property over the last 12 months.
Margeret Kespery also spoke, and opened her appeal stating her empathy for councillors presented with such a high-stakes decision, “because you’re relying on applicants to prove accurate information”.
“It’s not just about the use of the store, it’s how he (Mr Degrandi) went about everything on the property, which he chose the Christmas/New Year period to do so when there was no council presence.
“The zoning is agricultural,” she reasoned against Mr Constantine’s prepared argument.
“It’s not a farm, it’s a boutique winery of less than 20 acres – not 200, where this (kind of activity) would be suitable.
“You’re not the FBI,” she said plainly to the assembled council.
“A business was moved from industrial zone to the farmland. It’s not a quiet hayshed. Yes, I will survive, but it is setting a precedent for zoning (in the future).”
Seeing no questions, Ms O’Dea took the stage, after distributing some photographic evidence.
She took the opportunity to point out the first speaker was “paid to attend knowing all the legal language and loopholes to argue”, whereas “everyone else is an ordinary resident who has to do it on their own”.
Ms O’Dea delivered a passionate blow-by-blow of the same information she provided to the Express, bluntly summarising “this man (Mr Degrandi) does not comply with anything, ever”.
Mr Postil was the final speaker.
He detailed his family’s inability to eat outside or use their purpose-built verandah since the applicant’s arrival, citing his son’s 21st and Christmas lunches were ruined with dust showering their barbecue
“We can’t wash our clothes and hang them outside, we have clothes on indoor clotheshorses in summer,” he said.
“We were told he wouldn’t use it on public holidays, but Good Friday he was there.”
Cr Harriman inquired what the mental health impact on the family was, which saw some tears from the long-time resident.
“Sometimes I go to bed and don’t want to wake up, because I won’t have worries no more (sic),” Mr Postil said plainly.
Some more discussion between the councillors and the executive team led to Cr Steph Morgan (Yallourn Ward) inquiring what the level of noise was previous to the applicant taking ownership of the property. Mr Postil said nothing other than that of vine-spraying tractors, seasonally, which was no louder than a ride-on mower.
Cr Harriman then moved an alternate motion, which went against the officer’s recommendation to grant the application. Budgeree Ward Councillor Leanne Potter seconded this amendment, opposed by Tyers Ward Cr Darren Howe.
Cr Harriman elaborated, “I do so on the grounds that this has been brought up by so many in the area, (…) the objectives of the Farming Zone is to provide land for agriculture. It was a winery,” he said firmly.
“This is the destruction of farming land, turning into industrial land, in a farming area. That’s why we need to refuse to grant approval.”
This had to be drawn up in the minutes, prompting a five-minute recess, in which Mr Constantine approached council officers. The break was timed, as the IT crew responsible for livestreaming the meeting saw some technical difficulties and were required to run an internet speedtest while still sharing the screen to the gallery (the best speed was 14mbps).
They then resumed the motion, this time led by Cr Potter, who had in the break amended Cr Harriman’s alt to contain the specifics needed: calling for denial under clauses 13.07 (human health and safety), 13.07 (land use compatibility), and 14.01 (protection and preservation of agricultural land in the Farming Zone). This became the substantive motion.
Cr Potter emphasised council’s commitment to protecting farmland and the zoning of it.
“They’re not technicalities, they’re the framework our community relies on,” she said.
“The objectors have raised really legitimate concerns,” she went on, which Cr Howe in opposition swept aside, remarking that he agreed with Mr Constantine’s point that it is zoned farmland, not rural-living.
“Past compliance isn’t relevant to future compliance once a permit is approved,” he said, while still noting “it’s a very hard decision to make”.
Moe Ward Councillor Adele Pugsley was just as firm as Cr Harriman, telling everyone “I don’t believe it is in the best interest of the neighbourhood to approve this”.
“These people don’t have a choice, their house was there before, and I’m really concerned with the impact on human mental health.”
The motion went to a vote, with all in opposition save Cr Howe, met with relief and applause from the gallery.
With emotions running high throughout the meeting, the vote drew a line under one of the most divisive planning disputes seen in Latrobe City in recent years, with councillors ultimately siding with residents over the proposed expansion of industrial-style activity on farming land.
