Short-stay accommodation bid lands developer in hot water with council after breaching local planning laws

A short-stay accommodation bid temporarily landed a Deanmill developer in hot water with the Shire of Manjimup after breaching local planning laws. Dalton’s Paddock in Deanmill opened in 2024 and quickly gained attention, listed as a key venue on Airbnb’s Hidden Vines list earlier this year, and taking out three of the five top listings in the Southern Forests region. While the recognition at the time was appreciated, the listing brought an issue to the shire’s attention: two of the cabins did not have approval prior to construction. Owner Andrew Dalton had expanded his holiday accommodation business with two new cabins without obtaining the necessary approvals from the shire for around 12 months, and so needed retrospective approvals at the July 22 council meeting, with legal action a possibility. Speaking to the council during public question time, Mr Dalton said he was aware he “did things wrong” but had made a genuine effort to be transparent with the shire throughout the process. Mr Dalton said he submitted several applications to the shire, including a business plan, emergency management plan, and a bushfire evacuation plan, which he said was where things began to get “confusing”. “I went on to make a few misinformed decisions, largely led by misinterpreting stories in the media about the regulatory requirements of tiny homes,” he said. “It would be great to work amicably with the shire and accept my responsibility with an infringement penalty of some sort as opposed to go down legal formal proceedings.” Councillors were tasked with deciding whether to grant retrospective approvals and to authorise the CEO to take legal action against Mr Dalton for breaching the shire’s Local Planning Scheme. CEO Ben Rose said the recommendation to the shire only “authorised” him to take legal action, but did not obligate him to do so. “I’d be very happy to meet and understand the situation in more detail before taking further advice from staff,” he said. Cr Wade De Campo moved to remove the council’s recommendation to authorise the CEO to take legal action. He said staff had better things to do than potentially to prosecute somebody complying with the council on a matter it was looking to approve. “We constantly hear about our staff not having enough time — I’m not sure we should be tying staff time up to go and prosecute something we have approved retrospectively,” he said. Cr Steve Miolin said he opposed the removal, as the recommendation would ensure the CEO had the ability to still prosecute should negotiations or anything further go wrong during the process. “It just means that authorisation is there, and I trust our CEO’s judgment in this situation,” he said. The vote to grant retrospective approval ultimately passed 6-2 with only Cr Miolin and Cr Wendy Eiby voting against it.