MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14
PANEL REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2005 MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14
PANEL REPORT
GAYE McKENZIE, CHAIR
MEGAN CAREW, MEMBER
ALAN CHUCK, MEMBER
SEPTEMBER 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SUMMARY 1
2. WHAT IS PROPOSED? 3 2.1 THE AMENDMENT 3
3. STRATEGIC & STATUTORY CONTEXT 5 3.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK 5 3.1.1 SPPF 5 3.1.2 Minister’s Direction No 6, Rural Residential Development 6 3.1.3 LPPF 6 3.1.4 State Environment Protection Policy for Waters of Victoria (SEPP) 7 3.1.5 Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy November 2003 7 3.1.6 Guidelines for Protection of Water Quality 2000 7 3.1.7 Subdivision Servicing Policy 7 3.2 STATUTORY PLANNING FRAMEWORK 8 3.2.1 Zones 8 3.2.2 Overlay 8 3.2.3 Particular & Other Provisions 8
4. ISSUES 9 4.1 NATURE OF SUBMISSIONS 9 4.2 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE PANEL 9 4.3 APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE PANEL 9
5. STRATEGIC BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT 10 5.1 RURAL RESIDENTIAL STUDY 2003 10 5.2 RURAL LIVING DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 10
6. STRATEGIC MATTERS 11 6.1 MUNICIPAL PLANNING POLICY 11 6.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 11 6.3 SCHEDULE 3 TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY 11 6.4 GUIDELINES 11
7. DEMAND AND SUPPLY 12 7.1 MINISTER’S DIRECTION NO. 6 12 7.2 EXISTING SUPPLY 13 7.3 PROPOSED SUPPLY 14 7.4 PROBABLE DEMAND 15 7.5 THE EQUATION 18
8. PLANNING PROVISIONS 21 8.1 RURAL LIVING ZONE 21 8.1.1 Dwellings and extensions 21 8.1.2 Agriculture 22 8.1.3 Earthworks 22 8.1.4 Setbacks 22 8.1.5 Subdivision 23 8.2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE 25 8.2.1 Subdivision 25 8.3 NEW RURAL ZONES 26 8.4 DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY 27
9. PROTECTION OF RURAL LAND RESOURCE 28
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 10. RURAL LIVING DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 31 10.1 CONTENT OF GUIDELINES 31 10.1.1 Archaeological concerns and Flora and Fauna 31 10.1.2 Driveways and access 32 10.2 IMPLEMENTATION 33 10.2.1 Reference or Incorporated Document 33 10.2.2 Force and Effect 34
11. INFRASTRUCTURE 36 11.1 INTRODUCTION 36 11.2 WATER SUPPLY – DOMESTIC 37 11.3 WATER SUPPLY - IRRIGATION 40 11.4 SEWERAGE 42 11.5 DRAINAGE 46 11.6 ELECTRICITY 47 11.7 ROADS, FOOTPATHS AND PUBLIC LIGHTING 48 11.8 GAS 49 11.9 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 49
12. INDIVIDUAL TOWNSHIPS 51 12.1 INTRODUCTION 51 12.2 ALEXANDRA 52 12.2.1 Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) 52 12.2.2 Rural Living Zone 1 (RLZ1) 54 12.2.3 Rural Living Zone 2 (RLZ2) 56 12.2.4 Future Urban Growth 58 12.3 YEA 60 12.3.1 Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) 60 12.3.2 Rural Living Zone (RLZ) 61 12.3.3 Limestone Road Area, Yea 63 12.3.4 FUTURE URBAN GROWTH 65 12.4 MARYSVILLE 66 12.5 EILDON 67 12.6 YARCK 67 12.7 TAGGERTY 68 12.8 BUXTON 69 12.9 GLENBURN 70
13. OTHER SPECIFIC ISSUES 73 13.1 BUSH FIRE AREAS 73
14. CONCLUSIONS 75
15. RECOMMENDATIONS 77
APPENDICES
A. THE PANEL PROCESS THE PANEL HEARINGS, DIRECTIONS AND INSPECTIONS SUBMISSIONS B. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES C. AMENDED CLAUSE 22.01-1 D. MAPS OF REVISED ZONE BOUNDARIES E. REFERENCES
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 1
1. SUMMARY
Amendment C14 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme is the statutory mechanism by which the recommendations of the adopted Rural Residential Study are to be implemented.
The amendment proposes minor changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policies (with the proposed deletion of the Rural Living Policy) and includes land, either in a Low Density Residential Zone or Rural Living Zone, at the edge of and extending out from, a number of towns in the Shire. The land included in these Zones is seen by the Planning Authority as meeting a demand for rural living lots in an attractive part of Victoria that is readily accessible from Melbourne.
The largest areas of land to be zoned Rural Living are associated with Alexandra and Yea, the principal towns in the Shire, although the Zone is also proposed adjoining the smaller towns of Buxton, Eildon, Marysville, Taggerty and Yarck and at Glenburn. Parts of the areas to be rezoned at Buxton, Eildon and Marysville, have already been subdivided and developed in a manner consistent with the zoning now proposed by the amendment.
In the case of Yarck, one of the areas to be rezoned adjoins a new subdivision containing larger lots, which the Panel was advised had proved to be popular, with all lots quickly sold.
It is intended to ‘reference’ the Rural Living Development Guidelines in the Planning Scheme with all applications (subdivision and dwellings that require consent) to be assessed against these Guidelines.
Of the submissions lodged with the Planning Authority, the majority were from the Glenburn area and opposed the Rural Living Zone for this area. The other location to attract significant opposition to the Rural Living Zone was Limestone Road, Yea. In both these areas there was some support for the new Zone, albeit from a minority of landowners.
While the Panel generally supports the amendment (as exhibited), it does not consider Rural Living is the appropriate Zone for the Glenburn area which is not a 'township' and where many of the existing smaller lots are used for agricultural purposes and therefore do not reflect the Zone Purpose, which is to provide for residential use in a rural environment, and where agricultural uses do not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding land uses. As referred to in the Section on Individual Townships, the Panel supports the review of the rural zoning of this area and whether it would be preferable to apply the Rural Activities Zone to those existing smaller lots where more intensive rural activities are being carried out.
The other areas where the Rural Living Zone is not supported by the Panel are those more remote from Alexandra and Yea and, in the case of Buxton, the amount of land included in this Zone. In the case of Taggerty, the Panel considers a Rural Living
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 2
Zone would detract from the aesthetic value of this area generally, and the Cathedral Ranges in particular, and therefore the Rural Zone should be retained.
The Panel supports the adoption of Rural Living Development Guidelines as a Reference document in the Planning Scheme provided they are referred to in a Local Policy in the Planning Scheme. The Panel is also of the view that additional guidelines relating to flora and fauna, archaeology and construction of internal ‘roads/access drives’ need to be prepared for inclusion in this document.
Subject to the inclusion of the changes and additional matters referred to in the body of this Report, the Panel supports the adoption of Amendment C14 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 3
2. WHAT IS PROPOSED?
2.1 THE AMENDMENT
Amendment C14 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme proposes to implement the Rural Residential Study, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004 by rezoning land, applying the Development Plan Overlay to the Low Density Residential Zone, making changes to the Local Planning Policy Framework, and amending Zone and Overlay Schedules. The Zones considered under the Rural Residential Study, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004 and applied by this amendment are the Rural Living Zone and the Low Density Residential Zone.
Amendment C14 applies across the municipality to the townships of Alexandra, Yea, Eildon, Marysville, Taggerty, Buxton, Yarck as well as the Glenburn locality.
The amendment: rezones Rural and Residential 1 zoned land to Low Density Residential (Alexandra, Yea and Buxton); rezones Rural land to Rural Living (Alexandra, Buxton, Eildon, Glenburn, Marysville, Taggerty, Yarck and Yea); proposes a minimum lot size of 2 hectares for land west of Halls Flat Road, Alexandra; proposes a minimum subdivision size of either 4 hectares (with an average of 6 hectares) or 20 hectares in the Rural Living Zone and requires a planning permit for a dwelling on a lot less than 100 hectares; applies a Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 3) over land included in the Low Density Residential Zone, to guide future subdivision and development, and amends the Schedule to adopt a performance based approach to all subdivision and development applications; amends the Municipal Strategic Statement to implement the Rural Residential Study, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004 and includes the Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy, Nov. 2003 and the Rural Living Development Guidelines, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004 as reference documents in the Scheme; deletes Clause 22.01-1: Rural Living Policy.
The amendment was exhibited for a period of two months (from 23 September to 26 November 2004) with notification to all owners of land affected by zoning, overlay or Schedule changes (approximately 750 owners, with letters structured by category to outline what the actual proposed change was proposed to be, also including any relevant exhibited planning scheme map, if applicable), landowners adjoining land proposed to be rezoned, submitters to the Rural Residential Study, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004, environmental and community groups, relevant agencies and prescribed Ministers, and by notice of the amendment in local press. The exhibition of the amendment was complemented by press releases.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 4
At the conclusion of the exhibition period, an open forum was held in the Alexandra Town Hall to discuss the amendment (and amendment process) prior to its consideration by the Planning Committee of Council. The officer assessment and recommendations concerning submissions were forwarded to submitters prior to the Committee meeting. Notification of the Committee meeting was sent to submitters to the amendment, with notice in the local press. Approximately 60 interested parties attended the meeting, a considerable number of which were from the Glenburn and Limestone Road, Yea areas.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 5
3. STRATEGIC & STATUTORY CONTEXT
3.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK
This section identifies the existing strategic context within which issues associated with Amendment C14 must be considered, together with any proposed changes to it.
The relevant documents that provide the context for considering Amendment C14 are as follows: the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF); Ministers Direction No. 6; Murrindindi Planning Scheme – Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF); State Environment Protection Policy for Waters of Victoria (EPA); Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy, November 2003; Guidelines for Protection of Water Quality 2000; and Subdivision Servicing Policy.
The relevant policies are briefly summarised below.
3.1.1 SPPF
The following clauses are relevant to this amendment.
Clause 15: Environment and in particular: - Clause 15.01: Protection of catchments, waterways and groundwater the objective being:
To assist the protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments, waterways, water bodies, groundwater and the marine environment. - Clause 15.07: Protection from wildfire the objective being:
To assist the minimization of risk of life, property, the natural environment and community infrastructure from wildfire. - Clause 15.09: Conservation of native flora and fauna, the objective being:
To assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and provisions of habitats for native plants and control of pest plants and animals. Clause 16: Housing and, in particular: - Clause 16.03: Rural Living and rural residential development the objective being:
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 6
To identify land suitable for rural living and rural residential development.
Clause 17.05: Agriculture the objective being: To ensure that the State’s agricultural base is protected from unplanned loss of high agricultural land due to permanent changes of land use and to enable production of productive farmland which is of high quality and strategic significance in the local or regional context.
Clause 18: Infrastructure and in particular, - Clause 18.09: Water supply, sewerage and drainage the objective being:
To plan for the provisions of water supply, sewerage and drainage services that efficiently and effectively meet the State and community needs and protect the environment.
3.1.2 MINISTER’S DIRECTION NO 6, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
This Direction applies to the preparation of planning scheme amendments to allow rural residential development.
Land should only be zoned for rural living or rural residential development where it: Is located close to existing towns and urban areas, but not in areas that will be required for fully serviced urban development; Can be supplied with electricity, water and good quality road access
Land should not be zoned for rural living or rural residential development if it will encroach on high quality productive agricultural land or adversely impact on waterways or other natural resources.
3.1.3 LPPF
The amendment makes changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Policies at Clause 22 of the Planning Scheme. The following Clauses of the MSS are relevant to this amendment.
Clause 21.01-4: - Townships.
Clause 21.01-5: - Infrastructure.
Clause 21.07: - Serviced Townships Strategies.
Clause 21.09: - Other Townships Strategies.
The Local Planning Policies relevant to this amendment are:
Clause 22.01: - Agriculture and Rural Land (Note: Clause 22.01-1: Rural Living is proposed to be deleted under this amendment).
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 7
Clause 22.03: - Townships.
Clause 22.04: - Natural Resource Management
Will the amendment change the strategic framework through changes to the MMS or LPPF?
The amendment will not change the strategic framework through the changes made to the MSS and Local Planning Policies.
3.1.4 State Environment Protection Policy for Waters of Victoria (SEPP)
The EPA states that the SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria) was developed to meet community demand for an integrated framework of environment protection goals for groundwater. It aims to maintain and, where possible, improve groundwater quality to a standard that protects existing and potential beneficial uses of groundwaters. It sets a consistent approach and provides quality objectives for groundwater protection throughout Victoria.
3.1.5 Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy November 2003
The Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment extends beyond the Shire of Murrindindi to the north (to the Murray River) and west of Kyabram and Rushworth and the Strategy has been prepared to protect and manage the assets in the Catchment.
The Authority did not lodge a written submission with the Planning Authority, however it appeared on the final day of the hearing to inform the Panel of its role and that it did not oppose the amendment.
The amendment will not introduce changes that affect this strategy.
Section 11 of this Report deals with Infrastructure.
3.1.6 Guidelines for Protection of Water Quality 2000
These Guidelines are the result of the combined efforts of the Water Authorities operating in the region and they specify setbacks for septic tanks and buildings from heritage rivers, water storages and channels.
3.1.7 Subdivision Servicing Policy
The Goulburn Valley Regional Water Authority (GVRWA) has prepared this Policy the objective of which is to provide guidelines for the provision of reticulated water supply and sewerage services to subdivisional land developments within the Authority’s region.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 8 3.2 STATUTORY PLANNING FRAMEWORK
3.2.1 ZONES
The Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) provides for land to be subdivided into larger lots at the edges of the Alexandra, Buxton and Yea Townships where reticulated services may not be available.
The amendment includes a minimum lot size of 2 hectares for land that is identified in the Schedule to the LDRZ. All other land is to be a minimum of 0.4 hectare.
The Rural Living Zone is applied to land adjacent to townships and minimum lot areas of 4 hectares (with an average of 6 hectares) or 20 hectares are set out in the Zone Schedule.
The amendment changes the minimum lot sizes in the Zone Schedule.
3.2.2 OVERLAY
The Development Plan Overlay proposes the use of a Schedule to guide the design, layout, subdivision, form, servicing and co-ordination of future development in the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) through the preparation and approval of development plans prior to subdivision and development.
The amendment amends Schedule 3 of the Development Plan Overlay (DPO3) and this is applied to the LDRZ.
3.2.3 PARTICULAR & OTHER PROVISIONS
The particular and general provisions of the Scheme will continue to apply as required and the amendment will not be affected by these provisions.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 9
4. ISSUES
4.1 NATURE OF SUBMISSIONS
Submissions were made to the Panel by the Planning Authority, Referral Authorities (Water Catchment and servicing authorities), and individuals.
The Planning Authority presented a submission in support of the amendment, as varied, following its exhibition. As a result of submissions lodged with it, the Planning Authority resolved not to include land at Glenburn and in Limestone Road, Yea in a Rural Living Zone and it supported some individual submissions that requested minor changes to the exhibited amendment.
Towards the end of the hearing, verbal submissions were made on behalf of Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority, Goulburn Murray Water and Goulburn Valley Water who clarified their respective roles in the Shire.
Individual submissions were made by or on behalf of landowners either in support of or opposing the zoning of particular properties / areas. The largest number of submissions received by the Planning Authority opposed the RLZ at Glenburn and Limestone Road, Yea.
4.2 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE PANEL
The issues identified by the Panel are as follows. Strategic basis for the amendment; Demand and Supply of land; Relevant Planning Provisions; Protection of Rural land as a Resource; Rural residential study and guidelines; Infrastructure provision; Zoning adopted for Individual Townships and sites; Other matters.
4.3 APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE PANEL
Because the amendment affects land across the municipality, the Panel has first dealt with the broader strategic issues before turning its mind to individual townships, areas and properties affected by the amendment. The Report also includes commentary on infrastructure associated with the new zones and other matters referred to by the Planning Authority and others.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 10
5. STRATEGIC BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
5.1 RURAL RESIDENTIAL STUDY 2003
The Murrindindi Rural Residential Study, adopted by the Shire in March 2004, provides the strategic basis for Amendment C14.
The overall Objective of this Study is stated as to investigate and make recommendations for changes to the planning scheme relating to the application of the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) and Rural Living Zone (RLZ).
The Study was carried out in the context of State, Regional and Local strategies and it looked at the existing supply of land zoned for low density development in townships and settlements in the Shire. The Study also called for expressions of interest from land owners who wanted their land considered for inclusion in the LDRZ and RLZ.
5.2 RURAL LIVING DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
The Shire has adopted Rural Living Development Guidelines, which it intends including as a Reference document in the Planning Scheme. This set of performance based guidelines is to be used in assessing subdivision and development applications in the Rural Living and Low Density Rural Residential Zones (These Guidelines are discussed in more detail in Section 10 of this Report).
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 11
6. STRATEGIC MATTERS
6.1 MUNICIPAL PLANNING POLICY
Amendment C14 includes changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policies.
The changes to the MSS are minor in nature and generally ‘update’ existing policy. It is noted that the overall review of the MSS is the subject of a separate amendment.
There were no submissions lodged that opposed the changes to the MSS.
The Panel supports the overall thrust of the changes to the MSS, but not to the inclusion of Rural Living Zones at Glenburn and Taggerty (where referred to in this document). This matter is addressed in Section 9 of this Report.
The Panel is also of the view that, if rural land close to townships is to be removed from broad scale agricultural production for rural living purposes, Local Policy needs to be strengthened to ensure remaining rural zoned land is protected from the excision of smaller lots for development of dwellings.
6.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY
In relation to Local Planning policies the amendment deletes the policy ‘Rural living’ contained at Clause 22.01-1.
There were no submissions made in relation to this matter.
6.3 SCHEDULE 3 TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY
This Schedule has been amended and is to apply to the Low Density Residential Zone (previously it also applied to the Rural Living Zone).
In this Schedule there are requirements for development plans and decision guidelines.
There were no submissions specific to this Overlay.
6.4 GUIDELINES
The Planning Authority has adopted the Rural Living Development Guidelines as a Reference document in the Planning Scheme (its MSS), for use in assessing subdivision and development applications in the LDRZ and RLZ.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 12
7. DEMAND AND SUPPLY
The Panel considers that the strategic work undertaken may identify land suitable for Rural Residential development over a 20 to 30 year timeframe (which is an accepted standard for town planning strategies). However, just because land is identified does not mean that it must all be rezoned at once, particularly if it results in supply greatly exceeding that specified in the Minister’s Direction No. 6, of 10 years.
The Panel firstly accepts that: There is limited supply of zoned land in the majority of the Shire at present; There is a supply of “rural living” lot sizes, which are not zoned for that purpose but are in the Rural Zone; There is likely demand, but this is difficult to quantify; Due to the limited zoned supply, additional pressure is placed on rural land for small lot excisions and for rural residential use of existing small allotments; That Council has sought to direct rural residential and rural living development into appropriately zoned land through Amendment C14.
The Panel however has two key concerns:
1) That the extent of rezoning proposed in Amendment C14 will result in excess supply, particularly around the Alexandra area; and
2) That the provision of land zoned expressly for rural residential development will not reduce the pressure within the Rural Zone without some strong policy changes.
This section discusses the first of these concerns. The latter is dealt with in Section 9.
The Panel is not persuaded that the amendment adequately addresses the potential for small lot excision and dwellings in the rural zone. As discussed in Section 9 it is essential that the Rural Zones Review address this issue, but more importantly, the Panel considers this amendment can not proceed without an amendment to the Local Planning Policy Framework to reflect greater protection of the Rural Zone. The Panel has particular concerns in the context of C16 which states at Clause 21.05 Settlement that rural living development in other areas will be supported provided that environmental requirements are met and existing primary protection will not be adversely affected.
7.1 MINISTER’S DIRECTION NO. 6
Minister’s Direction No 6 relates specifically to Rural Residential subdivisions, defined as lots between 0.4 and 2.0 hectares, though it notes that many of the principles contained in the Direction are relevant to amendments which allow the subdivision of rural land into lots of larger size. The Panel notes that Melbourne 2030 proposes a revision to this Direction to include Rural Living Zone land.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 13
The Direction requires that proposals comply with the Guidelines for Rural Residential Development 1997, which are attached to it. The Guidelines require that the supply and demand for rural residential lots within the municipality and the general locality must be assessed with respect to: The impact of the proposed additional supply eg: blighting of land, restriction of future planning options, the orderly planning of the area. Market demand must be estimated with adequate justification of inbuilt assumptions. Reference must be made to the trend in building approvals for houses on rural residential lots over the past five years. An amendment must not provide for rural residential use or development of land which would increase the supply of rural residential land to more than that required to meet a 10 year demand for rural residential lots including vacant lots in the existing supply, based on annual building approvals over at least the past five years or other suitable basis.
7.2 EXISTING SUPPLY
The new format Murrindindi Planning Scheme was gazetted in May 1999. Although based on the previous planning schemes of the municipality and an issues paper, the scheme was not built upon a comprehensive land use strategy. At the time of the scheme’s development, Council recognised that it would need to undertake further detailed analysis to investigate and provide areas for small lot semi urban / rural development. The 1999 scheme provided very limited areas for LDRZ and RLZ, essentially only zoning existing areas made up of these lot sizes and development patterns.
Council submitted that: Murrindindi Shire lacks areas for small lot development that is not within an established township with existing residential sizes. In particular, there is both a shortage and need for Low Density Residential and Rural Living zone areas in proximity to established settlements. The areas exhibited to be rezoned under Amendment C14 demonstrate a lack of zones and developable land for small lot, semi rural development.
The Rural Residential Study (Habitat Planning, July 2003) included an analysis of existing supply by identifying all zoned land within the shire and then nominating them as either developed or vacant. Table 2 identifies existing supply by township (included in the equation analysis below).
It notes that this approach does not take into account land which may not be for sale or still used for agricultural purposes, physically constrained from development, poorly located from a market perspective or not financially viable for subdivision. The Habitat Study also notes that supply may be understated, as there are instances of rural residential size lots in the Shire’s Rural Zone. The history of the Rural Zones within the Shire was detailed in the submission of Mr Ludeman. Essentially, the former Shire of Yea Planning Scheme had a minimum lot size of 20 hectares, while the former Shire of Alexandra had a tenement system which allowed small lot development. An
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 14
inspection of the allotment maps across the Shire, but particularly within the former Shire of Yea, shows extensive small lot subdivision. There is an estimated 1830 vacant allotments within the Rural Zone under 20 hectares.
In addition to the lack of consideration given to the existing supply within the Rural Zone, the Panel is concerned that there has been limited consideration to: 1. The existing Township Zone subdivision potential in the un-serviced towns like Buxton and Yarck which will have a minimum lot size commensurate with Rural Residential Development. Land zoned “township” east of Yarck has recently been subdivided into lots between 0.4 ha and 1 hectare and sold well. 2. The re-subdivision potential of existing LDRZ, such as on the west side of Alexandra, where Council’s position is now to support 1 hectare subdivision outside the waste treatment buffer (with 2 hectares retained within the buffer). 3. The supply and potential supply in other areas of the municipality such as Kinglake. The Kinglake - Flowerdale Integrated Strategy Plan March 2003 for example, includes some additional areas of Rural Living for Kinglake. Areas/ townships such as Molesworth, Strath Creek and Flowerdale were not addressed, although there is a high level of dwelling permits in these areas.
7.3 PROPOSED SUPPLY
One of the key questions raised by the Panel during the hearing pertained to quantifying proposed supply. This work had not been undertaken previously, but the Panel provided the opportunity for the Planning Authority to prepare estimates of the number of lots that may be created pursuant to the minimum lot sizes proposed in the re-zonings.
The total areas of land to be rezoned are: LOCALITY LDRZ (ha) RLZ1 (ha) RLZ2 (ha)
Alexandra 100.98 425.12 7,020
Buxton 86.38 2357 -
Eildon 127 -
Glenburn - 574.59 -
Marysville - 522.27 -
Taggerty - 244.52 -
Yarck - 133.74 -
Yea 127.42 172.53 374.09
TOTAL 441.78 4429.77 7394.09
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 15
Based on these areas and on existing tenements the Planning Authority then estimated the number of lots that could be created at: LOCALITY LDRZ RLZ1 (10 ha) RLZ2
Alexandra 100 15 80
Buxton 86 23 -
Eildon - 12 -
Glenburn - 57 -
Marysville - 52 -
Taggerty - 24 -
Yarck - 13 -
Yea 127 93.5 2
TOTAL 313 289.5 82
The Panel considers that in undertaking these calculations, the Planning Authority was conservative in their estimates, for example, for the Rural Living 2 Zone the figures are based on a 40-100ha lot being only 2 lots dividable and a 100 plus ha parcel only 3 lots dividable. When asked to do a detailed study of the proposed RLZ2 in Alexandra the Planning Authority advised that 156 lots (as opposed to 100) could potentially be created. Even based on the above estimates, the Panel considers that the amendment will result in a significant increase in supply, particularly around Yea and Alexandra.
7.4 PROBABLE DEMAND
The Planning Authority submitted that, given the lack of real supply, it is difficult to identify existing demand. This was supported by Mr Hooper in his evidence to the Panel in supporting the RLZ for the Merlino land at Glenburn. While the Panel acknowledges that it is difficult to identify demand, it is concerned that this has translated into a view that it should not be estimated to the best of the planning authority’s ability through the use of justifiable assumptions. In no document provided to the Panel was an estimate of existing and potential future demand provided.
The Habitat study basis demand calculations on land sales (1999-02) and dwelling constructions (1992-02). It estimated demand as follows:
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 16
Locality DWELLINGS CONSTRUCTED SALES
(Per annum 1992-02) (Per annum 1999-02)
Alexandra
LDRZ 1.7 4.7
RLZ 0.6 2
Buxton
LDRZ 2.7 4
RLZ 0.7 2
Eildon
RLZ 1.5 4.7
Glenburn - -
Marysville
LDRZ 0.1 2.7
Taggerty -
Yarck -
Yea
LDRZ - -
RLZ - -
The Habitat study at best identifies a current level of demand of 2-4 lots per township per annum for the four townships for which information was available. Mr Ludeman submitted that the land supply table 2 of the Habitat Study reveals that: There are 152 lots with 88 dwellings within the existing RLZ of which 28 were built in the decade after 1992. This still leaves 64 lots or a 22-year supply. The existing LDRZ contains 241 lots with 157 dwellings of which only 45 were built in the decade after 1992. This still leaves 84 lots or an 18.6 year supply. This low level of demand since 1992 could be due to the market reaching a point of equilibrium, with the combination of the ageing community and turnover of existing LDRZ and RLZ lots due to lifestyle changes.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 17
The Panel however recognises the inherent difficulty in adopting the Habitat figures alone, but does consider them helpful. For example, Mr Barnes submitted that the recent subdivision in the Township Zone in Yarck (referred to above) illustrates the futility of relying on past building approval rates in situations where supply is constrained and where 16 lots recently created in Yarck all sold in a 15 month period.
Population growth in the past has been at a rate of 1.1% per annum between 1996 and 2001 (Amendment C16). DSE projections within the Habitat Study estimate 34 households per annum with an average household size of 2.7 persons- equating to 13 households a year. These projections appear to accord with the low levels of demand across the Shire. It is noted that Amendment C16 estimates about 25% of the dwelling stock in the Shire comprises holiday homes/ lifestyle properties. Even if you add 25% to the household projections, growth is still low at 16 households a year.
Based on projected population growth rates as outlined in the MSS Clause 21.03 of 2004/05 – 2007/08 from 1.3% to 2.5% in 2009/2010, growth will continue to be modest.
Mr Barnes provided useful sales data from the Valuer General’s office for the period 2000-2003 for both Murrindindi and nearby municipalities. The sales figures showed that vacant land of 0.4- 2 hectares sold at about 24 lots across the Shire over four years (6 per year). Vacant land of between 2-20 hectares (hobby farms) sold at about 67 across the Shire over the three years. This equates to about 16.75 lots per annum total for hobby farm land. In comparison, neighbouring Mitchell Shire sold about 48 lots between 0.4- 2 hectares (12 per year) and 150 lots of 2-20 hectares within the same period or about 40 per annum in total for hobby farm land (about double).
Total dwelling approvals in the period 1999 to 2003 were 123 per annum (ABS) of which 6 per annum or 20 percent were in Yea, 22 per annum or 18% were in Alexandra and 3 per annum or 2.4 % were in Marysville. If one takes the 16-20 lots per year for the Shire as a whole of between 2-20 hectares and applies a similar distribution percentage per township, 4-5 lot sales would be proximate to Yea per year, 3-5 to Alexandra and one to Marysville for RLZ size lots which perhaps surprisingly results in figures very similar to those in the Habitat Study.
If on the other hand, one takes the Shire of Mitchell figures, and doubles them the result is 10 lots per year for Yea and Alexandra and 2-3 to Marysville for RLZ lots. While supply may stimulate demand, the level of growth likely to be experienced by the municipality, as set out in its own MSS, precludes the ability of this Panel to adopt “best guess” demand figures greater than for the Shire of Mitchell.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 18
7.5 THE EQUATION
The Panel has done a simplistic estimate of the number of years supply based on the habitat demand figures and then on the Shire of Mitchell figures for comparison.
LDRZ
Locality EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL DEMAND Double it SUPPLY* SUPPLY** SUPPLY Valuer general sales 2000-2003
Alexandra 78, 10 100 110 5 lots per 10 lots per undeveloped year year
22 years 11 years
Buxton 105, 56 86 142 4 lots per 8 lots per undeveloped year year
35.5 years 18 years
Yea 3 (to be 127 127 5 lots per 10 lots per back zoned) year year
25.4 years 12.7 years
Habitat Study; ** Council figures provided at hearing
Based on the above, the Panel believes that land to be included in the LDRZ could be reduced, particularly in the case of Buxton. This matter is addressed in the Individual Townships Section of this report.
Recommendation:
That the areas proposed for LDRZ in Buxton be reduced in extent (Refer to Section 12 – Individual Townships for detailed recommendation).
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 19
RLZ Locality EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL DEMAND Double it SUPPLY * SUPPLY** SUPPLY Valuer general sales 2000-2003 5 lots per 10 lots per year year Alexandra 80 lots, 26 RLZ1 15 undeveloped Lots 41 8.2 years 4 years RLZ2 156 156 31.2years 16 years lots Buxton 7 lots RLZ1 13 13 4 lots per 8 lots per lots year year 35.5 years 18 years Eildon 65, 39 RLZ1 2 lots 41 5 lots per 10 lots per undeveloped year year 8 years 4 years Glenburn*** - RLZ1 25.5 25.5 5 lots per 10 lots per lots year year 5 years 2.5 years Marysville - RLZ1 46.5 46.5**** 3 lots per 6 lots per lots year year 15 years 7 years Taggerty - RLZ1 21 21 4 lots per 8 lots per lots year year 5 years 2.5 years Yarck - RLZ1 9.5 9.5 4 lots per 8 lots per lots year year 2 years 1 year Yea - RLZ1 93.5 93.5 5 lots per 10 lots per lots year year 18.7 years 9 years RLZ2 2 lots 0 0 2
* Habitat Study; ** Council figures provided at hearing;*** Yea demand figures adopted due to proximity;**** likely significantly lower due to vegetation coverage.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 20
The Buxton figures have been adopted for considering demand and supply at Taggerty and Yarck, given the similarities of these small towns.
Exact statistics aside, the Panel considers that, even based on a generous estimate of adopting a demand double that of the Valuer General’s figures, there will be at least 10 years supply provided and therefore the areas of RLZ land in Buxton and Yea should be reviewed to identify what should be retained in the amendment, with the remaining areas deleted and possibly identified as ‘future areas’ within the Framework plans within the MSS. The extent of RLZ2 at Alexandra also needs to be reviewed. The Panel has addressed these areas in the Individual Township (Section 12) of this report.
Recommendation:
That the extent of the RLZ1 at Buxton and Yea be reduced, and the RLZ2 at Alexandra and Yea be deleted. (For specific recommendations refer to Section 12 – Individual Townships).
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 21
8. PLANNING PROVISIONS
8.1 RURAL LIVING ZONE
The purposes of the Rural Living Zone include: To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies; To provide for residential use in a rural environment; To provide for agricultural land uses which do not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding land uses; To protect and enhance the natural resources, biodiversity and landscape and heritage values of the area; To encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision.
The Rural Living Zone is proposed for all of the townships included in Amendment C14. Two different subdivision sizes are proposed for the Rural Living Zone, a 4 hectare minimum and 6 hectare average lot size in Rural Living Zone 1 (Alexandra, Buxton, Eildon, Marysville, Taggerty, Yarck and Yea), with a 20 hectare minimum lot size in Rural Living Zone 2 (Alexandra and Yea).
The exhibited amendment included all land proposed to be rezoned to the Rural Living Zone and a single schedule, attaching two maps illustrating the two different subdivisional areas. The Planning Authority submitted to the Panel, on the recommendation of DSE that this approach should be replaced by the inclusion of two separate schedules to the Zone. The Panel agrees with this advice.
Recommendation:
Given the recommendation to delete the RLZ2 from the exhibited Schedule to Clause 35.03, include a 4 hectares minimum and 6 hectares average lot size in the adopted Schedule of the Rural Living Zone.
8.1.1 DWELLINGS AND EXTENSIONS
Dwelling is Section 1 use on a lot meeting the minimum lot size in the Schedule to the zone (100ha) and the requirements of Clause 35.03. Mr Scale submitted that the Planning Authority wanted all dwellings to be the subject of planning approval and accordingly adopted the 100 hectare minimum lot size in the schedule. The existing Rural Zone has a 40 hectare minimum lot size and a dwelling is Section 1 if on a lot of this size or larger. Mr Haydon submitted that this should be the same for the RLZ.
Given the importance of the Rural Living Development Guidelines, the Panel agrees that it is appropriate to require a planning permit be obtained for a dwelling within the
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 22
Rural Living Zone. It does not however believe the minimum lot size needs to be the same as for the Rural Zone. Mr Scale indicated that this matter would be addressed in the forthcoming Rural Lands Study.
A permit is required for buildings and works associated with a Section 2 use including a dwelling where the Section 1 requirements are not met. The exception is where an alteration or extension to an existing dwelling has a floor area less than 200 square metres (specified in the Schedule). Mr Scale advised that although the Planning Authority saw the need to obtain a permit for the original dwelling on a lot, it did not want to have to consider permits for extensions. This approach seems reasonable however, the area of 200 square metres, or four times the 50 square metres ‘default’ provision for the Zone, would allow the floor area of a small to average size dwelling to be doubled without a permit.
The Panel considers that the effective implementation of the Rural Living Development Guidelines is dependent on a planning permit requirement for all major works. To this end, the Panel considers the 200 square metre extension provision is excessive.
Recommendation:
That the minimum area in the Schedule to the Rural Living Zone for which no permit is required for a dwelling extension be specified as 100 square metres.
8.1.2 AGRICULTURE
Agriculture is a Section 2 (permit required) use within the Rural Living Zone, with some minor exemptions.
8.1.3 EARTHWORKS
In the Rural Living Zone, earthworks which change the rate and flow or the discharge point of water across a property boundary or which increase the discharge of saline ground water will require a planning permit. This provision will assist in the interim assessment of dams and other such constructions.
8.1.4 SETBACKS
A building within 20 metres of a main road (Road Zone category 1) or 100 metres of a waterway, wetlands or designated flood plain requires a permit in the Rural Living Zone.
Cr. Coller and others submitted that there should be a 100 metre setback provision from main roads. The default provision in the zone is 30 metres. Given that a permit will be required for a new dwelling on a site less than 100 hectares, the setback from a main road will only become an issue for other ‘as of right’ land uses and developments. The Panel considers that 20 metres is a sufficient distance within the Zone Schedule.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 23
8.1.5 SUBDIVISION
A permit is required to subdivide land under the provisions of the Rural Living Zone. The minimum lot size in the RLZ1 areas is proposed to be 4 hectares with an average of 6 hectares. The minimum lot size in the RLZ2 areas is proposed to be 20 hectares. The Rural Living Zone has an 8 hectare ‘default’ minimum lot size.
Council submitted that: These areas are proposed to recognise existing lot patterns, prevent further subdivision of existing 8 hectare lots around Alexandra, provide a graduation of lots sizes out of the municipality’s two largest towns of Alexandra and Yea, provide market choice, allow more agricultural uses to continue on larger lots, and allow an innovative use of the Rural Living Development Guidelines, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004. Positive environmental gain can be achieved in a range of rural living environments, including larger lots outside Alexandra and Yea that have demonstrated environmental constraints and opportunities to address and achieve.
Rural Living Zone 1
The Panel considers that the minimum lot size provisions for the Rural Living Zone 1 are generally appropriate.
It became evident during the hearing that the appropriate level of subdivision of land could only be determined through the preparation of detailed land capability analysis, and this had resulted in the Planning Authority supporting a number of site specific additions to the Zone Schedule to accommodate smaller minimum lot sizes.
The Planning Authority considered the option of a totally performance based approach to rural living subdivision with no minimum lot size in its Supplementary Report, Rural Residential Study and Amendment C14, August 2004 (p9). While acknowledging that such an approach may be theoretically sound, the Authority elected to maintain minimum lot sizes to provide some tangible minimums to maintain the character, reflect basic existing sizes and maintain land capability.
It appears to the Panel that there is an inherent difficulty in specifying a minimum lot size that, at the same time, maintains sufficient flexibility to avoid the need to need to consider site specific exemptions.
The Panel is of the view that land capability is not the only measure to ascertain the subdivision potential of a block. While land capability may be the basis for ascertaining whether a lot may be capable of being subdivided to smaller lots, the question remains as to whether it should be permitted. On balance, while the Panel supports a level of flexibility that would enable innovative subdivisions and ‘cluster style’ developments to occur (as suggested by Ms Abbott-Smith) it has formed the view that the minimum lot size approach, with all its inherent difficulties is preferable and that the inclusion of site specific exemptions in a Zone Schedule should be the exception rather than the rule.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 24
The Panel has addressed the matter of site-specific exemptions in dealing with individual submissions.
The issue of almost all agricultural land uses requiring a planning permit in a RLZ was a concern raised by the Glenburn submitters. The Rural Living Development Guidelines apply to agricultural land use proposals and specifically address conflict issues between residential and agricultural land uses. The Panel supports these initiatives. The zoning does however raise the question of what should be the primary use of the land.
Rural Living Zone 2
The Panel has strong concerns about the role of the Rural Living Zone 2 and its proposed 20 hectare minimum lot size.
The Panel notes that the 20 hectare minimum was the minimum subdivision size in rural areas under the former Yea Planning Scheme and that there are a large number of lots around this size in the former Shire of Yea and, to a lesser extent, in Alexandra, where there was, previously, generous averaging and tenement provisions.
One of the major issues facing Murrindindi is the loss of valuable rural land. It is important that land be retained in parcels large enough to ensure sustainable agricultural production. While 20 hectares may be too small for traditional grazing, in the Panel’s view it is perhaps too large for ‘hobby’ farming. Minister’s Direction No 6 in the Guidelines for Rural Residential Development 1997 are explicit in that an amendment should not provide for rural residential use or development of land which is high quality agricultural land and has a present pattern of subdivision favourable for sustainable agricultural production.
In the Panel’s opinion, 20 hectares in a high rainfall area is a lot size which can contribute to agricultural production and it is interesting to note that 20 hectares was also the minimum lot size in most of the South Gippsland area’s former planning schemes.
In the proposed Rural Living 2 Zone towards Killingworth, north of Yea, only limited further subdivision would be achieved (possibly only two to three lots) by adopting this minimum lot size and therefore the Panel sees little benefit flowing from this rezoning if the aim is to add to the supply of rural living land. While the Planning Authority’s view may be that the zoning would simply reflect the existing use of the land, the Panel’s inspection did not find this to be the case.
It is important in the Panel’s view to consider the fact that the RLZ requires a planning permit for nearly all agricultural pursuits. While Council submitted that many of the areas would have existing use rights for “grazing”, this appears at odds with the view that the RLZ2 areas are already “just residential”.
Similarly, from its inspections of the three RLZ2 areas proposed around Alexandra, the Panel did not see a predominance of residential use.
The Panel considers that, except for small areas close to Alexandra, land proposed to be included in the Rural Living Zone 2 should remain within the Rural Zone at this time. In relation to RLZ2 land adjoining the township the Panel is of the view this
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 25
should be included in the RLZ1. The effect of this change would eliminate the RLZ2 Schedule.
Recommendation:
Delete the Rural Living Zone 2 at Yea and Alexandra with small areas on the east side of Alexandra included in the RLZ (with minimum and average lots of 4 and 6 hectares respectively (Refer to recommendations in Section 12 – Individual Townships for details).
8.2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE
The purposes of the LDRZ are: To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies; To provide for low-density residential development on lots which, in the absence of reticulated sewerage, can treat and retain all wastewater.
Within this Zone a dwelling is a Section 1 use provided the provisions of Clause 32.03-2 are met as follows: Each dwelling must be connected to reticulated sewerage, if available. If reticulated sewerage is not available, all wastewater from each dwelling must be treated and retained within the lot in accordance with the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) under the Environment Protection Act 1970; Each dwelling must be connected to a reticulated potable water supply or have an alternative potable water supply, with appropriate storage capacity, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority; Each dwelling must be connected to a reticulated electricity supply or have an alternative energy supply to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The use of the land for agriculture is generally a Section 2 use.
8.2.1 SUBDIVISION
The LDRZ has the minimum default subdivision size of 0.4 hectares if the Schedule does not specify an alternate lot size. The exception is land west of Halls Flat Road, Alexandra, where the minimum lot size, as exhibited in the amendment, is to be 2 hectares (Following exhibition the Planning Authority now proposes minimum lot sizes of one and two hectares for land outside and within the ‘buffer’ to the Wastewater Treatment Works respectively).
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 26
8.3 NEW RURAL ZONES
New rural zones have now been included within the Victoria Planning Provisions. The new zones are: Farming Zone (replaces the Rural Zone); Rural Conservation Zone (replaces the Environmental Rural Zone); Rural Living Zone (upgrades the existing Zone); and Rural Activity Zone (new Zone).
Municipalities are to review their planning schemes in the light of the new zones. The Planning Authority, in this case, submitted that: Murrindindi Shire Council intends to undertake a rural lands study to implement the new statewide review of rural zones. The study will be based on an assessment of agricultural quality, land capability, environmental conditions and rural activities. Submissions to Amendment C14 relating to land outside the exhibited areas for rezoning will be considered as part of this study. This study will not be commenced until after the approval of Amendment C14. Murrindindi Shire Council considers that provision of strategic areas of LDRZ and RLZ are important precursors to a rural lands study.
The Panel notes that the Rural Living Zone, as proposed, is similar to that proposed under Amendment C14 and therefore its use is consistent with the new rural zone provisions.
There was some discussion as to the suitability of applying the Rural Activity Zone to some of the areas proposed for inclusion in the Rural Living Zone under the amendment, particularly land at Glenburn.
The purpose of the revised Rural Living Zone is to provide for residential use in a rural environment and a dwelling is a Section 1 use while, with limited exceptions, agriculture is a Section 2 use in this Zone.
On the other hand the (new) Rural Activity Zone is designed to be applied to selected areas where agricultural activities and other land uses co-exist and a wider range of tourism, commercial and retail uses may be considered in the zone. Agriculture is to have primacy in the Zone and is a Section 1 use as is a dwelling, if on a lot complying with the area specified in the Schedule.
The Panel accepts the Planning Authority’s submission that it is not intended that the rural living areas provide for a range of land uses, but that they primarily provide for residential use on larger lots. The exception to the 4 and 6 hectares minimum and average respectively relate to land more remote from the Yea and Alexandra Townships, where the lot size of land is proposed at 20 hectares.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 27 8.4 DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY
Amendment C14 proposes that Schedule 3 to the Development Plan Overlay, Low Density Residential Zone, be applied to proposed LDRZ areas at Alexandra, Buxton and Yea.
The Schedule will require the preparation of a development plan before a planning permit may be granted for any subdivision or development of land.
The Development Plan tool has been previously used by the Planning Authority and Mr Scale provided a number of examples of completed development plans.
The Panel is supports the use of the Development Plan in the manner proposed and it has considered whether its use should be extended to other areas proposed for rezoning pursuant to Amendment C14, specifically the RLZ1 areas.
The Planning Authority did not support the use of a DPO over RLZ land due to fragmentation of land ownership and cost of assessing and processing DPO’s. The Planning Authority considered that the Rural Living Development Guidelines provided sufficient protection to these areas. The Panel has discussed this in Section 10.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 28
9. PROTECTION OF RURAL LAND RESOURCE
Minister’s Direction 6 in the Guidelines for Rural Residential Development 1997 are explicit in that an amendment should not provide for rural residential use or development of land which is high quality agricultural land and has a present pattern of subdivision favourable for sustainable agricultural production.
The current SPPF and LPPF include, as policy, that agriculture should be protected and supported.
As submitted by Ms Chadband and others “taking land out of production for rural residential purposes means not getting it back into production, thus an assessment of the overall amount of land required for rural residential use should be conservative rather than generous.” The Panel agrees with this view.
In the Panel’s mind, what constitutes high quality agricultural land needs to be considered on a broad basis and it was generally accepted that parts of Murrindindi such as the land around Glenburn, while not technically “high quality” agricultural land, are certainly better than much of the State and better than the neighbouring Mitchell Shire.
The proximity of the Murrindindi Shire to the metropolitan area has enormous pressure placed on its rural zones for further subdivision. The Planning Authority provided permit application figures which noted that in the period 1999-2004 permits for dwellings in the rural zone totalled 294. The Panel / Advisory Committee for the New Format Planning Scheme (NFPS) identified that approximately half of all planning permit applications in the Shire were for dwellings within the Rural Zone.
Amendment C14 has been prepared in isolation from a broader review of rural areas and urban growth. It is the Panel’s view that:
1. Amendment C14 should assist in reducing pressures for dwelling applications and subdivision in the rural zone for rural living purposes.
2. Amendment C14 should not unduly result in the loss of viable agricultural land holdings.
The Planning Authority submitted that these relationships would be explored as part of the Rural Land Study. The Panel recognises that Amendment C14 has been prepared over a long period of time and it is of the view that it should not be delayed by the review of Rural Zones. The Panel however considers that firstly the amendment needs to specifically address the strategic relationship of rural living to the rural zones, a matter raised by numerous submitters.
Viable farm sizes (as opposed to lot sizes) depend on a range of factors including:
1. Capability of land;
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 29
2. Nature of agricultural activity;
3. Individual farm practices; and
4. Ability of farmers to supplement or enhance income through on farm or off farm activities.
The Panel was provided with examples of smaller lots where agricultural uses were being carried out, apparently successfully. Examples close to Yea included a vineyard of 30 hectares and an olive grove of 50 hectares.
The Panel considers that what is viable rural land will change in the long term and as such it is important to retain land in agricultural use. The Regional Catchment Strategy recognises the changes to the landscape within the catchment a 3.5.2 as follows:
On current trends across the catchment, we could expect to see a significant shift in land use patterns over the next 50 years and this will strongly affect the future landscape. The result is likely to be mosaic made up of:
• An intensive agricultural zone with a smaller ecological footprint- double the production from half the land;
• An increased “conservation” zone where the land is no longer used for traditional agricultural is managed for nature conservation and ecosystem services and
• Rural living areas where land, particularly near urban centres is concerted to hobby farms and smaller farms where he main household income is from activities other than agriculture and which may offer additional conservation benefits.
This statement from the Catchment Strategy is reflected in the Rural Living Development Guidelines and was subject to a number of submissions questioning the conservation benefits associated with rural living areas.
While living in rural areas remains a popular alternative, this form of development can have negative consequences. There may be conflicts between agricultural activities and the expectations of rural dwellers, claims on local authorities to extend uneconomic community services and infrastructure, and demands on the local environment and landscape to absorb more intensive development. There are potential conflicts between the ‘right to farm’ on the one hand and residential uses (albeit at low densities) in ‘rural’ locations and the Panel believes that if rural living is to be provided for, close to towns in the Shire, then it is important not to re-zone excessive areas that have the potential to fragment and reduce the remaining rural land base and allow uses that conflict with farming uses.
To protect the remaining rural land, from ad-hoc small lot excisions it is imperative, in the Panel’s view, that the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policy includes policy to reflect this.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 30
The Panel has also questioned the suitability of the Rural Living Zone (proposed Schedule 2) as an appropriate tool to reflect the projected change to hobby farms and smaller farms where a 20 hectare minimum lot size is included. The Panel has recommended that these areas be retained in a Rural Zone. However it notes that the Rural Living Development Guidelines could be applied to land of smaller lot sizes within the Rural Zone.
Recommendation:
The Panel recommends that the MSS be amended to better protect land in the Rural Zone from excisions that create ‘rural living’ lots.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 31
10. RURAL LIVING DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
The Rural Living Development Guidelines (RLDG) document was prepared in March 2004 by consultants for the Shire and in association with the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority. The Guidelines were prepared to assist in managing the use, development and subdivision of land within the Rural Living Zone. Council submitted that: A major component of Murrindindi Shire Council’s implementation of sustainable development is through the use of the Rural Living Development Guidelines, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004 to guide the subdivision and development of rural living zone areas. Amendment C14 proposes to reference this guideline in the Murrindindi Planning Scheme to reinforce Council’s commitment towards achieving sustainable outcomes for rural living, rather than simply zoning land without an appropriate framework for future development decision making.
It is proposed to refer to the Guidelines under the Monitoring and Review section (Clause 21.11) of the MSS (to measure the level of compliance for subdivision and development with the Rural Living Zone with the Rural Living Development Guidelines, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004) and also to include them as a Referred to Documents contained in Clause 21.12 of the MSS. Although there were no specific submissions made to it concerning this document the Panel considers it is an important keystone of Amendment C14. The Panel is supportive of a number of initiatives the Planning Authority is trialing through the Rural Living Development Guidelines, however, it has concerns as to how the guidelines will be implemented by the Planning Scheme.
10.1 CONTENT OF GUIDELINES
The Guidelines require a performance based approach that requires assessment and achievement of eleven different issues, including general guidelines for subdivision and development. The guidelines require the detailed site and environmental assessment for subdivision and dwellings, including the use of whole farm plans for subdivision.
10.1.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONCERNS AND FLORA AND FAUNA
Minister’s Direction No. 6 seeks to ensure the protection of significant flora and fauna when rezoning land for rural living purposes. An amendment must not provide for rural residential use or development of land which:
Supports fauna or flora whether in terms of individual taxa or communities or ecosystems of international, national, state or regional significance unless the amendment includes specific provisions to protect the significant flora or fauna.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 32
A number of submitters, including Ms Hill and Mr Gardiner, raised concerns about the potential effects of subdivision on flora and fauna on adjoining or nearby reserves.
Findings and Conclusions:
In the opinion of the Panel, neither the amendment nor the RLDG address this issue. The Panel considers that the Development Plan Overlay for land in the LDRZ could be amended to address this concern, by requiring a flora and fauna study be prepared for specific sites (where identified as necessary).
Similarly, the Panel considers that the matter should be addressed for land in the RLZ by amending the RLDG and/or addressing it through planning policy.
A similar requirement exists in the Minister’s Direction in terms of aboriginal and other archaeological sites. The fossil site, considered in Section 12, is one example and it is considered that the DPO and policy / guidelines could also address these concerns.
Recommendation:
The Panel recommends that the Schedule 3 to the Development Plan Overlay be amended to include reference to the requirement of a flora and fauna study and archaeological studies (as required) and the RLDG include a similar reference.
10.1.2 DRIVEWAYS AND ACCESS
The Guidelines do not specifically address driveway location construction. A number of submitters illustrated the effect that poorly designed access ways can have on the landscape. The Panel considers that the guidelines should include reference to well designed access with minimal excavation.
Recommendation:
The Panel recommends that the RLDG be amended to refer to access driveways and the intention that any required excavation and change to the topography in creating them be minimised.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 33
10.2 IMPLEMENTATION
10.2.1 REFERENCE OR INCORPORATED DOCUMENT
One submission suggested that the Rural Living Development Guidelines, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004 be included in the Murrindindi Planning Scheme as an Incorporated document, rather than as a Reference (policy) document in Clause 21.12, as exhibited in Amendment C14.
Council submitted that the Guidelines were exhibited as a Reference (policy) document, rather than an Incorporated document, in Amendment C14 as: Although the guidelines are referenced in strategies in Clause 21.07 and 21.09, they were not exhibited to be included in Rural Living Zone Schedules; It is envisaged that the guidelines will be an evolving process with a need to revise them from time to time. An example of this would be the need to include reference to new policy documents, such as the revised Land Use and Development Guidelines for the Protection of Catchment and River Health, North East Planning Referrals Committee, 2005 or need for refinement based on initial implementation of the guidelines based on Council or agency input. The possible need to refine the guidelines would be much more difficult as an incorporated document that would require a planning scheme amendment to make any change whatsoever; Panel comments are sought in this matter.
The Catchment Authority did not support the inclusion of the Guidelines as an Incorporated document due to the difficulties associated with amending them.
The Panel refers the Planning Authority to the Planning Practice Note on Incorporated and Reference Documents which specifies when a document should be incorporated: The document is essential to the administration or enforcement of the planning scheme, that is, without the document the scheme cannot be properly understood. The Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production –Revision No. 2, November 1996 is an example; The document is necessary to determine the extent of a planning control, or whether planning permission s required in a particular case, such as the Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria. Without using this document it is not possible to tell whether a permit is required for a telecommunications facility or not; The document is required to be incorporated under the Act, specific planing provision or Ministerial Direction, such as an incorporated plan under the Incorporated Plan Overlay, and the documents listed in the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes;
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 34
The document will be used to guide the exercise of discretion by the responsible authority (except for a development plan under the development plan overlay, which does not need to be incorporated).
The Planning Authority indicated that the subdivision and development outcomes for the Rural Living Zone were to be guided by the Rural Residential Development Guidelines and, on this basis the Panel is of the view that, if the document is not to be incorporated, it should be given greater weight in the Scheme by some alternative method.
10.2.2 FORCE AND EFFECT
It is the Panel’s view that as a reference document within the MSS, the Guidelines will have minimal force or effect.
The Panel considers that there are various options available to ensure that the guidelines are given the weight they warrant.
1. Incorporate key elements of the Guidelines within a local planning policy.
Amendment C14 deletes Clause 22.01-1: Rural Living, which relates to the rezoning of land for rural living purposes. While the Panel does not object to its deletion per se, its retention (in its current or amended form) would provide an opportunity to incorporate key elements of the Guidelines. If this occurred, the Guidelines document itself would not require incorporation into the Scheme.
This would perhaps be the simplest approach.
2. Include reference to the document in the RLZ, as suggested by the Planning Authority. A possible additional reference the guidelines if they become an incorporated document, could be to add: ‘…in accordance with the Rural Living Development Guidelines, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004’, after the subdivisions area in both Schedules to the Rural Living Zone’.
The Panel considers that this option would not ensure that the Guidelines are used in assessing use and development applications.
3. Apply an overlay, such as the Design and Development Overlay, which includes reference to the key aspects of the guidelines.
This option would not provide for ‘use’ applications to be assessed against the guidelines.
A number of submitters also questioned the extent of application of the RLDG and submitted that they should apply to all Rural Land. This is a matter that, following their monitoring and review, the Panel considers should be considered by the Planning Authority.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 35
In addition to the Guidelines, the Planning Authority referred the Panel to the overall adopted Rural Residential Study, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004 which comprised both the Habitat Planning background document together with the Council maps and report. The Planning Authority advised the Panel that the overall report was never consolidated into one document and it requested that the Panel recommend that the study be given the title Rural Residential Study, Murrindindi Shire, Habitat Planning and Murrindindi Shire, March 2004 and that it be referenced in the Municipal Strategic Statement as a policy document.
Recommendation:
That Clause 22.01 be retained and re-drafted to provide greater weight to the RLDG as a Reference document. A suggested re-draft of this Clause is included in Appendix C.
That the Rural Residential Study, March 2004 be renamed Rural Residential Study, Murrindindi Shire, Habitat Planning and Murrindindi Shire, March 2004 and that it be referenced in the Municipal Strategic Statement as a policy document.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 36
11. INFRASTRUCTURE
11.1 INTRODUCTION
Minister’s Direction No 6 (MD6)
As part of the process of re-zoning land from rural to rural residential (which for the purposes of this chapter will be taken to cover both low-density residential and rural living), planning authorities are required to take account of, inter alia, Minister’s Direction No 6, which provides: An amendment must only provide for rural residential use or development of land which at the time of development: can be connected to reticulated potable water (unless the average annual rainfall is greater than 750mm); has been found to have satisfactory physical characteristics for on- site sewage and sullage disposal or which can be connected to a reticulated sewerage system; can be connected to or provided with a drainage scheme which effectively removes stormwater from each house and lot, prevents inundation of effluent disposal fields, and is designed to handle the 1 in 100 year storm event; can be connected to the electricity grid in accordance with normal residential practice; can be connected to the telephone system in accordance with normal residential practice; is accessible by properly formed and constructed roads; can be provided with at least weekly collection of domestic garbage in accordance with normal residential practice; and is reasonably accessible to existing social facilities and services, unless the amendment specifically requires the provision of those facilities on or adjacent to the land prior to the sale of individual lots.
Source: Ministerial Direction No 6, DSE website, emphasis added.
In most cases, and for most services, this is a two-stage process: the availability of the service at all must be considered at the zoning or re-zoning stage; and the level of service and the cost of providing it must be considered at the development stage.
It would be futile to re-zone land for rural residential use if a service or services could never be provided to subsequent lots at a sustainable level. On the other hand, the fact that a service is not presently available to a proposed zone should not necessarily rule
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 37
it out, if there is a possibility that changes in technology or in other land uses could make the service economical and sustainable in the future.
This chapter will take a broad-brush, first-stage view of the likely availability of services to areas proposed for re-zoning in each of the geographic localities. It will be for future owners or developers, at the time of subdivision, to negotiate the provision of those services to lots within the proposed subdivision.
11.2 WATER SUPPLY – DOMESTIC
MD6 An amendment must only provide for rural residential use or development of land which at the time of development: can be connected to reticulated potable water (unless the average annual rainfall is greater than 750mm).
View of Planning Authority
The Rural Residential Study carried out for the Planning Authority in July 2003 made scant mention of water supply as a strategic issue. It summarises Goulburn Valley Water’s Subdivision Servicing Policy (2002), without comment.
Local Planning Policy Clause 22.01-3 seeks to ensure that development in the rural areas is provided with a water supply sufficient for domestic and fire fighting needs. The policy provides that a water supply shall be provided in any of the following ways: from an existing reticulated water supply system; from a [private reservoir] with a capacity of at least 2 ML; from a well or bore capable of supplying 4,500 L/d; or by a right of access to a permanent river or stream.
For lots without reticulated water, Council policy requires each dwelling to have water storage tanks with a total capacity of 55,000 L, of which a minimum reserve of 10,000 L is to be held for fire fighting purposes.
Private reservoirs (“dams”), groundwater bores and stream flow abstraction are more relevant to irrigation water supply than to purely domestic, potable supply, and are discussed in the following section.
In response to various submissions to the Panel, the Planning Authority summarised its position with respect to water supply on page 2 of its Conclusions: Water issues have been addressed through the RLDG [see Section 10], with linkage to GMW to determine and approve water supply based on catchment yield. If required, rural living [zones] may be developed on a “dry block” basis with potable supply only coming from roofs.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 38
View of Water Authority
The local water authority for all of the areas proposed for re-zoning is the Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority (“Goulburn Valley Water”), based at Shepparton. Its views were set out in its letter dated 29 November 2004 (submission no 194). Before dealing in detail with each locality, the Authority made the following general comments: The Authority supports in principle the aim of providing sustainable rural living subdivision, design and development in these townships and to control the fragmented subdivision pattern of land that has occurred in the past. In general the Authority has no plans to install any backlog sewer or water supply systems to any of the townships within Murrindindi Shire . . that do not currently have these services. It should be noted that approval for the re-zoning of land within such townships does not obligate the Authority to provide those services. Conditions requiring the provision of water supply and sewerage services within the areas to be re-zoned would be applied by Goulburn Valley Water in accordance with its subdivision servicing policy.
The letter then goes on to summarise the conditions which would apply to the various types of subdivision:
Zoning Condition – Water Supply
LDRZ Reticulated (town) water
Rural living – min 4ha/av 6ha None- however, an assessment should be made to ensure each allotment has access to a viable alternative source of water
Rural living – min 20ha None
The Authority concluded with the statement: Other proposals in the amendment have been examined, from the viewpoint of their effect on the Authority assets and servicing infrastructure capacity, and I can advise that the Authority has no objection to any of these proposals.
The Authority attached a copy of its Subdivision Servicing Policy (2002) to the letter.
The letter was signed by Mr L Goudie, Manager – Development at the Authority. Mr Goudie appeared before the Panel at Yea on 19 July, but discussion was confined to the matter of sewerage.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 39
Views of submitters
Several submissions to the Panel raised the question of the availability of water, and the effect of increasing population density on the allocation of this finite resource. The most detailed submission was by Ms Chadband, who helpfully drew the Panel’s attention to the Yea River Catchment Streamflow Management Draft Report, December 2001 (reference 2). Section 3 of that report sets out the legislative background and extent of water diversions from the Yea River as at November 2000. It notes (Section 3.1) that approximately 9% (326ML/yr) of the total volume of extraction licences is licensed for domestic and stock purposes. This is discussed in the following section.
Ms Chadband pointed out that domestic and stock use increases as a proportion of total use when flows are low, especially when restrictions are placed on irrigation users, and that, to date, restrictions have not been placed on domestic & stock users. She added “With increasing pressure for subdivision and rural living development, it is likely the demand for additional domestic & stock water use will occur in the medium to long term.” and: “. .when the requirement is for each allotment to contain a 2ML dam and a 55,000L tank, the cumulative impact of a large number of allotments is significant.”
While these comments were addressed to the Yea River catchment (Yea, Limestone Road, Killingworth and Glenburn), they would be equally applicable to other sub- catchments of the Goulburn – Broken catchment.
Findings and Conclusions
Many submissions noted that Glenburn, for example, has an average annual rainfall in excess of 800mm, and this figure has not been disputed. While other areas covered by Amendment C14 might have slightly lower figures, Bureau of Meteorology data confirm that the criterion of 750mm given in MD 6 would be met throughout the Shire. It is therefore not unreasonable to permit subdivisions which would create lots reliant on tanks and roof runoff for domestic water supply.
Should future owners of the resulting lots require more water than the nominal tank capacity of 55,000 L, for example, for kitchen gardens, stock, swimming pools or ornamental ponds, they may apply for a domestic and stock water licence of 2ML/yr. As the Planning Authority pointed out, the local water authority has procedures in place to deal with these applications on their merits. However, Ms Chadband advised the Yea River is already over-committed and any increase in domestic and stock allocation would be at the expense of irrigators elsewhere in the catchment.
As noted below, the rural water authority does not recommend the use of groundwater for human consumption, due to the danger of E. coli contamination.
The Panel has concluded that there is insufficient reason, on the grounds of domestic water supply, to reject Amendment C14 outright. However, further study may be required to determine the long-term effect on the various rivers of increased abstraction of domestic water entitlements.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 40 11.3 WATER SUPPLY - IRRIGATION
MD6
No requirement.
View of Planning Authority
In its closing submission, the Council stated: The linkage in the RLDG to GMW integrates rural water provision with land use and development through municipal planning schemes.
The Panel takes this to mean that the Planning Authority has no firm view on whether the lots resulting from subdivisions enabled by Amendment C14 should be used for irrigated agriculture, horticulture, silviculture or viticulture; rather, it is for the future owners to negotiate with the rural water authority as to whether irrigation water will be available and, under what terms.
View of Water Authority
The rural water authority for all of the areas proposed for re-zoning is Goulburn Murray Rural Water Authority (“Goulburn-Murray Water”), based at Tatura. Its views were set out in its letter dated 1 October 2004 (submission no 9). The Authority did not deal in detail with each locality, but made the following general comments: Goulburn-Murray Water supports Amendment C14, which implements the Rural Residential Study, Murrindindi Shire. G-MW notes the amendment is supported [by] land capability assessments of proposed development areas. Further, the amendment formally recognises the Rural Living Development Guidelines, Murrindindi Shire as a key reference document. This initiative is welcomed, as adherence to the guidelines in this document will satisfactorily address most of the issues of potential concern to G-MW in relation to rural living developments. Combined with appropriate reference to the Regional Catchment Strategy and other key documents, the proposed amendment C14 should provide confidence that future rural living developments in these areas will not detrimentally impact on water quality and quantity objectives, and is strongly supported.
Mr B O’Donnell of Goulburn-Murray Water appeared before the Panel at Yea on 19 July, and gave it a more detailed picture of the water and wastewater position in the Shire, than had been set out in its letter of October 2004.
A land owner wanting water (in excess of the runoff from his roof) for irrigation of his property has two choices: groundwater; surface water.
Mr O’Donnell explained that the availability of groundwater in the catchment was “hit or miss” – one property might secure a good flow from a bore, while the neighbouring property might find no water. Property owners are required to apply to G-MW for a
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 41 licence, stating the purpose for which the groundwater is required. The Authority recommends that groundwater not be used for human consumption, due to the risk of E. coli contamination. Any increase in septic tank discharges (see following section) could be expected to increase the level of contamination.
The abstraction of surface water is controlled by the Water Act and supervised by Goulburn-Murray Water. The irrigation of an area greater than 0.1ha (1,000m2) requires a licence for water abstraction, and for any associated storage dam. Licences are presently being issued for “winter filling” (May – October) only. No new summer pumping licences are being issued. Where an original lot having riparian rights is subdivided, only one of the resulting lots receives those rights.
The abstraction of surface water for other purposes (eg ornamental ponds), and the construction of off-waterway dams, does not require a licence, but the Authority takes an interest if the capacity of the storage is greater than the standard domestic and stock allowance (2ML/yr). Owners must purchase an entitlement equivalent to the evaporation from their ponds.
The Authority attempts to balance demand across sub-catchments: if one sub- catchment is over-committed, it will attempt to reduce demand in another. Goulburn- Murray Water, as a referral authority, would consider the availability of water to each property in a proposed subdivision before approving that subdivision.
Enforcement is a sensitive issue with irrigators. The Authority has only one officer for the whole upper Goulburn catchment. While most irrigators obey the law, some, when faced with a choice between losing a crop and risking a fine, opt to pump despite restrictions or low flows in the river.
Views of submitters
Many submissions, particularly those from residents in the Yea River catchment, expressed concern regarding the future availability of water. The most detailed were from Ms Chadband (referred to above) and Ms Jan Beer.
Both submissions refer to the Yea River Catchment Streamflow Management Draft Report, December 2001 (reference 2). Section 3, Water diversions of this report states: The Yea River was recognised as being overcommitted for irrigation entitlement as far back as 1975, with no new licences for direct pumping from the river being granted since that time. (page 13)
Ms Beer also drew attention to the recommendation, as yet un-implemented, for an environmental flow of 40 ML/d at Devlin’s Bridge. She pointed out that, if that recommendation was implemented, it would be at the expense of current irrigators. For example, strawberry growers in the Toolangi district would “be on constant restrictions, bans or rosters and their $8 million a year business would be destroyed”. “This Toolongi area falls under the Land Capability assessment of very high quality agricultural land, which the MPS [Murrindindi Planning Scheme] claims it will protect . .” While this statement relates to the imposition of minimum environmental flows, it would also apply to reductions in stream flow brought about by increased demand for domestic and stock abstractions arising from subdivision in the catchment.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 42
In her submission relating to the Taggerty and Buxton areas, Ms Jelinek also raised the question of the health of the Acheron and Little Rivers, and of the aquifer. She noted that Streamflow Management Plans do not exist and are currently not planned for either of these rivers. She continued: Although the Rural Living Development Guidelines provide general guidelines for protecting important natural and scenic values of areas proposed for re-zoning as well as promoting sustainable development, they are not specific enough to address water budgets in relation to potential demands and impacts on water regimes for each river as a consequence of Amendment C14 or similar land use changes.
In her submission relating to the Taggerty area, Ms Garvey gave a first-hand account of her experience in relying on river abstraction for domestic water supply: Those of us who rely on the Little River for our water supply know of the inexplicable changes in water flow. We just assume that a landholder upstream is pumping to refill a dam, or undertaking a heavy irrigation process when the water flow decreases dramatically and then thankfully is restored. The Little River is a vital water resource to a large percentage of Taggerty (township) residents. The requirement of all rural living residences to store at least 65ML [55kL?] of potable water, together with their desire to have back up water supplies in a dam, will draw more water from the Little River. It will also reduce the flow of water into the river upstream of Taggerty township. Without reliable, long-term flow, discharge and usage data for this river, I do not believe that increasing the number of residences adjoining the river can be managed.
There were no submissions regarding water supply in the Marysville, Eildon or Yarck areas.
Findings and Conclusions
There is no doubt that the availability of water for irrigation will play a crucial part in determining the use to which rural residential properties will be put, however, this matter will be dealt with at the development stage, and by negotiation between the eventual allotment owner and the rural water authority.
The Panel concludes that there are no reasons, on the grounds of irrigation water supply, for rejecting or amending Amendment C14.
11.4 SEWERAGE
MD6 An amendment must only provide for rural residential use or development of land which at the time of development: has been found to have satisfactory physical characteristics for on- site sewage and sullage disposal or which can be connected to a reticulated sewerage system.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 43
View of Planning Authority
The Planning Authority’s view is summarised in its submission to the Panel, at Section5.4.2: Murrindindi Shire Council’s approach for the assessment of areas to be rezoned allows for the satisfactory disposal of effluent to meet the standards of the State Environment Protection Policy – Waters of Victoria, EPA publication 746.1 Land Capability Assessment for Onsite Domestic Wastewater Management, March 2003 and Septic Tanks Code of Practice, March 2003. This approach essentially allows an ‘overview’ level of land capability assessment to confirm areas proposed for rezoning, with a ‘detailed’ LCA to be prepared at the later subdivision and dwelling stage. This approach is consistent with current interagency policy initiative in the northeastern region. The Rural Living Development Guidelines, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004 require a detailed LCA for any subdivision in the RLDG and a detailed LCA for any dwelling, unless the dwelling location has been assessed and justified at a previous subdivision stage.
The only document submitted by the Council in support of its “overview level of land capability assessment” is a report prepared by Ark Angel Pty Ltd dated July 2004. The two-page document describes the report as a “desktop land capability assessment” of the Alexandra, Yea and Buxton areas. The author estimates the minimum safe and practical disposal area for difficult environmental disposal conditions (“difficult” being defined in the EPA Land Capability Code of Practice, 2003). The study assumes that the sewage will be treated in an EPA approved secondary treatment system first, with the effluent being distributed by subsurface drip, or surface drip and spray irrigation over an area, ranging from 750m2 for a one-bedroom house to 1500m2 for a four-bedroom house. The author notes that such an effluent management system would cost the owner “2 – 3 times that of conventional septic tank and absorption system”.
View of Water Authorities Goulburn Valley Water
The local sewerage authority for all of the towns where areas are proposed for re- zoning is the Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority (“Goulburn Valley Water”), based at Shepparton. Its views were set out in its letter dated 29 November 2004 (submission no 194). Before dealing in detail with each locality, the Authority made the following general comments: The Authority supports in principle the aim of providing sustainable rural living subdivision, design and development in these townships and to control the fragmented subdivision pattern of land that has occurred in the past. In general the Authority has no plans to install any backlog sewer or water supply systems to any of the townships within Murrindindi Shire that do not currently have these services. It should be noted that approval for the re-zoning of land within such townships does not obligate the Authority to provide those services.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 44
Conditions requiring the provision of water supply and sewerage services within the areas to be re-zoned would be applied by Goulburn Valley Water in accordance with its subdivision servicing policy.
The letter then goes on to summarise the conditions which would apply to the various types of subdivision:
Zoning Condition – Sewerage
LDRZ None provided it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that all domestic sullage and sewage can be adequately treated and retained within the boundary of each lot.
Rural living – min 4ha/av 6ha None
Rural living – min 20ha None
The Authority concludes with the statement: Other proposals in the amendment have been examined, from the viewpoint of their effect on the Authority assets and servicing infrastructure capacity, and I can advise that the Authority has no objection to any of these proposals.
The Authority attached a copy of its Subdivision Servicing Policy (2002) to the letter.
The letter was signed by Mr L Goudie, Manager – Development. Mr Goudie appeared before the Panel at Yea on 19 July, and provided further background information on sewage treatment and disposal in rural areas. It operates large municipal plants in the main towns (Alexandra, Eildon, Marysville and Yea), and reviews their capacity and operation regularly. It has found small package treatment plants expensive to operate, and does not operate, or encourage local co-operative groups to operate, small package sewage treatment works in the Shire.
The default form of treatment for rural residential allotments is therefore the septic tank, with its attendant problems of effluent seepage and the need for regular pumping out.
The Authority also raised the peripheral matter of buffer zones for existing sewage treatment works. This matter is discussed in Section 12, in addressing matters relating to individual towns in the Shire. Goulburn-Murray Water
The rural water authority is also a referral authority with regard to wastewater disposal in non-sewered areas.
Goulburn-Murray Water’s initial response was given in its letter of 1 October 2004 (submission no 9). It commented:
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 45
G-MW notes that the proposed Rural Living and Low Density Residential re-zoning of some areas is not yet supported by detailed Land Capability Assessment (LCA). Overview LCA’s are reported to have been done, though G-MW has not had opportunity to review the Murrindindi Land Capability Analysis and Environmental Values August 2002 document.
Panel comment: the August 2002 document deals with land capability in general, and agricultural quality in particular, rather than the more specific matter of land capability for septic tank effluent disposal. While this is a good first step, G-MW suggests that some areas are likely to warrant a greater level of investigation, preferably prior to re-zoning, similar to that done for the Racecourse Road, Yea and Wrights Road, Yarck, areas. As an example, the proposed re-zoning of floodplain areas located adjacent to the Goulburn River {Eildon] is intuitively expected to be ‘difficult’ from a septic waste management perspective, and the re- zoning of this and other areas proposed should only proceed following more rigorous LCA. [emphasis added]
The Planning Authority asked G-MW to clarify its stance on obtaining more detailed Land Capability Assessments prior to re-zoning. G-MW’s response is given in its letter dated 23 June 2005. It is worth quoting in full: In a letter to Council dated 1 October 2004, G-MW suggested that more detailed LCAs should be required prior to re-zoning. This statement was more specifically directed at potentially sensitive sites where wastewater disposal may be difficult in relation to waterways and floodplains. Applicants should be aware that, even though the zoning of land may specify a minimum, this may not be consistent with land capability. G-MW understands that actual development of such sites has not been proposed as yet and therefore the exact configuration of lots has not been determined. G-MW has been informed that detailed LCAs will be conducted at the development stage and will be the responsibility of the developer, not the Council. It is important, however, that the zoning of land and the minimum lot size of that zoning [do] not give false expectations to applicants wishing to subdivide. Developers must be aware of the requirements of the Septic Tanks Code of Practice (EPA 2003) prior to deciding on the configuration of lots for any proposed subdivision. In particular, setback requirements from waterways, flood zones and lot sizes should be considered to ensure that wastewater can be disposed of effectively on-site. It may be more effective if LCAs were conducted prior to deciding on lot configurations so they can be adjusted to suit the capability of the land, however, G-MW understands that this is seldom done. This is particularly important for land zoned as Low Density Residential, where the minimum lot size of 0.4ha is inconsistent and lower than the lot size recommended as a minimum in the Code. Recognising that it is the responsibility of an applicant to demonstrate that land is capable of being subdivided and sustaining future development, it is also Council’s responsibility to ensure that zoning is appropriate and consistent with land capability. G-MW’s original comments were made in
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 46
this context to ensure that re-zoning does not occur without due consideration to overall site capability.
Note: Section4.1 of EPA’s Septic Tanks Code of Practice, states: The feasibility of providing reticulated sewerage should be seriously considered for the development of individual lots when residential development would result in lots smaller than 10,000m2 (1 ha). This area should not be seen as a minimum lot size, but as a risk threshold, that is, there are significant risks associated with wastewater management on lots smaller than 10,000m2.
Views of submitters
While many submissions referred, in passing, to sewage treatment and disposal, there were no specific submissions on this subject.
Findings and Conclusions
The Planning Authority, submitters and the Water Authorities have all identified sewage treatment and disposal as a significant issue in the development of land for residential use. It is apparent that, with the present state of technology, the individual septic tank remains the default form of sewage treatment for residential allotments outside the serviced townships. Until such time as a cost-effective, sustainable form of re-use of household effluent becomes available, rural residential subdivisions must be based around the requirement that all effluent can be absorbed within the allotment, without undue seepage to groundwater or surface water. Given the EPA’s concern, this suggests a minimum lot size of 1 hectare (10,000 square metres) unless a site- specific Land Capability Analysis shows that a smaller size is feasible.
The Panel therefore concludes that, subject to strategic and other criteria being satisfied, re-zoning to LDRZ or RLZ be permitted, with the proviso that the minimum lot size of 1 hectare in the LDRZ, unless site specific land capability analysis shows that a smaller size, not less than 0.4 hectare, is feasible.
11.5 DRAINAGE
MD6 An amendment must only provide for rural residential use or development of land which at the time of development: can be connected to or provided with a drainage scheme which effectively removes stormwater from each house and lot, prevents inundation of effluent disposal fields, and is designed to handle the 1 in 100 year storm event.
View of Planning Authority
Some land (albeit minor) proposed to be included in the RLZ is affected by the Floodway and Land Subject to Inundation Overlays (Buxton, Yea, Yarck, Eildon) in the Planning Scheme. Apart from this, there would appear to be no specific references
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 47
to stormwater drainage. The RLDG (reference 6) does not specifically mention stormwater drainage.
The fact that most rural dwellings would divert all roof runoff into tanks would tend to account for most stormwater; however there will be times when tanks are full, and the overflow needs to be dealt with.
View of Water Authority
Neither of the water authorities has expressed any concern with regard to stormwater drainage.
Views of submitters
While many submissions referred in passing to drainage and flooding, there are no specific submissions on the subject. Submissions relating to specific sites are discussed later in this Section.
Findings and Conclusions
The fact that land falls under a ‘flooding’ or inundation’ overlay does not mean that it cannot be developed. This type of Overlay is necessarily a blunt instrument, imposed at a particular time and points to an area of concern, and the ability of land to be drained, without affecting the safety of occupants and other properties and therefore needs to be examined in detail at the development stage.
The Panel has concluded that, based on stormwater considerations, there is no reason for rejecting or amending Amendment C14.
11.6 ELECTRICITY
MD6 An amendment must only provide for rural residential use or development of land which at the time of development: can be connected to the electricity grid in accordance with normal residential practice.
View of Planning Authority
While not specifically stated, it is clear that the Planning Authority and its consultants are aware of the requirements of MD6 and believe that all land proposed for re-zoning can be connected to the electricity grid.
View of Service Authority
The electricity distributor for the area is SPI Electricity Pty Ltd, trading as t-squared. In its letter dated 24 September 2004 (submission no 5), it has confirmed that it has no objection to Amendment C14.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 48
Views of submitters
While many submissions referred in passing to problems with electricity supplies in remote areas, there were no specific submissions on this subject. One submitter (Carter) noted, with regard to land in UT Creek Road, Alexandra, that there “is no power or water anywhere near”.
Findings and Conclusions
The Panel understands that there is no part of the Shire which cannot be supplied with electricity, provided the developer is prepared to bear the cost of extension and connection.
While re-zoning of particular areas may be rejected on other grounds, there is no case made out for rejection because of lack of electricity supply.
The Panel is therefore of the opinion that there are no grounds for rejecting or amending Amendment C14 based on the availability of electricity supply.
11.7 ROADS, FOOTPATHS AND PUBLIC LIGHTING
MD6 An amendment must only provide for rural residential use or development of land which at the time of development: is accessible by properly formed and constructed roads.
View of Planning Authority
While not specifically stated, it is clear that the Planning Authority and its consultants are aware of the requirements of MD6 and believe that road access can be provided to all land to be re-zoned.
View of Service Authority
The Council, in its role as manager of local roads and bridges, has identified the replacement of ageing assets as a major issue. In its opening submission to the Panel, it stated (at Section 5.3.4): Management of diverse road and bridge infrastructure is a major challenge for Council when focussing on longer term needs. The terrain of Murrindindi Shire means that the road network is large, contains significant bridge stock, and supports sparse population. Sustainable infrastructure provision can only be made with an appropriate level of development in appropriate locations. The funding required to renew aging infrastructure cannot be fully achieved within existing budgets, therefore making it crucial that future development supports existing investment in and provision of infrastructure.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 49
Views of submitters
A number of submissions to the exhibited amendment raised questions regarding traffic, particularly in the Cathedral Lane area of Taggerty. Public (street) lighting was also referred to by two submitters.
Findings and Conclusions
There is no doubt that all of the land proposed for re-zoning is served by roads, although some of these are of minimal standard. Some subdivisions will rely on the construction of unmade or Government roads, some of which exist on paper only. The question of footpaths to and within subdivisions has not been raised, but this would need to be addressed as part of the statutory planning process. In relation to street lighting the Panel is of the view that this should be an item referred to in DPO3 and possibly in the RLDG.
The Panel believes there are no grounds for rejecting or amending Amendment C14 for reasons of road access or public lighting.
11.8 GAS
MD6
No requirement.
View of Planning Authority
Neither the Planning Authority nor its consultants have referred to the availability, if any, of reticulated natural gas in the Shire.
View of Service Authority
The gas provider for the Goulburn – Broken rivers region is Origin Energy Ltd. Its views with regard to the future provision of natural gas in the Shire are not known.
11.9 TELECOMMUNICATIONS
MD6 An amendment must only provide for rural residential use or development of land which at the time of development: can be connected to the telephone system in accordance with normal residential practice.
View of Planning Authority
While not specifically stated, it is clear that the Planning Authority and its consultants are aware of the requirements of MD6 and believe that all land proposed for re-zoning can be connected to the telephone system.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 50
View of Service Authority
A copy of the amendment was forwarded to Telstra in Melbourne on 15 September 2004. No reply was forthcoming from this body.
Views of submitters
While no submissions specifically addressed telecommunications issues, several submitters mentioned the problems encountered in obtaining satisfactory internet connections on existing Telstra lines.
Findings and Conclusions
No significant problems were reported in obtaining either fixed line or mobile telephone services in the Shire.
The availability and conditions for telecommunications services is a matter for the subdivision stage.
Quality of service is likely to improve if there is a larger population base for the service.
The Panel therefore concludes that there are no reasons, on the basis of telecommunications, to reject the amendment.
Recommendation:
In relation to LDRZ that the minimum lot size be 1 hectare unless a land capability study for specific sites supports smaller lots (to the zone minimum of 0.4 hectares).
In relation to servicing of lots the Panel recommends that Schedule 3 of the Development Plan Overlay and the Rural Living Development Guidelines include a provision that the Council considers subdivision applications against any adopted public lighting policy. In the absence of any such policy, that Council require that street lighting in low density residential subdivisions be generally installed at road junctions and intersections only, generally in accordance with AS 1158, but with the proviso that the Upward Waste Light Ratio (UWLR) of each luminaire shall not exceed 2.5%.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 51
12. INDIVIDUAL TOWNSHIPS
12.1 INTRODUCTION
Amendment C14 identifies land around townships in the Shire of Murrindindi for inclusion in either a Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) or Rural Living Zone (LRZ).
In the case of the LDRZ, it has been applied to land at the periphery of Alexandra, Buxton and Yea with Schedule 3 of the Development Plan Overlay applied to land in this Zone.
In the case of the existing LDRZ, west of Hall Street in Alexandra, the Schedule to the Zone is to be amended to set a minimum lot size of 2 hectares (currently 0.4 hectare). This increase in the minimum lot size directly relates to the provision of a ‘buffer’ around the Alexandra Wastewater Plant, on the north side of the Maroondah Highway.
The amendment applies a RLZ to land adjacent to the towns Alexandra, Buxton, Eildon, Marysville, Taggerty, Yarck and Yea and also to land at Glenburn.
With the exception of some land in the Alexandra and Yea areas, where the minimum lot size is 20 hectares, the minimum lot size in the RLZ is 4 hectares with an average of 6 hectares.
The Panel has identified two key questions in relation to every parcel of land proposed to be rezoned:
1) Does it meet the minimum location requirements to be sustainable (can it be suitably developed?)
2) Should the land be developed in a strategic sense?
The Rural Residential Study included an “expressions of interest process” whereby land owners could advise the Council if they wished their land to be considered for inclusion in the RLZ. By adopting this process it follows that land may be excluded from the Zone if not supported by owners (an example being land at Glenburn).
The Panel accepts that the distribution of zoned land should be “shared” around the municipality and that the focus should be on the main townships of Yea and Alexandra.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 52 12.2 ALEXANDRA
12.2.1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (LDRZ)
Existing Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) West
This existing LDRZ is located south of the Maroondah Highway, in the vicinity of the Alexandra Wastewater Treatment works (on the north side of this highway extending to the Ultima Thule Creek). This Works is operated by Goulburn Valley Water (GVW) and services most of the built up area of Alexandra. The Works utilises primary, secondary and tertiary lagoons as the main process of sewage treatment, with an additional pond for winter storage.
In 2002, the consultant, Urban and Regional Planning, Wodonga, produced a report for GVW on “Review of Buffer Distances surrounding Wastewater Management Facilities”. The Panel was not provided with a copy of this Report, but the plan that was included in it was submitted to the Panel as part of the Planning Authority’s submission. The plan, which is apparently based on an EPA publication, shows a notional ‘buffer zone’ with a 750 metre radius, centred on the primary lagoons.
This Plan has been adopted by the Planning Authority in seeking to restrict further subdivision in the Jones Close estate.
Amendment C14 (as exhibited) seeks to vary the Schedule to the LDRZ through the inclusion of a new minimum subdivision size of 2 hectares in the Schedule for “all land west of Halls Flat Road, south of Maroondah Highway, Alexandra”. This lot size is identical to that in the Rural Residential Zone that applied to this area under the former Alexandra Planning Scheme. Under the current provisions of the Scheme lots in this subdivision have the potential to be re-subdivided, potentially to the ‘default’ minimum of 0.4 hectare. It is the Planning Authority’s view that while some lots in this subdivision have the potential to be re-subdivided, many do not because of topography and other constraints.
GVW supports the new minimum lot size of 2 hectares, for land within its recommended buffer to the Alexandra Wastewater Works. It also supports the rezoning of land, already residentially developed and connected to reticulated sewerage, to Residential 1, noting that land outside the buffer can be considered on its merits.
The Planning Authority’s revised position for this area (following exhibition) is to adopt a 2 hectare minimum subdivision size within the Treatment Plant ‘buffer zone’, and 1 hectare minimum outside this ‘buffer’, and also to include existing ‘standard residential lots’ along Halls Flat Road and the caravan park, on the south side of the Maroondah Highway, in a Residential 1 Zone. The Planning Authority’s position for this area was indicated on maps attached, as Appendix 6 to its submission.
A number of submissions were lodged with the Planning Authority by owners of properties in this area and of these submitters, two appeared before the Panel. Mr Hamill supported the minimum lot sizes now proposed (either one or two hectares), which in his view are consistent with the existing subdivision pattern in the area. Mr Scott opposes the two hectare minimum lot size in the buffer area, which would
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 53 preclude the re-subdivision of his 1.77 hectare property into two lots, a factor he considered when he purchased the property. It was Mr Scott’s view the buffer distance should be a guideline, not a mandatory control, and that the management of modern sewerage works minimise amenity concerns. Furthermore Mr Scott stated that in the elevated position of his property and the prevailing winds meant that odours from the Treatment works had never been a problem in the time he had resided on this property.
The owners of the Caravan Park supported the R1Z for their land in a written submission.
Findings and Conclusions
Without access to the detailed URP report, or to data on prevailing wind directions for Alexandra, it is difficult to determine the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the proposed ‘buffer zone’ to the Treatment Works (Note that the word “zone” is used in a generic sense, as it has no legal effect under the planning scheme).
The Panel appreciates the aim of the GVW to minimise potential complaints from those living near this wastewater treatment works and that the adoption of a larger minimum lot size at least limits the number of complainants. It also understands that, at least some of those who purchased properties in this estate may have done so with the expectation that they would be able to re-subdivide them. As referred to in written submissions, the caravan park and secondary school are closer (and at a lower elevation) to the treatment works than those in the LDRZ.
It is also fair to say that there are many matters to consider when contemplating buying a property and people do purchase land near facilities that may have some off- site effects, and where no ‘buffers’ exist.
With the benefit of hindsight, the Alexandra wastewater treatment works should have been established further away from the township and residential and other uses (secondary college) should not have been permitted in close proximity to it. This not being the case however, the Panel must assess what problems may arise if some of the existing lots in this area are re-subdivided.
In considering this matter and the submissions put to it, the Panel is more concerned with the problem of seepage from septic tanks, which apparently already exists in this residential estate and would be exacerbated by further residential development. The Panel considers this matter is better dealt with on a site by site basis rather than a blanket prohibition of subdivisions of less than 2 hectares, based on a buffer zone that relies on what may be rather dubious scientific data (no information was provided to assist the Panel in this matter).
On the Planning Authority’s own admission it is unlikely that a large number of additional lots will be created in this subdivision. Also, the Planning Authority’s plan to now include the Caravan Park and adjoining residential lots on the west side of Hall Street in a Residential 1 Zone, where there will be no minimum lot size and where most of this land falls within the Treatment Works ‘buffer zone’, conflicts with the 2 hectare minimum lot size that has been proposed for land in the LDRZ that falls within the ‘buffer zone’.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 54
The Panel supports a minimum lot size larger than the 0.4 hectare ‘default’ minimum however it is of the view that a one hectare minimum across the entire area, with the Caravan Park and adjoining residential properties retained in the LDRZ, the appropriate outcome.
The Panel also believes that if the data is not to hand, additional research relating to the effects of the Treatment Works, particularly the effects of odours, on surrounding residential zoned land, should be undertaken by GVW.
Proposed Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) west
The amendment proposes that a portion of Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) on the west side of Toronga Road be changed to LDRZ. There were no submissions lodged in relation to this change of zoning and the existing subdivision pattern, which is consistent with that of a LDRZ rather than a R1Z, supports the proposed zoning. Land to the south of this area, included in a RLZ in the exhibited amendment, has been reassessed by the Planning Authority which now proposes to include it within a LDRZ with the DPO3 applied to the land.
Findings and Conclusions
The Panel supports the LDRZ for this area, as proposed by the Planning Authority, (and as revised by the Authority following exhibition).
Proposed Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) east
Land on the east side of Alexandra and west of the Goulburn Valley Highway is proposed to be included within the LDRZ. There were no submissions made in relation to this area.
Findings and conclusions
This area is located between existing Residential 1 zoned land (west), the Goulburn Valley Highway (east) and proposed Rural Living Zone (south). Presently, the only LDRZ is on the west side of Alexandra and the inclusion of this land will provide for low density residential development at the eastern edge of the town. The Panel supports the inclusion of this area in the LDRZ.
12.2.2 RURAL LIVING ZONE 1 (RLZ1)
Individual submissions were made in relation to the RLZ1 at Alexandra and these are discussed in this Section.
Edwards Road (Maurer: Submission No 14)
A submission was made to the Panel by Mr Maurer who owns land on the east and west sides of Edwards Road. The land on the east side of this road is within the existing RLZ while land on the west side is in the Rural Zone and falls outside (to the south of) the new RLZ1 proposed by this amendment. Mr Maurer advised the Panel that the southern section of Edwards Road is not made and that its construction would only be viable if land he owns on its west side was also included in the RLZ.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 55
The Planning Authority does not support the rezoning of this land at this time on the basis that it would result in an excess of RLZ land.
Findings and Conclusions
On inspecting this area and having considered the existing and proposed zoning the Panel can see no reason for not including the Maurer land and the property to its west in the RLZ. The Maurer land is not affected by Overlays and its inclusion would facilitate the extension of Edwards Road.
Although abutting land is not fully developed, the Panel believes the Maurer land is better located for use as rural living than some other areas that were included in the exhibited RLZ1.
As this land did not form part of the exhibited amendment the Panel does not support its inclusion at this time however considers it could be noted as ‘future rural living’ in the Town’s ‘Framework Plan’ and considered in a subsequent amendment.
Halls Flat Road / Plantation Lane, Alexandra (Submission Nos 10, 172 & 232)
These submissions support the Rural Living zoning of land to the south of Alexandra (4ha and 6ha minimum and average lot sizes respectively), with the north western and north eastern sections of the land included in a LDRZ. Council supported this submission in principle, although sought more information on the strategic planning, engineering, servicing and land capability justification for both Zones. Although somewhat isolated from services and constrained by a large ridge between each potential LDRZ area, Council supports the full utilisation of land for more intense development and utilisation of services, particularly water. Submission No 232, (March 2005), provided further justification of the rezoning of the land to RLZ and LDRZ and the ability of the land to contain effluent. Clarification of the proposed servicing and the LDRZ boundary is still required.
Findings and Conclusions
The Panel supports the RLZ for this area with the north-east and north- west sectors of the land included in a LDRZ, as supported by the Planning Authority.
Mt Pleasant Road / Webster Street, Alexandra (Submission Nos 139 & 180)
These submissions support the rezoning of land south of the Alexandra township to RLZ. Although proposed to be included in a LDRZ in the Rural Residential Study, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004, the Planning Authority resolved to include this land in the RLZ in Amendment C14, due to potential effluent disposal concerns raised in the report ‘Land Capability Assessment for Low Density Residential Zone Proposals at Alexandra, Yea and Buxton, Murrindindi Shire, Victoria, Ark Angel Pty Ltd, July 2004’. The submitter supports the RLZ, but with a site specific variation to the zone Schedule to allow a minimum lot size less than 4 hectares.
The Planning Authority supports this submission in principle, although sought more information on the strategic planning, engineering, servicing and land capability justification for lower lot sizes, to be accompanied by a tentative plan of subdivision for the land, with a suggested absolute minimum subdivision size of 1 hectare. The
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 56
Planning Authority now supports the five lot subdivision of the land and a variation to the RLZ Schedule based on the supplementary information provided by the submitter (dated 9 May 2005). This information is a site responsive design that protects landscape / ridgelines, effluent disposal, the environment and servicing potential.
A submission was made to the Panel by Ms Judith Hill in opposing the inclusion of land in the RLZ where close to the McKenzie Flora Reserve (a Reserve of National importance), on the west side of Mt Pleasant Road, because of the potential adverse effect any subdivision would have on the environmental values of that Reserve.
In her submission Ms Hill included a plan of the proposed RLZ area that surrounds the McKenzie Reserve on which she had drawn a rudimentary subdivision layout of around 100 lots.
Findings and Conclusions
While the Panel appreciates the concerns raised by Ms Hill, it is of the view that the land bounded by Mt Pleasant Road and Webster Street and abutting conventional residential densities to the north is suited to a low density form of residential use. Furthermore it considers the topography of this land and its site area effectively makes the land unsuitable for a viable rural use.
The Panel also supports the RLZ area to the south of Alexandra, however in responding to the legitimate concerns of Ms Hill concerning the protection of fauna and flora in and around the McKenzie Reserve, it believes the RLDG should include a guideline for use in assessing applications for subdivision and that a flora and fauna assessment should be undertaken in the case of sensitive sites, as identified by the Authority.
12.2.3 RURAL LIVING ZONE 2 (RLZ2)
Spring Creek Road, Maintongoon and UT Creek
At the Panel’s request, the Planning Authority prepared a detailed estimate of the lots supply proposed for the Rural Living Zone 2 (20 ha minimum) for Alexandra, divided into three regions, being Spring Creek Road, Maintongoon and UT Creek.
Details of the number of existing allotments, and their areas, were provided in each area and the Panel notes that in each case, there are a high percentage of lots in the 0- 40 hectares category, particularly in the Spring Creek area.
The following summarises the analysis provided:
Zone Spring Creek Maintongoon Road UT Creek Total
Existing lots in Rural 115 80 53 248 Zone
RLZ2 157 147 100 404
No. of potential new 42 67 47 156 lots over existing
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 57
It is noted that the Planning Authority also provided an estimate of the potential of these areas if all land was re-subdivided to 40 hectares in accordance with the minium lot size in the Rural Zone. However, the Panel considers the minimum lot size is not ‘a right’ and therefore it has adopted the existing conditions as the basis for its comparison.
As outlined previously, the Panel considers the extent of RLZ2 proposed for Alexandra to be excessive. It is not persuaded by the Planning Authority’s submission that the majority of the land is already in this size allotment, when almost half again of the number of lots in each area can potentially be created or, more importantly, the suggestion that the primary use of these areas is currently rural living. It also considers that the Habitat Planning report does not sufficiently justify the area of land proposed to be zoned for rural living.
The Panel’s inspection of each of these areas confirmed they were remote from the Town and had a rural character and use. Furthermore, the Panel is of the view that the area of land shown included in the RLZ1 is sufficient to provide for the likely demand over a 10 year or even longer timeframe, based on the Valuer General’s figures. The Panel has therefore concluded that the RLZ2 would create an excess of rural living zoning and should be deleted.
88 Maintongoon Road (Submission No 196: L and M Pratt)
A submission was made to the Panel by Mr Haydon of Best Hooper on behalf of Mr and Mrs Pratt, the owners of this property. This land is made up of three transferable lots that have a total area of 36.5 hectares. A dwelling is located on the southern lot.
Mr Haydon advised the Panel that his clients wished to be able to re-subdivide their land into two lots (each of around 16 hectares), which would require a specific reference in the Schedule to the RLZ2.
Mr Haydon was also of the view that the amount of land north of the Alexandra township that was proposed to be zoned RLZ was excessive, had not been justified strategically and did not accord with the Ministerial Direction No. 6.
Findings and Conclusions
The Pratt property is located on the north side of the racecourse and is opposite land in a RLZ. It is at the edge of the existing township and, in the Panel's view, is more convenient to the town centre than land at the northern end of existing RLZ. It appears on perusing the Planning Scheme maps for the town that the boundary of the existing RLZ is the previous railway ‘reserve’. The Pratt land is on the east side of this ‘reserve’. Given the location of the Pratt land and the fact that the land is in three lots presently, the Panel is of the view that the circumstances exist to include this land in the RLZ1 (or RLZ with the deletion of the RLZ2). Based on the tenement maps provided to the Panel by the Planning Authority, it appears that land to the north (along either side of Johnson Creek) is generally held in larger parcels. In the event there are some small lots adjacent to the Pratt land, the Panel would have no objection to these also being included in the revised RLZ boundary.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 58
In the event the RLZ2 is retained over this land, the Panel is of the view that the circumstances exist for it to be included in the Schedule to the Zone with a minimum lot size of 16 hectares (as requested by the submitter).
Coller Land (Submission Nos. 119, 126 & 127)
Cr Coller appeared at the hearing to present a submission on behalf of Thomas and Stuart Coller, who own land in the Maintongoon area and who, in supporting the amendment, request the re-inclusion of land they own on the north side of U T Creek Road (adjoining land used by a Motor Cycle Club) in the RLZ2 and the ability to use an averaging system when subdividing land, similar to that proposed in the RLZ1. Also requested was the reinforcement of the “right to farm” principle and the requirement to set ‘house sites’ 100 metres from roads in the RLZ1 / 2.
Cr Coller also referred to the permit issued to a motor cycle club (Permit No. 96164, 15 April 1997) by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and the conditions that related to its operation, particularly to the emission of noise. It appears that the Coller land on the north side of U T Creek Road was not included in the RLZ2 because of off-site effects from this club.
These submitters also support the flexible use of the RLDG, the non-interference with market forces, boundary re-alignments where necessary between the RLZ and Rural Zone, new zone restrictions not to apply to existing lots and handling of needs of referral authorities in a sensitive and positive manner.
Findings and Conclusions
The Coller land is some distance from the Alexandra Township and overall the Panel does not believe that its inclusion in the RLZ2 can be justified. The ability to subdivide land into smaller lots (20 hectares) has the potential to fragment productive farm land and place a strain on services provided by the Shire Council.
The submitters appear to want to maintain the ‘right to farm’ while at the same time being able to subdivide land into ‘rural living’ lots. The mix of these uses has the potential to create conflict between residents on rural living lots and farmers which would be an undesirable outcome.
Turning to the permit issued at the direction of VCAT, the enforcement of conditions is a matter for the Council or third parties to take up.
12.2.4 FUTURE URBAN GROWTH
Alexandra has a 20-30 year supply of Residential 1 zoned land in two key corridors, to the west and east of the township. The extent of this zoned land effectively forms the urban boundary on the ‘Framework Plan’ within the MSS. The proposed LDRZ would effectively “block” further residential growth in these corridors, although it is noted that such land could be rezoned and permitted to be re-subdivided in the future, if required.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 59
While land included in Amendment C14 is outside the committed foreseeable residential growth, the Panel is concerned that future growth opportunities remain for the Town.
Recommendations:
The Panel recommends as follows for the Alexandra area:
A minimum lot size of 1 hectare be adopted for land west of Halls Flat Road, and that the Caravan Park site, on the south side of Maroondah Highway, and the ‘standard’ residential lots, on the west side of Hall Street, be retained in the LDRZ (also with a 1 hectare minimum lot size).
The area on the west side of Toronga Road be included in a LDRZ, as exhibited, along with the land to the south of this area, as now proposed by the Planning Authority, with the DPO3 applied to the area.
Subject to confirmation that the north eastern and north western sections of land in the Halls Flat Road / Plantation Lane area, south of Alexandra (included in the Rural Living Zone 1 in the amendment), can be serviced, they be included in the Low Density Residential Zone (Maps 9 & 11).
The Maurer land and adjoining land to its west be identified on the Town’s ‘Framework Plan’ as future ‘rural living’ and considered in a subsequent amendment (As shown on Planning Scheme Map 9 included in Appendix D).
The LDRZ on the east side of Alexandra be adopted as exhibited.
The RLZ on the east side of the Town be limited to land between the Goulburn Valley Highway and the road to its east and north to UT Creek (The revised boundary is marked on Planning Scheme Map 11 included in Appendix D).
Crown Allotment 19F, Parish of Alexandra, Mt Pleasant Road, Alexandra be included in the Schedule to the RLZ to permit a 5 lot subdivision with a minimum lot size of 1 hectare, generally in accordance with the preliminary plan of subdivision prepared by Aujard Surveying Pty Ltd, Ref 154888MADWP, dated 28 April 2005.
The RLZ to the south of the Town be adopted as exhibited.
A guideline be prepared on flora and fauna for inclusion in the RLDG and this Guideline be applied when assessing applications in sensitive localities.
Lots 1, 2 & 3 (formerly part of CA 56B, Pt of CA 56C and CA 56E, Parish of Alexandra Vol 051237 Folio 293) be included in the RLZ (that will have a 4 and 6 hectares minimum and average lot size (The suggested boundary of this reduced RLZ is shown on Planning Scheme Maps 9, 10 and 11 included in Appendix D).
The proposed Rural Living Zone 2 (20 hectares minimum) be deleted for Alexandra.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 60 12.3 YEA
12.3.1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (LDRZ)
Meadow Road Area
The amendment includes land south of Yea, on the north and south sides of Meadow Road, in the LDRZ.
Although generally supportive of the LDRZ, Ms Chadband submitted that the more logical zone boundary would be Meadow Road, particularly as the area south would abut a working farm. The Panel also questioned the failure to include Pt CA 31, west of the Melba Highway in the proposed LDRZ.
Findings and Conclusions
There is an extensive area of LDRZ on the west side of Yea and Meadow Road could form the boundary of this Zone with land to its south identified as future LDRZ. The adoption of the road as the boundary would however leave a property possibly too small for a productive rural use. On balance, the Panel supports the LDRZ, as exhibited. The Panel also believes that Pt. CA 31, to the north of this area, should be further investigated for possible inclusion in a LDRZ, which is supportable given its abuttal to the existing R1Z.
Lawrance Road Area
The amendment includes land west of the township around Lawrance Road in a LDRZ.
The LDRZ areas were fully supported through the exhibition process of Amendment C14, with no objecting submissions received. Murrindindi Shire Council is committed to the LDRZ, as exhibited, considering it to be strategically justified.
A small portion of this land, the north east corner of Lot 4 LP11369, may be able to be fully serviced however the Planning Authority submitted that it was not required for standard residential lots, as Yea has a 20-30 year supply of Residential 1 Zoned land. This area abuts the extent of the R1Z land, to its east.
Findings and Conclusions
The Panel supports the LDRZ in the Lawrance Road area.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 61
12.3.2 RURAL LIVING ZONE (RLZ)
Area west of the Town
Amendment C14 includes land west of the Township to Hamilton’s Road and north and south of Racecourse Road in a Rural Living Zone 1 (RLZ1).
The Yea Wastewater Treatment Works is located at the north-west entrance to the town, on the north side of the Goulburn Valley Highway, and south of the Yea River. It is operated by Goulburn Valley Water (GVW) and serves most of the built-up area of the town. The Works utilises facultative lagoons as the main process of sewage treatment, with additional ponds for winter storage and for storage of effluent that is used to irrigate the adjacent racecourse and golf course.
In 2002, Urban & Regional Planning, Wodonga, prepared the report “Review of Buffer Distances surrounding Wastewater Management Facilities” for GVW. The Panel was not provided with a copy of the report, however the plan accompanying it formed part of the Planning Authority’s submission to the Panel. The plan, which is apparently based on an EPA publication, shows a notional buffer zone of 550 metre radius, centred on the facultative lagoons. The plan also includes as a legend the words “No dwellings within 1km of Facultative Lagoons”.
This ‘buffer zone’ covers an area, of around 10 hectares, in the northeast corner of the proposed RLZ.
In her detailed submission to the Panel, Ms Kim Chadband referred to the proximity of the proposed RLZ to the Treatment Works and to the former railway and proposed Tallarook – Mansfield Rail Trail. Ms Chadband also noted that MD6 requires that land zoned for rural residential use must not be within 200 metres of Crown land.
Ms Chadband argued that the Wastewater Treatment Works provides critical and expensive infrastructure which causes amenity issues because of the unpleasant smell at many times of the year, and that the smell travels in a south to south-easterly direction directly towards the area which is now proposed for RLZ1 (between Racecourse Road and Goulburn Valley Highway).
Ms Chadband also considered that at least some of the land proposed to be rezoned is productive farm land and therefore the rezoning was contrary to Policy.
In response to the effect of the ‘buffer zone’ on that part of the proposed RLZ immediately south of the railway reserve, the Planning Authority was of the view that this would be a consideration at the time of subdivision and that a dwelling on an individual lot would be able to be located outside the ‘buffer zone’ and away from the railway reserve.
Mrs Hamilton did not lodge a submission with the Planning Authority however she was permitted to make a verbal submission to the Panel. Mrs Hamilton’s family owns land on the east and west sides of Hamilton Road, adjacent to the proposed RLZ.
In supporting the RLZ1 for this area, Mrs Hamilton was of the view that the parcel of her land that was located on the east side of Hamilton Road and adjoining the south
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 62 west corner of the proposed Zone should also have been included in the RLZ. The Planning Authority saw merit in this request.
Findings and Conclusions
Unlike Alexandra, land in proximity to the Yea Wastewater Treatment Works is currently used for rural activities; with few dwellings, and it adjoins public land to the east and the proposed rail trail to the north. The servicing Authority raised no objection to the inclusion of this land in the RLZ.
The inclusion of this land in a RLZ (with lots averaging 6 hectares with a minimum of 4 hectares) provides the opportunity to ensure that in approving applications for new dwellings they are sited outside the Treatment Works ‘buffer zone’ and are set back an appropriate distance from adjoining Crown land (the Racecourse and the former railway reserve). The Panel is therefore of the view that the inclusion of this land in a RLZ will not create adverse effects for residents in the Zone or impinge on adjoining Crown land.
In relation to land owned by Mrs Hamilton, the Panel is of the view that the lot on the east side of Hamilton Road could be considered for inclusion in the RLZ in a subsequent amendment, if supported strategically.
Area north east of the Town
Carey Road/ McLeishs Road
The Panel accepts that this area, up to the McGregor property, is currently subdivided and developed for Rural Living purposes and Ms McGregor made a submission, on behalf of her parents in support of their property being included in the RLZ1.
Mr Thompson made a submission on behalf of Mr Agosta, the owner of ‘Goldie Park’ on the east side of Carey Road and north of the Goulburn Valley Highway. Mr Thompson submitted that under the minimum and averaging provisions of the RLZ1, theoretically this land (106 hectares) could be subdivided into 17 lots. It was however put to the Panel that these controls do not provide the required flexibility to produce a subdivision design that compliments the topography of the land. A suggested subdivision layout of 13 lots included in the submission proposed lots ranging from 2 hectares (fronting Carey Road), up to 30 hectares.
To enable this subdivision to proceed, Mr Thompson sought the inclusion of a site specific control in the Schedule to the Zone that would permit a 2 hectare minimum lot size with a DPO to apply to the land, similar to that proposed for the LDRZ. The Planning Authority did not oppose this submission, but considered that a DPO should not generally be applied over the RLZ, because of the resulting work load resulting from its application.
The amendment also proposes “back zoning” three existing LDRZ lots, between the Goulburn Valley Highway and Carey Road, to RLZ1. There were no submissions to this proposal and the Panel considers this course appropriate based on land capability.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 63
Findings and Conclusions
The Panel supports the RLZ1 as exhibited for this area and therefore does not support a variation in the Schedule to the Zone for the Agosta land. While this land is close to the township of Yea, it is not readily accessible to it, due to the fact that Carey Road does not extend to the highway, being separated from it by a steep embankment.
As proposed, the smaller lots fronting Carey Road are more consistent with the lot size in the LDRZ than the RLZ.
The fact that land on the west side of Carey Road, opposite the Agosta land, is to be ‘back zoned’ from LDR to RL is also a reason for retaining larger lot areas along this road, in the Panel’s view.
Killingworth
The northern part of the Killingworth Road area is proposed to be included within the Rural Living 2 Zone (RLZ2) and this Zone would reflect the existing subdivision pattern, with only two or three additional lots potentially being able to be created.
Mr Barnes appeared for Ms Tainton, the owner of 162 McLeishs Road, Killingworth, which has an area of 36 hectares and is located in the proposed RLZ2. It was Mr Barnes’ submission that the RLZ2 was an ineffective zone because it simply reflected the existing subdivision pattern and, in the case of his client precluded it from being subdivided into two lots. Mr Barnes’ submission included a helpful map that noted the areas of each of the sites in the proposed RLZ1 and RLZ2.
Findings and Conclusions
The Panel supports the proposed RLZ1 having regard to its proximity to the Yea township and the pattern of existing development through this area. The Panel however does not support the RLZ2 in the Killingworth Road area which is more isolated from the town and contains lots that, with only one or two exceptions, would not be capable of further subdivision under this Zone (20 hectare being the minimum lot size).
Given 20 hectares was the minimum lot size in the Yea Planning Scheme, the Panel finds it difficult to justify the RLZ2 in this location, which is remote from the Township and on an unsealed road.
12.3.3 LIMESTONE ROAD AREA, YEA
The Limestone area, to the south east of Yea, was exhibited as RLZ1 in the amendment. Following the receipt of a number of objecting submissions the Planning Authority reassessed this area and as a result does not now support the inclusion of this area in this Zone for the following reasons: New rural living areas are more appropriately applied in areas adjoining the Yea township edges to the northeast, north, west and southwest of the township; Other areas proposed for rezoning to RLZ in the Yea township area can reasonably accommodate future RLZ requirements;
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 64
Although the land capability study for the municipality indicates that the land is not of high agricultural quality, the land is recognised as having productive agricultural value and current usage; The vineyard and highway frontage to the Goulburn Valley Highway to the north of the land may cause potential rural living / agricultural conflict and highway amenity issues; Although the Yea Baragwanatha Fossil Site is on a public reserve at the western edge of this area proposed to re rezoned to RLZ, it was considered that additional subdivision and development in the area may impact on the integrity, security and required buffer area for the fossil site.
The Panel heard from a number of submitters in respect of this area including Mr Laffey (for Mrs Yorston) in support of the exhibited zone (also supported by letter from Mr Cooper) and from Ms Beer, Mr and Mrs Purcell and Ms Anderson in opposing the Zone as exhibited. Many submissions from those in the Glenburn area also objected to the proposed re-zoning of the Limestone Road area.
The Fossil Site
In 1979 this fossil site was “rediscovered” through the carrying out of road works by the Shire Council and in 1999 it was added to the National Heritage List. It is presently being considered for inclusion on the State Heritage Register. The Planning Authority advised that it is presently interviewing consultants to undertake a Heritage Study which will include the fossil site.
The National Heritage Listing specifies a buffer to the site of 1 kilometre. However in questioning Dr Douglas (called by Ms Beer) the Panel was advised that the alignment of the geological formation that the fossils are within runs more or less parallel with Limestone Road and in his opinion a buffer of about 500m either side of the road would be sufficient.
The Panel inspected the fossil site which is identified only by a small sign and is not fenced.
Findings and Conclusions
The Panel considers it important that the Limestone area is considered separately from the Glenburn Area. It has, in the Panel’s view, a number of important strategic differences including the fact that it is very close to Yea township, in fact closer and more easily accessible than parts of the proposed RLZ1 and 2 to the north east of the township.
The Panel however recognises that this area has specific sensitivities, especially because of the presence of the fossil site adjacent to Limestone Road.
The Panel believes this fossil site needs to be recognised in the Planning Scheme by a Heritage Overlay.
The Panel is also of the view that, given the agricultural and farming activities that are carried out on a number of the sites in this area, it could be considered a candidate for
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 65
inclusion in a Rural Activities Zone, with a suitable minimum lot size to protect existing uses and encourage new ‘hobby farming’ activities, consistent with those presently in the area (cattle raising, vineyard and orchards).
12.3.4 FUTURE URBAN GROWTH
While Yea, like Alexandra has between 20-30 years supply of Residential 1 zoned land, it is important that Amendment C14 does not preclude future growth of the township. The key growth area for Yea is Lawrance Road. The Planning Authority suggested land to the north of Racecourse Road may provide for future growth, however, the Panel notes that this land is proximate to the wastewater treatment plant.
Council acknowledged that beyond the zoned areas the only other possible residential development front, should Amendment C14 be approved, is to the south along the Yea - Whittlesea Road which adjoins the industrial area and is also proximate to the saleyards. Mr Scale indicated that the Planning Authority had ear-marked this land for future industrial development.
It is of important in the Panel’s view that future urban growth is not restricted by the proposed RLZ.
Recommendations:
The Panel recommends as follows for the Yea area:
Land in the Limestone Road area, Yea, be retained in the Rural Zone, and that its future zoning be considered as part of the Rural Zones Review.
Clause 21.07: Serviced townships strategies: Delete reference to Rural Living Zone southeast of Yea from Clause 21.07-4 (Implementation).
Investigate the fossils site as part of the Heritage Study to consider the level of protection that should be provided in the Planning Scheme.
Adopt the LDRZ in the Meadow Road area, as exhibited and investigate the merit of including Pt CA 31, to its north, in the LDRZ.
Adopt the RLZ1 to the north-east of the township, as exhibited.
Delete the RLZ2 north east of the Town, and include the smaller lots, at its southern end, between Killingworth Road West and the rear boundaries of land fronting McLeishs Road, in the RLZ1 (which with the elimination of the RLZ2 will be a RLZ) (The boundary of the revised RLZ is shown on Planning Scheme Map 7 included in Appendix D).
Consider the inclusion of land owned by Mrs Hamilton, on the east side of Hamilton Road, (abutting land shown in the RLZ), as part of the Rural Zones Review and its possible inclusion in a subsequent amendment.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 66 12.4 MARYSVILLE
The amendment includes land, to the north and south of this township, (off the Marysville - Buxton Road) in a Rural Living Zone (RLZ). Part of the land included in this Zone has been subdivided and developed at a low residential density, consistent with the zoning now proposed by this amendment.
Submissions were made to the Panel in support of the amendment on behalf of owners of two properties to the north of the township (approximately 3 to 4 kilometres from the town centre, on the east and west sides of the highway).
The land on the east side of the highway (owned by the Gould family) includes a cleared area at its northern end while the southern section is densely vegetated. The southern part of the land in this ownership will be retained in a Rural Zone.
The land on the west side of the highway (owned by Twenty Seventh Jandina Pty Ltd) forms part of a subdivision where four of the lots are between approximately 2.8 hectares and 4 hectares. The remaining lot, in the ownership of the submitter, has an area of approximately 77 hectares. This land has been largely cleared with only a small amount of remnant vegetation remaining.
There were no submissions lodged with the Planning Authority that objected to the inclusion of the land in the RLZ.
Findings and Conclusions
The Panel viewed the areas included in the amendment and supports their inclusion in the RLZ. In giving its support to the rezoning of this land, the Panel is of the view that an overlay should be included over the Gould land to protect the heavily vegetated area at its southern end. The inclusion of such an Overlay was not opposed by Mr Barnes of the Hanson Partnership who acts for the owners. The Panel is of the view that a Vegetation Protection Overlay would be the appropriate overlay to apply to the land.
Recommendation:
That the Rural Living Zone be adopted as exhibited for Marysville and that a Vegetation Protection Overlay be applied to Lot 2 PS 330897 F (owned by the Gould family).
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 67
12.5 EILDON
The amendment includes land sited between the Goulburn Valley Highway and the Goulburn River and an existing ‘low density’ residential estate on the south side of the Goulburn Valley Highway in a Rural Living Zone (RLZ). There were no submissions made to the inclusion of this land in a RLZ.
Findings and Conclusions
The Panel has viewed the areas affected by the amendment and noted that by and large the land has been subdivided and most contain a dwelling. The inclusion of the land, as exhibited, in a RLZ will match the zoning to the existing subdivision and development pattern in this area.
Recommendation:
That the amendment be adopted as exhibited for Eildon.
12.6 YARCK
Yarck is a small township approximately 15 kilometres north - west of Alexandra, a reasonably high proportion of which remains undeveloped. Lots in a recent subdivision in the south east sector of the Township Zone have all been sold and it is land adjoining this subdivision that is to be included in a Rural Living Zone. A submission was made to the Panel on behalf of the owner of this land, in support of the amendment. It was put to the Panel that the lots in the adjoining subdivision had been sold within a short period and that the land included in the Rural Living Zone was well placed for subdivision into additional ‘low density’ rural living lots.
There was a written submission that objected generally to the application of a Rural Living Zone, however there were no specific objections lodged to the amendment by land owners in Yarck.
Findings and Conclusions
Yarck is a small township with a few basic community services. The land included in the RLZ is gently undulating and adjoining existing low density residential lots that have been subdivided, with lots sold and in the process of being developed. The subdivision and development of this area will support the services provided and residents will also have convenient access to Alexandra.
Recommendation:
That the LRZ be adopted, as exhibited, for Yarck (with a minimum lot size of 4 hectares and average of 6 hectares.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 68 12.7 TAGGERTY
A number of submissions were lodged with the Planning Authority opposing the inclusion of land, south of this township, on the east and west sides of the Maroondah Highway and east to the base of the Cathedral Ranges in a Rural Living Zone (RLZ).
The Panel was also advised of a proposed ‘tourist attraction’ in the Taggerty area (to the south west of the town) which it understands includes a golf course, conference facilities and accommodation.
The concerns raised by submitters relate to the effect the new zone will have on the scenic qualities of this area, particularly the effect that ribbon development along the highway would have on vistas across to the Cathedral Ranges. Also of concern was the environmental effect subdivision and development will have on Little River.
In response to these concerns the Planning Authority held the view that environmental issues could be adequately dealt with through consideration of proposals on their merits using the controls in the Planning Scheme, the RLZ and the Rural Living Development Guidelines. It also stated that full development cannot be determined at the rezoning stage.
Findings and Conclusions:
On visiting the area affected by the amendment, the Panel noted some existing ‘rural living’ subdivisions to the east of the Maroondah Highway do not have a significant effect on views across to the Cathedral Ranges, principally because they are off the access roads to the Ranges and are largely screened by vegetation.
The Panel however believes that the subdivision and development of land in the more open landscape along the highway has the potential to detract from the special environmental qualities of the area and vistas to the Ranges.
The fact that much of the land is covered by a Wildfire Management Overlay is a relevant factor in considering the appropriateness of the RLZ. Also, in the case of land on the west side of the highway, the partial inclusion of land in the RLZ, (the section excluded is within a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay) is problematic and could result in land locked parcels along the River or lots that are too small for productive rural use and too large for ‘rural living’.
Based on environmental considerations, the Panel therefore does not support the inclusion of land on the south side of Taggerty in a RLZ1.
Recommendation:
That land south of Taggerty, and shown included in the RLZ, be retained in the Rural Zone.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 69 12.8 BUXTON
Buxton does not have reticulated sewerage and therefore the existing township zone is restricted to lot sizes consistent with the minimum in the LDRZ. It has a small area of existing LDRZ and RLZ which is fully developed.
A new LDRZ is located to the south west of the township and two areas of RLZ1 are proposed, to the north by extending the existing RLZ and to the south between the Maroondah Highway and the Acheron River.
Written submissions were lodged with the Planning Authority that opposed the LDRZ and the RLZ and one submission was made to the Panel by an owner of land in the proposed LDRZ (Mr Clayton) who provided conditional support of this Zone.
The submissions that opposed the RLZ were based on the grounds that the change brought about by subdivision and development would detract from the rural character of the area, thereby reducing the pleasantness of the area for visitors.
A written submission by Dr Downes (of the School of Anthropology, Geography and Environmental Studies at Melbourne University) provided useful background detail relating to the Acheron River and its tributaries and went on to describe the implications of building dwellings on floodplains, the over-allocation of water from rivers and the need for buffer areas along watercourses. It was Dr Downes’ opinion that 30 metres was an inadequate width to protect against pollution and runoff.
There were other written submissions lodged with the Authority that raised concerns regarding effects on water quality, waste water management and other physical infrastructure.
The written submission of Mr Daniel and Ms Rae stated that the minimum lot size in the LDRZ should be 2 hectares which would allow the development of lifestyle properties in an environmentally and ecologically sustainable manner. A similarly phrased submission was lodged by Mr and Mrs Hardham who also raised the matter of street lighting in such areas.
The Planning Authority considered the selected areas in Buxton were strategically justified and provide a logical extension of the Buxton Township where land can be supplied with reticulated water, is not subject to flooding and where designs can meet the characteristics of sites.
In making a submission to the Panel, Mr Clayton was concerned that the subdivision of the area in which his site was located would result in restrictions on the use of his land.
Findings and Conclusions:
On visiting this area, the Panel noted that the area on the north side of the Township, that is shown included in a RLZ, has to a large extent been subdivided and developed as rural living lots. The Panel also noted that the northern section of the proposed LDRZ is located between the Township Zone and two RLZ lots and is well located for low density residential development that will not have an adverse effect on existing residents or visitors to the area. The remainder, and major part, of the proposed LDRZ
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 70
extends to the south west to the Acheron River with a RLZ extending further south, between the highway and the river.
The RLZ to the north of the town is on either side of the highway and is in an area covered by a Wildfire Management Overlay.
The Panel is of the view that the areas to be included in the LDRZ and the RLZ are excessive for this small town and should be reduced. This should be done in the Panel’s view by limiting the LDRZ to the (northern) section bounded by Steavenson Road, Dyes Lane, Park Road and the rear boundary of the Township Zone, with the RLZ replacing the remaining LDRZ (as exhibited). Furthermore the Panel considers the RLZ to the south, between the highway and Acheron River should be deleted.
In relation to the RLZ land to the north of the Town, the Panel notes that some subdivisions and development has occurred in this area and supports the zoning as exhibited. The Panel notes that the CFA will be a referral authority for applications in the area covered by the WMO.
Recommendation:
The Panel recommends as follows for Buxton: That the LDRZ be limited to the area bounded by Steavenson Road, Dyes Lane, Park Road and the west boundary of the Township Zone and the remaining LDRZ land, west of Dyes Lane, be included in a RLZ. The RLZ land south of the Town remain in the Rural Zone. That the RLZ be adopted for land on the north side of the Town.
(The Revised Zone boundaries of the LDRZ and RLZ, on the south side of the Town are shown on Planning Scheme Map 24 included in Appendix D).
12.9 GLENBURN
Of the large number of submissions lodged with the Planning Authority, most opposed the RLZ, and this included those from owners of smaller ‘rural’ lots in Joyce’s and Burns Roads. On the other hand there were a few submissions that supported the inclusion of their land in a RLZ.
As a result of the number of submissions opposing the proposed RLZ, the Planning Authority advised the Panel that it had resolved not to support the inclusion of land at Glenburn in this Zone.
Opponents of the proposed Rural Living Zone were of the view that the lack of facilities at Glenburn meant that it qualified as a community, not a township and that low density residential or rural living subdivisions were better accommodated at the edge of towns like Yea and Alexandra.
The Rural Living Zone was also considered inappropriate given the need to apply for planning consent to carry on an agricultural use and the Panel was advised of existing uses being conducted on ‘smaller’ lots in this area.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 71
Submissions were made to the Panel by, or on behalf of, two land owners (Carringbush Pty Ltd in Break O’Day Road and Merlino at 4148 Melba Highway) in support of the RLZ which they considered was supported by strategic work undertaken for the Shire and by examples of established ‘rural living’ subdivisions and development at Glenburn.
The submission of Mr Cicero, supported by Mr Hooper’s evidence, was that the land owned by Merlino Pty Ltd on Melba Highway, at Glenburn was suited to rural living style subdivision and it was considered that the Rural Living Guidelines, as adopted by the Planning Authority, provided the basis to achieve good development outcomes. Mr Phillips gave evidence to the Panel and based on the Land Capability Assessment he had prepared for this land he advised that the land was more suited to pasture based enterprises than crop production and that in an unimproved state the land quality is classed as 3. Mr Phillips stated that the land is responsive to ‘Best management Practice’ which had been adopted by the current lessee (Lawson’s Angus), which had raised some sections of the property to Class 2.
At the hearing the Panel agreed to allow Mr Lawson (the lessee of the Merlino land) to make a verbal submission. As a long term resident in the Shire, Mr Lawson provided the Panel with useful history of the Glenburn area and the changes that had occurred with the closure of community uses, including the primary school and cricket oval (now part of a small ‘rural’ lot owned by a submitter and used for mixed primary production).
Mr and Mrs Bishop, directors of Carringbush Pty Ltd referred the Panel to the smaller lots that adjoin their property and those in Burns and Joyce’s Roads that are less than the lots sizes proposed by the RLZ Schedule and they questioned the legitimacy of these owners to oppose the amendment. Mr and Mrs Bishop requested the Panel review the zoning of land in the Glenburn area.
Findings and Conclusions:
The Panel has considered the material provided to it at the hearing along with those written submissions lodged with the Planning Authority. It also visited the area and agrees with submitters that while Glenburn is a community it could not be considered a township. Also, given its proximity to Yea, the Panel believes it is unlikely that the services required to qualify it as a town will re-establish.
A RLZ at Glenburn will not be adjacent to a town, as is the case elsewhere in the Shire, even at Yarck, which is zoned Township and has some community services.
The purpose of the Rural Living Zone is to allow dwellings to establish in a rural setting and where rural activities that can occur without consent are limited. This differs from the Rural Activity Zone, the purpose of which is to allow for rural activities on smaller properties.
In the case of Glenburn, a number of agricultural activities are being carried out on smaller lots, either individually or as part of a group of lots (by the one operator) and the Panel is of the view that the absence of association with a township, means that possibly the better zone for this area is the Rural Activity Zone, where rural pursuits can be carried out 'as of right' on smaller lots.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 72
Recommendation:
That the Rural Living Zone not be adopted in the Glenburn area. Reference to the Glenburn area be deleted from Clauses 21.09-1(Context), 21.09-3 (Strategies and Objectives) and 21.09-4 (Implementation). The Panel also recommends that the Planning Authority review the zoning of existing smaller lots on the west side of the Melba Highway, in Joyce and Burns Roads and in Break O’Day Road, as part of the Rural Zones Review, with consideration given to the appropriateness of the Rural Activity Zone for lots in this area.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 73
13. OTHER SPECIFIC ISSUES
13.1 BUSH FIRE AREAS
MD6 states that an amendment must only provide for rural residential use or development of land which is not in an area with a fire hazard rating of ‘high’ or greater.
Neither the Rural Residential Study nor Amendment C14 specifically refer to bushfires and fire fighting. The amendment was referred to the CFA for its comments, but no response was provided by that body. The RLDG do not specifically address the question of bushfire exposure.
The Wildfire Management Overlay is applied to various areas in the Shire and includes areas around Buxton and Taggerty that have been proposed to be zoned RL.
In Appendix 4 of its submission the Planning Authority stated:
Health and hazard have been fully addressed in the study and amendment. Areas proposed for re-zoning are supported by a municipal wide land capability study, an ‘overview’ land capability assessment for proposed LDRZ areas, service agency support and Council officer experience. All future individual subdivision and dwelling proposals will be assessed on their merits in detail through a ‘detailed’ land capability assessment.
In his submission (No. 223)lodged with the Planning Authority, Mr Ron Philpott, Captain of the Murrindindi Rural Fire Brigade, raised concerns relating to the proposed RLZ. These concerns were confirmed by Mr Anderson, in appearing before the Panel on behalf of Mr Philpott.
Of particular concern was the increased number of dwellings that would require protection at a time when interest in joining the CFA was declining. Many ‘rural living’ lots were owned by non-permanents who do not properly maintain their properties and at around 4 to 6 hectares they are too small to farm and too large to maintain.
Findings and Conclusions
The matters raised by Mr Philpott and Mr Anderson are important ones that have not been specifically addressed by the Planning Authority, which took the submission to refer to Limestone Road, Yea.
While the CFA did not make a submission to Amendment C14, Mr Philpott has raised valid concerns at the local level although the Panel does not believe they warrant abandonment of amendment. The submission does however raise the issue as to whether land covered by the Wildfire Management Overlay (WMO) should be included in a RLZ.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 74
Land included in the RLZ at Buxton (north side), Taggerty (to the south on both sides of the Maroondah Highway) and Alexandra (to the north east in the Maintongoon Road area) is within areas affected by the WMO.
The Panel has already expressed its view that, for other reasons, the areas covered by the WMO at Alexandra and Taggerty should not be included in the RLZ. The fact that they are also within a WMO supports this recommendation.
In relation to Buxton, some land to its north has already been subdivided and developed as rural living lots and the Panel therefore supports the inclusion of these areas in a RLZ. Land to the south of the town is not within a WMO.
The Panel notes that the relevant fire authority (CFA) is a referral authority where applications concern land affected by a WMO. The Panel is of the view that it would be appropriate to refer all applications to the CFA (and local branch) for comment.
In relation to the declining base of volunteers for CFA brigades, this is a state-wide issue, and one that must be addressed at a state government level.
The provision of water for fire fighting purposes is discussed in Section 11 - Infrastructure.
Recommendation:
Refer subdivision applications in the Rural Living Zone to the CFA for comment.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 75
14. CONCLUSIONS
The Panel has considered all the submissions referred to it and all the material presented at the hearings and has reached the following conclusions. Larger lots around the townships and settlements in the Shire, particularly those in its southern part, and closest to Melbourne, are increasingly being sought by buyers seeking a ‘life style’ change. This has led to the Planning Authority identifying a need to provide for low density residential and ‘rural living’ lots adjacent to towns in the Shire; The Panel supports the Low Density Residential Zones, as proposed at Yea and Alexandra, however it considers the area proposed at Buxton (given the size of this town) to be excessive. Furthermore, it is of the view that the land west of Dyes Lane to the Acheron River is better suited to inclusion in the Rural Living Zone, given the abuttal of two rural living lots to its north and the River to its west. With this change the Panel considers the area to the south, between the Maroondah Highway and the Acheron River, would result in an excessive area of Rural Living and therefore this area should be retained in the Rural Zone; For environmental and aesthetic reasons, the Panel does not support the proposed Rural Living Zone at Taggerty; The Panel supports the creation of Rural Living Zones on the outskirts of established townships, provided they are not remote from required infrastructure and community services, do not result in an over supply of such land and do not result in the loss of productive farming land. In the case of Alexandra and Yea, based on the number of lots that could be created, it is considered the area of land included in the Rural Living Zone (specifically the areas included in Schedule 2) is excessive and will exceed demand in the medium to longer term. Also, the extent of the Rural Living Zone 2 at Alexandra could well lead to land being subdivided (and construction of dwellings) on a piece-meal basis, in areas remote from the Township and community services, and where there could be conflict with rural land uses (the 'right to farm'); The inclusion of land at Glenburn in the Rural Living Zone is not supported as it is not associated with a township. The Panel however believes that this area should be reassessed as part of the Rural Zones Review to ascertain the most appropriate Zone for existing smaller lots on which agricultural activities are being conducted; The land in Limestone Road, Yea, is conveniently located to this Township however, given the importance of the fossils site and the agricultural activities being carried out (apparently quite successfully) in the area, the Rural Living Zone is not supported at this time. The Rural Zones review and the Heritage Study are the appropriate studies to identify the appropriate Zone and Overlay to protect the fossils site and its environs and provide for the appropriate mix of rural and residential use. The Panel urges the Planning Authority to proceed forthwith to protect the fossils site, which may require application for interim protection under the Planning Scheme while the heritage study is being undertaken;
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 76
The Panel supports the inclusion of land at Eildon, Marysville and Yarck, as proposed by the amendment in the Rural Living Zone subject to the appropriate overlay, to protect existing vegetation, being applied over the Gould land at Marysville; In generally supporting the inclusion of additional land in the Rural Living Zone, the Panel considers it is imperative that land remaining in the Rural Zone be protected from the excision of small lots. In the Panel’s view this protection needs to be referred to in Local Policy; The Panel supports the referencing of the Rural Living Development Guidelines in the Planning Scheme provided Clause 22.01-1 is retained, in a modified form, to provide them with the required statutory weight through local policy; The Panel considers that the reduction of the Rural Living Zone is necessary to meet Minister's Direction No.6 and to eliminate areas more isolated from townships.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 77
15. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the reasons set out in this report, the Panel makes the following primary recommendation to the planning authority:
Amendment C14 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme should be adopted subject to the following recommendations.
Recommendation: That the minimum area in the Schedule to the Rural Living Zone for which no permit is required for a dwelling extension be specified as 100 square metres.
Recommendation: The Panel recommends that the MSS be amended to better protect land in the Rural Zone from excisions that create ‘rural living’ lots.
Recommendation: The Panel recommends that the Schedule 3 to the Development Plan Overlay be amended to include reference to the requirement of a flora and fauna study and archaeological studies (as required) and the RLDG include a similar reference.
Recommendation: The Panel recommends that the RLDG be amended to refer to access driveways and the intention that any required excavation and change to the topography in creating them be minimised.
Recommendation: That Clause 22.01 be retained and re-drafted to provide greater weight to the RLDG as a Reference document. A suggested re-draft of this Clause is included in Appendix C. That the Rural Residential Study, March 2004 be renamed Rural Residential Study, Murrindindi Shire, Habitat Planning and Murrindindi Shire, March 2004 and that it be referenced in the Municipal Strategic Statement as a policy document.
Recommendation: In relation to LDRZ that the minimum lot size be 1 hectare unless a land capability study for specific sites supports smaller lots (to the zone minimum of 0.4 hectares). In relation to servicing of lots the Panel recommends that Schedule 3 of the Development Plan Overlay and the Rural Living Development Guidelines include a provision that the Council considers subdivision applications against any adopted public lighting policy. In the absence of any such policy, that Council require that street lighting in low density residential subdivisions be generally installed at road junctions and intersections only, generally in accordance with AS 1158, but with the
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 78 proviso that the Upward Waste Light Ratio (UWLR) of each luminaire shall not exceed 2.5%.
Recommendations: The Panel recommends as follows for the Alexandra area: A minimum lot size of 1 hectare be adopted for land west of Halls Flat Road, and that the Caravan Park site, on the south side of Maroondah Highway, and the ‘standard’ residential lots, on the west side of Hall Street, be retained in the LDRZ (also with a 1 hectare minimum lot size). The area on the west side of Toronga Road be included in a LDRZ, as exhibited, along with the land to the south of this area, as now proposed by the Planning Authority, with the DPO3 applied to the area. Subject to confirmation that the north eastern and north western sections of land in the Halls Flat Road / Plantation Lane area, south of Alexandra (included in the Rural Living Zone 1 in the amendment), can be serviced, they be included in the Low Density Residential Zone (Maps 9 & 11). The Maurer land and adjoining land to its west be identified on the Town’s ‘Framework Plan’ as future ‘rural living’ and considered in a subsequent amendment (As shown on Planning Scheme Map 9 included in Appendix D). The LDRZ on the east side of Alexandra be adopted as exhibited. The RLZ on the east side of the Town be limited to land between the Goulburn Valley Highway and the road to its east and north to UT Creek (The revised boundary is marked on Planning Scheme Map 11 included in Appendix D). Crown Allotment 19F, Parish of Alexandra, Mt Pleasant Road, Alexandra be included in the Schedule to the RLZ to permit a 5 lot subdivision with a minimum lot size of 1 hectare, generally in accordance with the preliminary plan of subdivision prepared by Aujard Surveying Pty Ltd, Ref 154888MADWP, dated 28 April 2005. The RLZ to the south of the Town be adopted as exhibited. A guideline be prepared on flora and fauna for inclusion in the RLDG and this Guideline be applied when assessing applications in sensitive localities. Lots 1, 2 & 3 (formerly part of CA 56B, Pt of CA 56C and CA 56E, Parish of Alexandra Vol 051237 Folio 293) be included in the RLZ (that will have a 4 and 6 hectares minimum and average lot size (The suggested boundary of this reduced RLZ is shown on Planning Scheme Maps 9, 10 and 11 included in Appendix D). The proposed Rural Living Zone 2 (20 hectares minimum) be deleted for Alexandra.
Recommendations: The Panel recommends as follows for the Yea area: Land in the Limestone Road area, Yea, be retained in the Rural Zone, and that its future zoning be considered as part of the Rural Zones Review. Clause 21.07: Serviced townships strategies: Delete reference to Rural Living Zone southeast of Yea from Clause 21.07-4 (Implementation).
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 79
Investigate the fossils site as part of the Heritage Study to consider the level of protection that should be provided in the Planning Scheme. Adopt the LDRZ in the Meadow Road area, as exhibited and investigate the merit of including Pt CA 31, to its north, in the LDRZ. Adopt the RLZ1 to the north-east of the township, as exhibited. Delete the RLZ2 north east of the Town, and include the smaller lots, at its southern end, between Killingworth Road West and the rear boundaries of land fronting McLeishs Road, in the RLZ1 (which with the elimination of the RLZ2 will be a RLZ) (The boundary of the revised RLZ is shown on Planning Scheme Map 7 included in Appendix D). Consider the inclusion of land owned by Mrs Hamilton, on the east side of Hamilton Road, (abutting land shown in the RLZ), as part of the Rural Zones Review and its possible inclusion in a subsequent amendment.
Recommendation: That the Rural Living Zone be adopted as exhibited for Marysville and that a Vegetation Protection Overlay be applied to Lot 2 PS 330897 F (owned by the Gould family).
Recommendation: That the amendment be adopted as exhibited for Eildon.
Recommendation: That the LRZ be adopted, as exhibited, for Yarck (with a minimum lot size of 4 hectares and average of 6 hectares.
Recommendation: That land south of Taggerty, and shown included in the RLZ, be retained in the Rural Zone.
Recommendation: The Panel recommends as follows for Buxton: That the LDRZ be limited to the area bounded by Steavenson Road, Dyes Lane, Park Road and the west boundary of the Township Zone and the remaining LDRZ land, west of Dyes Lane, be included in a RLZ. The RLZ land south of the Town remain in the Rural Zone. That the RLZ be adopted for land on the north side of the Town. (The Revised Zone boundaries of the LDRZ and RLZ, on the south side of the Town are shown on Planning Scheme Map 24 included in Appendix D).
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 80
Recommendation: That the Rural Living Zone not be adopted in the Glenburn area. Reference to the Glenburn area be deleted from Clauses 21.09-1(Context), 21.09-3 (Strategies and Objectives) and 21.09-4 (Implementation). The Panel also recommends that the Planning Authority review the zoning of existing smaller lots on the west side of the Melba Highway, in Joyce and Burns Roads and in Break O’Day Road, as part of the Rural Zones Review, with consideration given to the appropriateness of the Rural Activity Zone for lots in this area.
Recommendation: Refer subdivision applications in the Rural Living Zone to the CFA for comment.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 81 APPENDICES
A. THE PANEL PROCESS 82 THE PANEL 82 HEARINGS, DIRECTIONS AND INSPECTIONS 82 SUBMISSIONS 82
B. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES 91
C. AMENDED CLAUSE 22.01-1 92
D. MAPS OF REVISED ZONE BOUNDARIES 93
E. REFERENCES 100
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 82
A. THE PANEL PROCESS
THE PANEL
This Panel was appointed under delegation on the 19 April 2005 pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions in respect of Amendment C14 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme. This amendment proposes to implement the Rural Residential Study, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004 through the inclusion of land to Rural Living and Low Density Residential Zones, the application of a Development Plan Overlay to the Low Density Residential Zone, changes to the Local Planning Policy Framework and use of Zone and Overlay Schedules.
The planning authority is the Shire of Murrindindi.
The Panel consisted of: Chairperson: Gaye McKenzie Member: Megan Carew Member: Alan Chuck
HEARINGS, DIRECTIONS AND INSPECTIONS
A Directions Hearing was held on 20 May 2005 at the Civic Centre in Yea. A number of directions were made, which provided guidance for the conduct of the hearing. All were complied with and to this extent their function has been discharged. They are not reiterated here.
The Panel hearing was held on 7, 8, 12, 13, 15 and 19 July 2005. The hearing was conducted at Council facilities at Yea (7, 8, 12 and 19 July) and Alexandra (15 July) and at Planning Panels Victoria (13 July).
SUBMISSIONS
A list of all written submissions to Amendment C14 is included in Table A.1 below.
Table A.1 SUBMITTER ORGANISATION (IF ANY) Margaret Taylor Glenburn Hall & Progress Association Fred & Robin Blank John & Heather Drysdale Carringbush Pty Ltd C/- Millar & Merrigan Pty Ltd Craig Velt SPI Electricity
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 83
Michael Tarulli David & Linda Carter Anne Graesser Goulburn Murray Water Rodney Aujard Rodney Aujard & Associates Jane & Stan Wassylko Thelma Edwards Robert Scott Harry Maurer Roger Wilson Ian McRoberts Ulrich & Sandra Zipsin Gordon Davis Gail Davis DG & MM Jago Merlino Pty Ltd C/- Taylors Development Strategists James & Marilyn Thomson HE Craig Glenburn Hall & Progress Association Inc Gould Family C/- Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd John & Merrin Tulloch M B & V Ryan Lois Tainton C/- Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd David G Wallace Christine & Syd Garvey Paul & Dean McKenzie Pam & Ron McKenzie Elaine & Keith Beckwish Margaret Rae & A Daniel J D & E M Phillips Landcare Properties C/- Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd Michael & Rosemary Schryver J N Bennett Robert & Susan Powell S Conrau & S Lodge
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 84
D & S Guy S M Mitchell R N & H M Staggard D & M Hahnenfeldt M P George I R & M J McPherson J D & M L Hamilton Gary Creighton Shane Burchall & G Creighton Kenneth Mountain Clive Clayton Helen Wardle PA Williams & KP Pierce Leigh & Katherine Brown Sue & Ivor Brayley Dr Lea Jellinek, Eva Jellinek & Edward Kiefer Leonard Sheahan Ursula M Carland Shirley Henderson William & Moira Jeffreys N & M Astbury Petition C/- Greg Ray Mr & Mrs Millar David Miller & Sylke Rees Jim & Prue Plowman J Burchall Richard Whitehead Amanda Phillips Muriel Perry Dale Raggatt Ian & Sonia McKerrow Trevor Parton Jo Wormald Suzanne & Stuart Raggatt
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 85
NJ Wormald EC & JC Cook Michael Pace Edith Stockdale Anne & Milan Kantor Ann Jelinek John and Jenny Branton Annie Henderson John Casely Twenty-Seventh Jandina Pty Ltd Associated Town Planning Consultants Chris Nicholls & Terry Smith B V & S A Elliott Dr Barbara Downes School of Anthropology Frank & Julie Devries Joe Daoud Tessa Abbottsmith Youl Sally Abbott Smith Margaret Taylor Geoff & Patti Caterer John & Lois Hardman Kim & Sally Adams Graeme Hawke Judy Dixon Gary & Lorna Morrell Kate Clark Bryan Barnes & Helen Watson L W & V P Frogley Judy Brookes Drew Phillips VH May Glen Morton Robert & Lee Harvey Penny & Greg Noonan Philip Slattery Patricia Slattery
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 86
Tony Carey Beth Morton Peter Williams Michael Williams Tom Coller R Muller T C & N G Toulson Ian Hamill Ann Le Lievre Brenda Amos Peter Maiwald Marion J Coller Stuart Coller Wolfgang Maiwald Anne & Brian Pegg Ian & Joy Purcell David McKenzie Jo and Chris Knorr Ian Glasscock Jan & Neil Beer Geoff & Janet Stubbs Don Main David Strongman Terry Cash C/- Fulcrum Town Planners Bernard Comte The Hon Mr Justice Alex Chernov Michael & Alison Papasava Mr & Mrs Price C/- Hansen Partnerships Barry Tees C/- Hansen Partnerships Julie Foletta Geoff Sargent Glenys Hazelman WR Anderson John H Clark Yea River Landcare Group Barbara Stone
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 87
H & E Chiodo J & K Fountain C/- Ellen Hogan & Associates K & J A Eldridge John & Ruth Kennedy G M Heath Rita Seethaler The Urban Transport Institute Judith Hill Marc & Kerrie Veldman Grant & Joy Barham A & L Papasava Julie Savage A.L. Jacobs Ken & Yvonne Millar Paula Arms Sue & Paula Stanley Lyndall & Robert Sloley Anne & Peter Norris Mr & Mrs Price C/- Hansen Partnerships Lyn Scotchmoor Mr V Agosta C/- Peyton Waite Sr Veronica Madigan St Josephs Convent Jane & Cesar Melham Robert Petraccaa C/- S Custance & Associates Terry Cash C/- Williams Winter Solicitors John & Pauline Lord Betty Wood John & Cecily Adams Deborah Bennett Melissa Meek-Jacobs Peter & Jill Heath Philip James John & Cynthia Thwaites Anne Barnden James & Beverly Veale Les Goudie Goulburn Valley Water
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 88
LA & ME Pratt C/- Best Hooper Solicitors Graeme & Penny Buck Department of Sustainability and Tom Sloan Environment W A Miller J Power L Slattery Peter Ingham Debra M Engel Jacqueline Vaughan-Taylor Sue Robinson Kylie Ives Hayden Morris C/- Alphington Sports Medicine Clinic Petition C/- Sue Stanley Irene Phillips Michael McDonell IRP & JP Warren Campbell Martin Antonio Grossi J Darling Glenys Anderson S J Gray Petition C/- Jan Beer Gayle Ingrid Gillis Paul Weightman Bill Anderson C/- Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd Petition C/- L & K Brown Ron Philpott Rob McGregor Concerned Residents of Glenburn Jan Beer Robert Gardiner Susan Wallace Jan Beer
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 89
Peter & Jill Heath Kim Chadband
The Panel heard the parties listed in Table A.2 below.
Table A.2 Submitter Represented By Shire of Murrindindi Grant Scale Consultant Town Planner & Matt Parsons Town Planner at Shire. Merlino Pty Ltd Mr John Cicero of the firm Best Hooper. He called the following witnesses: – Mr N Hooper Director Planning - Taylors – Mr R Phillips - Phillips Agribusiness Ms A Jelinek Ms K Chadband Mr Lawson Mr I McPherson Mrs B Wood L & M Pratt Mr Haydon of Best Hooper T & C Smith M & K Bishop Ms J Knorr Mr R Scott & Mr H Maurer Mr P Slattery, A & J Anderson, L & I Ms P Mulliner Knight, C Burnett & B Gallacher G & P Caterer, J Bennett, V Madigan L Sheahan Ms S Abbott Smith D & S Guy Ms P McKenzie Messrs P & D McKenzie Ms M Hamilton Mr J & Mrs P Plowman Ms G Ryan Mr R Zipsin Mr R Muller M & A Kantor
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 90
Submitter Represented By Mr V Agosta Peyton Waite Town Planners Mr A Yorston Custance & Associates Ms J Wormald Mr R Whitehead & Ms B Morton Ms F & Ms S McKerrow Mr T Cash Fulcrum Town Planners Ms L Tainton Hansen Partnership Landcare Hansen Partnership Mr & Mrs Price Hansen Partnership Messrs B Drysdale, M Bett, J Daoud Hansen Partnership Twenty Seventh Jardina Pty Ltd Associated Planning Consultants Mr R McGregor Mr R Gardiner Mr I Purcell Ms G Anderson Mrs J Beer who called Dr J Douglas (telephone hook-up) A number of Glenburn submitters Mr T Ludeman Mr Philpott Mr Anderson Mr C Clayton TA & S J Coller Cr Coller Mr I Hamill Ms C Garvey Mr I McRoberts Ms J Hill Ms M Meek Jacobs Goulburn Murray Water Mr Barry O’Donnell Goulburn Valley Water Mr Les Goudie Goulburn Broken Catchment Mr Bill O’Kane Authority
The Panel has considered all written and oral submissions and all material presented to it in connection with this matter.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 91
B. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
Option 2
The table in this appendix examines the amendment against the Strategic Assessment Guidelines. Where relevant matters raised in the guidelines have been raised in submissions or where the Panel considers that the guidelines have not been responded to, this is discussed in the text of the report above. The presence of such discussion is indicated in the table below, with a reference to the section where the relevant response(s) may be found. Where relevant matters raised in the guidelines have not been responded to in the text above, because they were not referred to in submissions and do not appear to raise significant issues, a summary response is provided here.
Table B.1 Strategic Issue Response or Reference Is an amendment necessary? The amendment is required to introduce the new Zones and to make changes to local planning policy, an Overlay and Schedules to Zones. Does the amendment comply The amendment complies. with the requirements of the Planning & Environment Act? Does the amendment support The amendment fully supports and implements or implement the SPPF? all relevant components of the SPPF. How does the amendment Considered in Sections 3, 6, 9 and 10 above. support or implement the LPPF, and specifically the MSS? Does the amendment make The amendment makes proper use of standard proper use of the VPP? and local provisions from the VPP. How does the amendment The views of relevant referral and advisory address the views of relevant agencies are considered in Section 11 above. agencies? Have the resource and The planning authority has considered the administrative implications of resource and administrative implications of the the amendment for the amendment. The Panel finds that, on the basis of responsible authority been the information provided to it, the amendment properly considered? provides an appropriate balance between resources, administrative costs and community benefit.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 92
C. AMENDED CLAUSE 22.01-1
Clause 22.01-1 RURAL LIVING
This Policy applies to all land in the Rural Living Zone.
Policy basis
A Rural Living Zone seeks to provide for smaller rural lots to provide for residential use in a rural environment and which may also support small scale rural activities in an integrated way that does not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding land uses.
Objectives
To ensure all subdivision, use and development in the Rural Living Zone are consistent with the Rural Living Development Guidelines, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004.
Policy
It is Policy that all applications meet the objectives of the Rural Living Development Guidelines, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004.
Reference:
Rural Living Development Guidelines, Murrindindi Shire, March 2004.
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 93
D. MAPS OF REVISED ZONE BOUNDARIES
THE COLOURED AND SHADED AREAS SHOWN ON THE FOLLOWING MAPS INDICATE THE PANEL’S RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THOSE MAPS (AS EXHIBITED).
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 94
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 95
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 96
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 97
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 98
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 99
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005 Page 100
E. REFERENCES
Ref No Author, Title
1 Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority:
Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy November 2003
2 Yea River SFMP Consultative Committee:
Draft Yea River Catchment Streamflow Management Plan Report December 2001
3 Centre for Land Protection Research:
Murrindindi Shire Land Capability Analysis and Environmental Values August 2002
4 Sinclair Knight Merz in association with ID&A:
Environmental Flow Study of the Yea River System October 2000
5 Habitat Planning:
Rural Residential Study Murrindindi Shire July 2003
6 Regional Planning Services and Ellen Hogan & Associates:
Rural Living Development Guidelines Murrindindi Shire March 2004
7 Goulburn Valley Water:
Subdivision Servicing Policy Rev A June 2002
8 Environment Protection Authority:
Septic Tanks Code of Practice March 2003
MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C14 PANEL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2005