. ' ~.,. - ·, I •

rr======-·==--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-======i'i ------·-~-_/

LA TROBE PLANNING SCHEME

REPORT TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE I PANEL REVIEWING THE LA TROBE PLANNING SCHEME

Presented to the Advisory Committee/Panel on Monday, 17 August 1998 by Mrs Heather Hadley-Powell, Planning Officer on behalf of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building and Development, Region, . - · • ' 4 • I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

------~----· -----1 1lii~i1~~11~m~1ii~i1i 1. Submission context M0052602

This submission is by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building and Development, Gippsland Office. It has been prepared to assist the Advisory Committee who has been appointed to review the La Trobe Planning Scheme and the Panel appointed to review submissions made to the Scheme.

The submission considers, or outlines: • The Shire's regional context (including geographic and economic context); • The planning issues within the La Trobe Shire, including the major concerns that the Department has with the planning scheme; and • The planning approaches at the municipal boundary with adjoining municipalities, highlighting any inconsistencies.

Infrastructure Library

(-. --- - '711.3099 00113162 456 LAT La trobe planning scheme : report to the Advisory Committee I Panel reviewing the La Trobe planning scheme

2 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

2. La Trobe within the Gippsland Region

2. 1 Municipality history The La Trobe Shire Council consists of the former municipalities of the Cities of Moe, Morwell, and , the former Shire ofTraralgon, and the Yallourn North district of the former Shire ofNarracan and the Glengarry and Toongabbie districts of the former . The La Trobe Shire Council was created by Order of the Governor in Council on 2 December 1994.

2.2 Geographical characteristics The La Trobe Shire is located in the central area of the Gippsland Region. The Gippsland Region comprises six municipalities, being: Baw Baw, Bass Coast, , La Trobe, South Gippsland, and Wellington. The Shire's northern and north western boundary is the border with the Shire ofBaw Baw, the eastern and south eastern boundary is the border with the , and the south western and western boundary is the border with the Shire of South Gippsland. (Refer to Attachment 1)

The La Trobe municipality has an area of 1,405.3 square kilometres, and is located approximately 160 kilometres east of . At the 1996 census La Trobe had a total enumerated population of 67,564, less 120 overseas visitors, giving an enumerated population of 67 ,444.

The main urban centres in the municipality are Traralgon, Morwell, Moe, and Churchill, with the largest township in terms of population being Traralgon. Traralgon, Morwell, and Moe all straddle the Princes Highway and the Gippsland railway line. The urban centres include major service facilities, including large retail centres. There are also many smaller townships located throughout the municipality, including Boolarra, Glengarry, Toongabbie, Tyers, Yallourn North, and Yinnar.

The topography of the area is a contrast between the Great Diving Range and the , and the open river valleys extending to the coastal areas and the Gippsland Lakes.

Significant features in the municipality are the electricity power stations of Hazelwood, Loy Yang A and B, and Yallourn. These power stations provide a large proportion of the state's energy, as a result of the large brown coal deposits that occur in the region. The valley is also a rich agricultural area. Forestry is an important industry, particularly pulp and paper making, with hardwoods coming from the eastern highlands and softwoods from plantations in the Latrobe-Valley and the Strzeleckis. The timber is transported to the Maryvale pulp and paper mill. The Shire also has a campus of Monash University at Churchill.

3 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re 'on.

2.3 Natural features

The area is bounded to the south by the Strzelecki Ranges and to the north by the Great Dividing Ranges. The Strzelecki Ranges rise gradually from the flats. The Great Dividing Ranges rises to over 1500 metres, for example Mt. Baw Baw has an elevation of 1566 metres. Tributaries fl<;>w from both ranges to form the Latrobe, Thomson, Macalister, and Avon Rivers, all of which eventually discharge into lake Wellington. Lake Wellington forms a valuable wetland region at the outlet of both river basins.

Within the municipality are two areas of public land - Tyers Park and the Morwell National Park.

2.4 Water resources Rainfall in the region shows a marked gradient from the mountains in the north to the plains in the south east. Average annual rainfall varies from 1,800 mm per year at Mt. Baw Baw down to 600 mm per year around Lake Wellington. Much of the Gippsland plains are topographically similar which gives little variation in climatic conditions.

The West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority was appointed on 1 July 1997. The West Gippsland Regional Catchment Strategy was approved by the State Government in 1997, and it will be a blueprint for achieving effective integration and delivery of the land and water management programs in the West Gippsland Region.

The West Gippsland Region is divided into three state-recognised river basins - the Latrobe, Thomson, and South Gippsland. The La Trobe Shire is located on the Basin, and a very small section in the north of the Shire around Toongabbie is located within the Basin.

The Latrobe Basin covers 46,200 hectares and has a mean annual flow of 980,000 megalitres. The north western part of the basin consists of forested and steeply dissected ranges of the Eastern Highlands with the Baw Baw Plateau to the north east. The central part is the broad and relatively flat Latrobe Valley and the Gippsland Plains while the southern part consists of the northern fall of the Strzelecki Ranges. Both these areas are largely cleared although some small remnants of the once extensive tall eucalypt forests remain in the Strzeleckis.

The Latrobe River is the major river in the Basin. It is fed from the north by the Toorongo, Tanjil and Tyers Rivers, from the west by the Moe River and from the Strzeleckis by the Morwell River and Traralgon Creek. Major water storages are the Moondarra Reservoir (34,000 megalitres) on the Tyers River, Lake Narracan (7,995 megalitres) on the Latrobe River and the Blue Rock Dam (200,000 megalitres) on the Tanjil River. The Hazelwood Pondage (31,000 megalitres) near Morwell supplies cooling water for power generation and is fed from the Moondarra Reservoir and from local creeks and aquifers.

4 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re 'on.

The Basin has 74% of its stream length in the good to excellent category, this is confined largely to the minor streams in forested areas. The major and tributary streams have a high proportion of their length in poor or very poor condition. In particular, for most of its length the Latrobe River is rated poor or moderate with mainly willows or grazed banks, some bank instability and some sedimentation problems, whilst a number of tributaries of the Latrobe River, such as Eaglehawk Creek and Fells Creek have severe erosion problems.

The Latrobe River is a major contributor of phosphorous to the Gippsland Lakes. The Latrobe River also contributes most of the dissolved solids (salinity) that enter the lake system. These dissolved solids originate mainly from the industrial discharges to the river.

Variability of streamflow within the year is quite marked, with peak flows usually occurring in August to Octo her. Regulation of streamflow in the lower reaches of the Latrobe has reduced much of the within year variation.

Utilisation of water in the region is substantial. Large volumes of water are used for urban and industrial purposes, and a small amount for irrigation. The Latrobe Basin also imports water from the Thomson Basin via the irrigation system. The power stations are the largest industrial user of water in the region extracting water from both surface and groundwater sources. Water for the power stations has been allocated from the Latrobe River (supplemented by water from Blue Rock Lake) and Moondarra Reservoir. Australian Paper is the second largest industrial consumer in the region and it also draws water from Moondarra Reservoir.

There are many areas in the Region without town water supplies. Also many areas are unsewered. Another important component of the region's water infrastructure is the Latrobe Valley Water and Sewerage Board's Latrobe Valley Outfall Sewer, which conveys wastewater to the Dutson Downs treatment farm. The ocean outfall pipeline disposes of the Latrobe Valley's domestic and industrial wastes. The Latrobe Valley Water and Sewerage Board also operate a Saline Water Outfall Pipeline for the electricity power industry.

The Gippsland Lakes system is the largest estuarine lagoon system in . The Lakes represent a major conservation and tourism asset for the Region and the State as a whole. Comprising Lake Wellington, Lake King, Lake Victoria, Lake Reeve, and extensive wetland areas, the Lake system is a major recreation area for local communities, and supports a large tourist industry and a commercial fishery. It also has considerable value for the conservation of lake and wetland-dependent plant and animal communities. The Lakes receive the flows of seven major rivers of Gippsland, including the Latrobe and the Thomson, from a catchment area of 20,600 square kilometres. The catchment includes several large towns and cities (Sale, Baimsdale, Lakes Entrance, Traralgon, Morwell, and Moe) and the industrial areas of the Latrobe Valley. The Latrobe and Thomson Rivers have a key role in the degradation of the Lakes.

The Latrobe/Thomson system is the most developed river system in the Region. It comprises four major rivers, the Latrobe, the Thomson, the Macalister, and the Tyers. Development of the Latrobe River system has been primarily driven by the requirements of the SECY power stations. Prior to the late 1970's the State Electricity Commission of Victoria obtained water supplies by diversion from the Latrobe River at Yalloum, (using Lake Narracan as a regulating storage), by pipeline from Moondarra Reservoir on the Tyers

5 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

River, and by utilising some of the groundwater pumped from the open cuts. Australian Paper needs were provided by the supply from Moondarra Reservoir and from groundwater.

In the 1970's the Parliamentary Public Works Committee held an inquiry into the use of the water resources of the Latrobe River. The inquiry ultimately resulted in the construction of Blue Rock Dam on Tanjil River. The Latrobe system was further developed by the Latrobe Valley Water and Sewerage Board with the construction of a pipeline from Blue Rock Dam to Moondarra Reservoir to provide for expected growth in urban and industrial demand in the Board's system.

Water is a key input for electricity generation. The power station water demands are therefore likely to be a major determinant both of the way existing water supplies are allocated, and the timing and the level of any new water resource development.

2.5 Flooding Clearing of catchments, draining of swamps, damming of rivers, and cropping and grazing (especially along stream frontages), have contributed to stream degradation, increased erosion, and increased flooding. There is very little mentioned in the MSS about flooding problems and what strategies Council will be undertaking to reduce the impact of flooding throughout the municipality. The township of Traralgon has a very good documented evidence of flood heights and the extent of inundation by flood waters. (Attachment 2 shows various flood plain maps of Traralgon).

La Trobe periodically experiences a major flood event. These events cause damage to: infrastructure; buildings and contents; fences; and loss to agricultural production. Most flood damage to agricultural land occurs every two to three years on the Latrobe River floodplain, and most structural damage occurs in the built up area in the centre of Traralgon. Traralgon is located on the Traralgon Creek, a short distance upstream from its junction with the Latrobe River. Parts of the existing residential and commercial development are located in the floodplain of the Traralgon Creek. Over the last 60 years, serious flood damage has occurred to public and private property on at least seven separate occasions.

In Traralgon, the natural flood plain is quite extensive (up to 700 metres wide) and includes a number of secondary stream channels and their natural levees. This gives rise to a rather complex flow pattern. Parts of the existing residential and commercial development are located in the floodplain and are susceptible to flooding. The Traralgon Creek Floodplain Management Study is currently being undertaken and is due to be completed by November 1998.

Floods occurred, in Traralgon, in December 1934, February 1951, August 1951, June 1952, June 1978, September 1993, and November 1995. The 1978 flood was estimated as having a return interval of 50 years. During this flood 72 dwellings were inundated as well as a 2 commercial and 7 public buildings. A floodplain management strategy was implemented after 1978 with significant modifications to the physical environment of the floodplain.

6 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

The 1993 flood was classed as being approximately a 1 in 65 year flood event. During the 1993 flood, 24 dwellings and 3 commercial properties were flooded above floor level and a further 99 dwellings suffered external damage. Flood levels in the main creek were consistent with those predicted for an event of a return interval in excess of 50 years, but those in the floodplain east of the creek in the vicinity of Shakespeare Street were more consistent with levels predicted for a flood with a return interval of 100 years of more. Flood levels downstream of Franklin Street were also higher than levels estimated for a return interval of 100 years, which could be due to backwater effects.

The 1995 flood was also classed as being approximately a 1 in 40 year flood event. During the 1995 flood, 16 dwellings and 3 commercial properties were flooded above floor level, and 99 properties were flooded below floor level.

Floods with average return intervals less than 5 years are essentially contained in the main creek channel, how,ever inundation does occur at the bridges at Franklin Street and Whittaker Road. Except for the most severe floods, the Princes Highway is not overtopped at the Princes Highway bridge.

The essential recommendations from the Traralgon flood studies included structural and non-structural measures. The structural works were undertaken during the mid-1980's. The non-structural measures included the designation of 1 %probability flood levels, the proclamation of land liable to flooding, voluntary purchase and removal of some houses, and improvement to the flood warning system.

A problem with flooding of the Traralgon area is the little warning time available. This is a problem with evacuating residents, especially the frail and elderly, and the time required to move valuables out of, or above, the impeding floodwaters. For example, at Wright Street, Traralgon, the floods in 1993 peaked at 4.16pm. Many residents were at work away from their homes without knowledge of the flood occurring.

The Latrobe River also floods, with flood waters extending up to 1,000 metres in width across the floodplain to the north of Traralgon. The bridge between Traralgon and Tyers is frequently inundated.

The Planning Scheme maps only show two areas zoned Urban Floodway Zone: 1) an area bounded by the eastern part of Traralgon Creek and Phelan Street, Paul Street, Macquarie Place and Marshalls Road; and 2) an area bounded by the eastern part of Traralgon Creek and Shakespeare Street, and partly between Traralgon Creek Road arid Mapelson Drive. The remainder of the area within the active flood plain is either zoned Residential 1 Zone, Business 1 Zone, Business 2 Zone, Public Park and Recreation Zone, and Public Conservation and Resource Zone. These areas should be included in the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.

The area around the Latrobe River that floods should be clearly shown on the Planning Scheme maps as being an active floodplain. The land should be included in either the Rural Floodway Overlay or the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.

7 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi stand Re ·on.

2.6 Coal industry Within the Latrobe Valley, the mining of brown coal affects vast areas of moderate to high quality agricultural land. The extraction process relies on the removal of overlying soil (overburden) and the creation of open cuts. Initially, the operations require the establishment of remote dumping sites for the overburden and because of the extent and depth of the coal deposits, backfilling of the open cuts has been fairly limited. The result has been the creation of extensive overburden dumps adjacent to the open cuts. The rehabilitation of the dumps was for many years given scant attention and was neither carefully planned nor adequately implemented. Extensive planting of various overburden sites has commenced.

There are three open cut mines within the Latrobe Valley, Loy Yang, Morwell, and Yallourn. The coal acts as the fuel for power generation. Coal development is vital to the economic future of Victoria and the Latrobe region. The Victorian Brown Coal Council assessed the total brown coal resources as 202,000 million tonnes or approximately 2 million petajoules of energy, of which 31,000 million tonnes is regarded as readily accessible reserves.

To improve planning certainty the Government required that short, medium, and long-term brown coal development proposals were adequately reflected in the local planning controls. The process involved nominating undeveloped brown coal reserves to one of three categories or stages. These were: Category A Development Options Stage (development possible in 10 to 30 years)

Category B Prospective Stage (development possible in 30 to 60 years)

Category C Identified Stage (development more than 60 years oft)

These categories were inco_rporated into the regional section of the relevant planning schemes. The boundaries of the various categories of coal were clearly identified under Amendment RLl to the relevant planning schemes. This information has not been included within the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme.

· 2. 7 Timber industry Forestry is significant to the local and regional economy and can have potential for further expansion and value adding.

The area contains one of the State's greatest resources of timber. Timber is harvested from plantations of softwood and hardwood. Softwood production and the conversion of softwood to diverse products - including pulp, paper, panelboard, sawn timber, and preservative-treated round timber - comprise a major decentralised industry in Victoria. The Latrobe Valley has more than 60,000 hectares of softwood plantations, of which approximately 14,200 hectares have been established by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. These plantations are primarily managed by Amcor and the Victorian Plantations Corporations. which supply the Australian Paper pulp and paper mill at

8 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi stand Re ·on.

Maryvale, and softwood sawmills, veneer mills, and preservation plants at Morwell and elsewhere.

The government plans to expand the area's softwood plantation to 25,000 hectares in order to supply saw- and veneer- logs to be increased to at least 150,000 cubic metres per annum, from the present 41,000 cubic metres. In order to fulfil this requirement, the government plans: to purchase land with low agricultural capability, but high softwood capability in the Strzelecki Ranges; to purchase farmland elsewhere; or to lease government land such as the power station land required in the longer term for coal-related development.

Plantations also been grown on both Australian Paper owned land and other privately owned farm land. Australian Paper has recently been given approval to harvest native trees from freehold native forest. The company has undertaken a $50 million expansion program at its Maryvale plant. The company will purchase land necessary for plantation development to provide for supply commitments.

There are also areas of forested public land that are not incorporated into parks or set aside in various reserves, but have been designated for hardwood timber production or as uncommitted land. This land has been described as State Forest by the Land Conservation Council. The State forest areas have been used for a multiplicity of uses. It is important for the protection of water supply catchments, conservation of plants and animals, timber production, and provides many opportunities for outdoor recreation and leisure. The forests also provide honey, forage, road making materials, minerals, and other forest products to satisfy various community needs.

2.8 Agriculture Based on the Swan and Volum report on Agricultural Quality of land in Gippsland, the Shire does have prime quality agricultural land located along the Latrobe River floodplain and in patches along Traralgon Creek and the Morwell River, and in the Traralgon/Morwell corridor. There is also good quality agricultural land located in areas between Morwell and Traralgon, and Yinnar and Traralgon and north of Traralgon. It is important to realise that extensive agricultural industries are usually based on large areas of land of lower agricultural quality. Some of these industries, such as wool growing, are significant at the local and State level. Thus, land with a low rating can be the base for an important agricultural industry.

The agricultural industry is imp0rtant to the municipality's economic base even though there are only 47,394.9 hectares of farmland. The major agricultural industries, in terms of value, are sheep and lambs, dairy cattle, beef cattle, eggs produced for human consumption, and honey.

As seen in the table below, in 1996 La Trobe produced over 27,293 tonnes of hay. Beef cattle and sheep and lambs are also major agricultural commodities, with over 32,500 sheep and lambs, and 36,875 meat cattle in 1996. In the municipality there were over 71,500 layers, hens and pullets, and nearly 1.2 million eggs produced for human consumption. There were 610 bee hives in 1996, which produced over 26,000 kilograms of honey and 460 kilograms of beeswax. The figures for trees and seedlings planted for pulp and paper and the amount of softwood trees harvested for pulp and paper are specifically related to farmland.

9 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re 'on.

Australian Paper may not class themselves as farmers, and as-such the data may be incorrectly read.

Agricultural activity Hectares Kilograms Tonnes Number Crops and pastures for hay 5,344.1 27,293.9 Trees planted or sown for timber or 403.5 pulp Trees planted or sown for other 22.0 purposes Seedlings planted for timber or pulp 3,250 Trees (softwood) harvested for 1,500.0 timber or pulp Cereal crops cut for hay 60.0 191.0 Non-cereal crops 227.3 Potatoes 60.5 716.0 Broccoli 10.0 24.0 Vegetables for human consumption 131.7 - total area Horticultural crops 139.2 Area irrigated at least once during 728.0 the year 1996 Sheep and lambs 32,576 Dairy cattle 17,581 Meat cattle 36,875 Deer 6 Horses stud 26 Layers, hen and pullets 71,507 Eggs produced for human 1,179,416 consumption - dozen Hives 610 Honey including honey comb 26,100 Beeswax 460 Based on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

2.9 Infrastructure Situated in the central part of the La Trobe municipality is the Princes Highway and the Gippsland railway line. The Princes Highway provides a strategic artery for much of the Region's activities. It is one of the most heavily trafficked roads in Victoria.

These transportation corridors are of regional, state, and national significance. A high proportion of the municipality's population lives within proximity to these transportation corridors. The existence of these corridors have had an influence on the Shire's development patterns.

There are many north south links in La Trobe, south along the Strzelecki Highway and the , as well as the Traralgon Creek Road, the Churchill-Traralgon Road, and the Boolarra-Churchill Road. These corridors form the basis of many intersecting roads through the southern parts of the Shire .. To the north are fewer major roads - the Road, Thomson Valley Road, Rawson Road, and Willowgrove Road.

10 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

· The protection-and enhancement of this significant infrastructure is vital for the future growth of the municipality and the Gippsland region. These transportation corridors have extensive freight and passenger transport links; particularly between Melbourne and Gippsland and even between Melbourne and New South Wales.

There were 14,446 primary and secondary students who live in La Trobe in 1996. Many children in rural areas travel long distances to school. Some students travel to Warragul and Sale in order to go to a private grammar school. About 30% travel by school bus mainly from outlying areas and others travel by family car to a school or a pick up point. Others', particularly in urban areas, ride bicycles.

Freight movements are mainly generated by resource based industries including coal operations and electricity generation in the Latrobe Valley and oil and gas production in the Sale/Longford areas, and timber extraction and pulp and paper production from the Strzelecki Ranges and Noojee/Thomson Valley and East Gippsland areas. Livestock is an important contributor to the agricultural economy, with the regional saleyards located at Traralgon. A blue leather tanning factory is located at Rosedale. Milk is drawn from all parts of Eastern Victoria to processing centres at Morwell (National Foods), Damum, Maffra, and Longwarry. Processed milk products are transported to Melbourne by both road and rail. There is a textile mill located at Moe (Rocklea Spinning Mills). Wool is carted to storage centres in Melbourne via the Princes Highway.

The Princes Highway provides a strategic artery for freight, however, beyond the Highway some arterial roads carry a number of commodities while others have a less significant freight role. The significance of local roads must also be recognised in providing a link between the farm gate or production centres and the arterial network.

There is a duplicated railway line between Melbourne and Moe and a single line to Baimsdale. Bulk briquettes and pulp and paper products are railed from the Latrobe Valley to Melbourne as well as light general freight. A road coach service, operated by V/Line, extends the passenger network throughout the area.

There is an increasing volume of commuter and local air traffic, with the Latrobe Valley Airport located between Morwell and Traralgon. There are commercial flights between the Latrobe Airport, Albury, and Sydney, and between the Latrobe and the Moorabbin Airports. The Latrobe Valley airport also serves as the base for Helimed - the aerial ambulance and as a base for other airborne emergency services. The airport has an estimated 33,000 aircraft movements per armum.

2. 10 Urban settlements Within the Latrobe Basin, the Latrobe Valley coal fields have been extensively developed for power production. As a consequence secondary industries have developed in the region, such as Australian Paper. This, in tum, has led to the expansion of local towns to serve industry and agriculture, that is Moe, Morwell, and Traralgon.

A major distinguishing aspect of urban development in the Latrobe Valley is that no single town is clearly dominant in terms of its range and level of functions, or size. The area is characterised by a clustering of larger towns in the Valley - Moe, Morwell, and Traralgon -

II Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on. all of which tend to serve a regional function. The current generalist functions performed by these towns results, to a degree, in some duplication of services and facilities. At the same time it does not facilitate the supply of a wide range of "high order" facilities such as larger department stores and services which are attracted by a clustering of tertiary functions.

An Urban Settlements study was commissioned by the Latrobe Regional Commission to analyse the existing functions of the largest towns and recommend land use actions, if necessary to stimulate economic growth, promote sound town planning and provide for the most equitable distribution of social facilities.

Five options were presented: • encourage a single dominant urban centre; • encourage/prohibit urban growth in the Morwell/Traralgon corridor; • encourage the functional specialisation of towns; • reinforce the existing settlement patters; and • promote the development of a new town.

Of the above options, the encouragement of functional specialisation was selected as it appeared to have the greatest potential to stimulate economic growth and provide for the equitable provision of social facilities. The following specialisations were proposed and included in the Regional Section of various Planning Schemes, such as Moe, Morwell, , Traralgon (City), and Traralgon (Shire): • Churchill regional tertiary education and research functions local service function • Moe sub-regional and some regional service functions • Morwell regional higher order retailing function regional distributive function (warehousing and storage) regional principal sector related manufacturing function • Traralgon - regional office specialisation sub-regional and some regional service functions

The availability of sufficient qu_antities and an attractive range of locations, types and quality of residential accommodation is a critical feature of the attractiveness of any region as a place to live. The Latrobe area has the benefit of being able to provide people with a wide range of residential locations ranging from a series of large towns, to small villages, to rural situations. The existence ofthis variety is one of the attractive features of the area. There is also a large housing stock and an increasingly wide variety of housing types and locations. The under-supply of residential land should not be a concern due to the proposed decline in population over the next 25 years and the existing supply of undeveloped residentially zoned land within the main towns. The main concern is the over-supply of residentially zoned land. It is possible in the Latrobe Valley to maintain an attractive range of choices, and to allow considerable scope for the operation of market forces within a framework of sensible urban planning.

Housing patterns have paralleled, and been primarily driven by, development and employment patterns in the principal sector. The housing sector is particularly sensitive to economic upturn and decline. While house and land prices increased until 1985, the number of houses for sale, house sales, building approvals and housing commencements all

12 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on. fluctuated between growth and decline from 1978 and 1987. All now indicate that the housing sector, as a component of the regional economy, is on the decline.

Rural residential living, generally defined as predominantly residential use of rural allotments between 0.4 and 10 hectares, is recognised as a valid land use and a significant lifestyle asset for the area. Significant areas of the municipality are proposed to be zoned Rural Living Zone and Low Density Residential Zone. The planning authority must have regard to Ministerial Direction No 6 Rural Residential Development and it must comply with Guidelines for Rural Residential Development, October 1997. This Direction relates to planning schemes prepared in accordance with Section 18 of the Planning and Environment (Planning Scheme) Act 1996.

The forecast number of occupied private dwellings in 2021 is 29,323. This is an increase of only 1,600 dwellings over a 25 year period, which averages to only 64 new dwellings required per annum.

2.11 Fire The high fuel loads in natural vegetation and on pasture land create a high fire potential in the area. Bushfires and grassfires are common in drier summers and occasionally, as in 1939, 1965, and 1983, are extensive and severe. A particular concern is the possibility of fire in the open cut brown coal mines. Fuel reduction burning is an important part of fire prevention strategies, particularly in areas of native vegetation.

With the growing popular interest with living in a rural environment on lots ranging in size from 0.4 to 10 hectares comes the added risk of fire. There is an increasing risk from fire starting either: 1) in the bush and encroaching into the residential areas; or 2) in the residential areas and moving into the bush. There are a number of rural residential type subdivisions in the La Trobe municipality (such as in the Traralgon South area and Yalloum North area) that have dead end roads exceeding 200 metres in length or service more than 8 lots. This is contrary to the objectives, performance criteria and minimum requirements of the Country Fire Authority in order to reduce fire hazard inherent in the subdivision of land.

2.12 Recreation and Tourism Recreation and tourism play an increasing role in the economic values of La Trobe due to the potential range of benefits to the area, including increased employment and an improvement in the range and quality of services available to residents. The natural features of landscape, flora and fauna, water and coastal areas to the south support a strong tourism and recreation industry estimated at $480 million per year for the area covered by the West Gippsland Catchment.

The main tourist areas include to the north: 1) Maffra, and the Avon River Valley including Lake Glenmaggie; and 2) Dargo, Licola and surrounds; and to the south: 3) the Gippsland Lakes resort area; and 4) the Grand Ridge and Tarra Valley area. The recreational values and uses of rivers and waterbodies in the area has been undertaken. Recreation uses can be divided into two main categories, viz water based activities (for example swimming, canoeing, fishing, and waterskiing) and water enhanced activities (for

13 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department oflnfrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on. example camping, picnicking, and touring). The Thomson River on the northern boundary of the Shire has been assessed as having one of the highest recreational ratings, for the River upstream of Cowwarr Weir to the Thomson Dam.

Other waterbodies within the Shire include Lake Narracan, north east of Moe, and Hazelwood Pondage, south of Morwell. These areas are often used for waterskiing, sailing, and other water based activities.

2. 13 Air quality The air quality of the Latrobe Valley has been, and will continue to be, a major environmental concern within the region. The concern is based on aesthetic, rather than health, grounds although parts of the area do suffer from a higher than normal incidence of respiratory disease. The community's perception of the air quality as being polluted stems primarily from two major historical problems - particulate matter from power station chimneys and coal dust from open cuts and offensive odours from Australian Paper's Maryvale Mill.

Both problems have been addressed and markedly reduced - the power stations have more efficient, better designed power stations with precipitators plus the retirement of the older offending power stations; and Australian Paper by the installation of odour reduction equipment. However, chimney plumes are still visible and occasional escapes of odoriferous gases still occur - so the perception remains.

There are still concerns with levels of odour, ozone, and fine particulate matter.

2.14 Demographic characteristics The Department of Infrastructure has published a number of statistical reports covering municipalities across Victoria. The relevant reports are: • Regional Victoria in Fact (Department of Infrastructure, 1998); • Victoria in Future (Department of Infrastructure, November 1996); and • Regional Victoria in Future 1996-2021 Regional Report - Gippsland (Department of Infrastructure, June 1997).

The population of the Shire had increased from 66,937 in 1981 to 70,503 in 1986, and then to 71,093 in 1991 (Attachment 3a). This population growth rate was due to increased economic opportunities in the Latrobe Valley and a boom in rural residential living, and the expansion of the metropolitan commuter belt into Gippsland. The population growth in the region has been geographically uneven. Most growth during the 1960's occurred in Morwell, Moe and Traralgon, while rural areas lost large numbers of people. This growth related to the industrial expansion, particularly in electricity generation, that occurred in these cities after the second World War and the enhancement of the Latrobe Valley as a large employment and service centre. This was coupled with the restructuring of the rural sector entailing increased capitalisation of farms and mechanisation in production. This process decreased the demand for labour in those activities, which in tum lead people to leave rural areas in search of employment.

14 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

During the 1970's and 1980's, this trend changed dramatically with rural areas having the majority of growth, while growth in the Latrobe Valley area slowed dramatically. The 1996 Census determined the enumerated population to be 67,444, and the Estimated Resident Population to be 71,103 (Attachment 3b). Rural residential development has become very popular and this has boosted the trends of rural population gain in the region.

In 1996, within the Shire as a whole, the largest age-cohort groups were the 5-17 and 35-49 year age groups. These age groups are similar to the percentage of the whole of rural Victoria. The structure of the La Trobe population, as a whole, is concentrated in the younger age groups from 0-49 years compared with the whole of rural Victoria (76.8% compared with 72.6%). Conversely, as a whole, La Trobe has fewer people aged over 50 years compared with the whole of rural Victoria (23.2% compared with 27.4%).

When individual towns are investigated more closely however, there are quite startling differences in the various age categories (Attachment 3c). Churchill, for example, has an extremely large number (22.6%) of people aged 18-24 which correlates with the proximity of the Gippsland Campus of Monash University. Tyers also has an extremely large number (33.9%) of people aged 5-17. In the older age brackets of 60 years and above, Moe (19.0%), Morwell (17.9%), and Yallourn North (17.2%) stand out as having higher percentages than other towns in the Shire. On the other hand, Churchill has 5.6% and only has 3.9%, aged over 60 years. These figures should be taken into consideration when planning and working out strategies for the various parts of the Shire. The Council, however, does not appear to want to differentiate between the parts of the Shire, especially between the towns of . Churchill, Moe, Morwell, and Traralgon.

The report Victoria in Future indicates that by the year 2021 the La Trobe Shire is projected to have a resident population of 71,842 which was based on an estimated population projection of73,459 in 1996. In 1996 this figure however was determined to be 71,103. Therefore, using the same armual average change as projected in Victoria in Future, the population in 2021 could be interpolated to be reduced to about 69,486.

The current concentration of population in certain age groups is set to change in the future (Attachment 3d). By 2021, it is expected that there will be increased number of persons for all categories aged 50 years and above, whereas for all age groups from 0-49 it is expected that the population will decrease. The area is also projected to have a lower share of the 20- 29 year olds.

The population projections (change in age structure) for La Trobe Shire between years 1996 and 2021 indicate: • an overall decrease in population of 1,617 persons, which is a projected decrease of 0.086 per cent per armum. This compares with an armual average increase of 1.27 for the Coast, an armual average increase of 0.85 for the Shire ofBaw Baw, an armual average increase of 1.1 for the , an armual average increase of 0.68 for the Shire of South Gippsland, and an armual average increase of 0.33 for Wellington. (Attachment 3e shows the armual population growth in Local Government Areas for the Gippsland Statistical Division) • a decrease in the number of persons aged 0-49 years, specifically, 1) a loss of between 0 and 500 people for persons aged 20-29; 2) a loss of between 500 and 1,000 people aged

15 ------

Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re 'on.

0-4, 15-19, 30-34, and 45-49 years; and 3) an even greater loss of between 1,000 and 1,500 people aged 5-14 and 35-44 years. • an increase in the number of persons aged over 50 years: specifically 1) an increase of between 0 and 500 people aged 50-54 and over 75 years of age; 2) a greater increase of between 1,000 and 1,500 people aged 55-59, and 65-74 years; and an even greater increase of 2,000 people in the age group 60-64 years.

These projections will have significant implications, both in the location and amount required, for likely: 1. housing demand, including various forms and types of accommodation; 2. land requirements, including various lot sizes; 3. education requirements; 4. health services, including catering for the needs for various age groups, such as infants and the elderly; 5. recreation facilities; 6. commercial services; and 7. community needs.

The estimated population of the Shire is expected to keep decreasing at an average annual change of between -0.15% to -0.03%. The Shire is expected to experience a net loss of 1,620 people over the next twenty-five years. Population growth is likely to occur in Traralgon whereas Morwell and Moe are expected to have modest or no growth at all. Rural areas that are more distant from regional centres or attractive natural features are expected to experience little or no population growth. Towns that are experiencing structural decline in their economies are also expected to experience little population growth because of the preference of people to move towards employment centres. Thus the Latrobe Valley cities are at a cross roads because future population growth is closely associated to economic development. By the late 1980's, the electricity industry had begun to restructure, and employment reductions associated with this had initiated population decreases in the Latrobe Valley.

In 1996, in the municipality 27.8% of male employees are tradespersons and other related occupations, this compares with the 21.2% for the whole of rural Victoria. Also, 16.9% of males are involved in intermediate production and transport compared with 13.3% for the whole of rural Victoria. Of female employees, 25.7% are involved in intermediate clerical, sales and service compared with 22.0% for the whole of rural Victoria, and 16.7% are involved in elementary clerical, sales and service compared with 13.9% for the whole of rural Victoria.

With regard to employment by industry in 1996 only 3.7% of males are involved in agriculture, forestry or fishing, compared with 14.9% for the whole of rural Victoria. However, 13.1 % of males are involved in electricity, gas and water, and 12.5% in construction industry compared with only 2.1 % and 9 .1 % respectively for the whole of rural Victoria. With regard to females, only 2.5% are involved in agriculture, forestry or fishing, compared with 9 .0% for the whole of rural Victoria. However, 20.1 % are involved in retail trade compared with 17.6% for the whole of rural Victoria, and 7.5% are involved in finance and insurance, and 8.2% in property and business services compared with 3.4% and 5.9% respectively for the whole of rural Victoria.

16 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re 'on.

With regard to income trends, the 1996 Census indicates that the individual persons aged 15 years and over with an annual income less than $7,774 was 55.2%, whilst the percentage of households receiving this amount was 24.9%. Within Rural Victoria, these percentages were 53.1%and23.6% respectively. This indicates that La Trobe has low average personal and household incomes, reflecting the level of welfare dependency in the region.

The economy is heavily reliant on the electricity industry and forestry. The employed workforce in 1996 was 24,307 people, of which 8.27% were employed in the electricity, gas and water industry, and 7.9% in construction.

17 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

3. La Trobe Planning Scheme - planning issues The Department of Infrastructure, has submitted written comments on the exhibited Planning Scheme to the Shire of La Trobe. Two meetings were held on 5 and 12 June 1998 where discussions were held between officers of the Department and Council. There is no need, however, to rewrite those comments, as they are included as an attachment to this submission and should be treated as part of this formal submission. (Attachment 4 shows a copy of the comments).

I wish to formally state that officers of the Department appreciate the cooperative approach adopted by Council officers in discussions with Departmental officers and feedback that has taken place since exhibition of the Scheme. It is envisaged that this will continue during the time the Council is considering the Panel's report and during the final stages of the amendment process, as changes are made to the Planning Scheme prior to adoption.

Some issues that have been found in the exhibited planning scheme have been agreed to be dealt with by Council prior to adoption.

The key considerations in reviewing the scheme have been aimed at ensuring: • that the content of the planning scheme does not conflict with the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF); • that the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) provides clear strategic directions for land use and development; • that the local policies provide guidelines that assist decision making for land use and development matters; • that the schedules attached to the zones and overlays are adequately completed and any inclusions are justified; and • that the maps are clearly defined.

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 sets out requirements about the content of a planning scheme, and procedural requirements for preparing a scheme. The scheme is prepared within the purpose of the Act under Section 1: The purpose ofthis Act is to establish a framework for planning the use, development and protection ofland in Victoria in the present and long term interests ofall Victorians. The Act is about the use, development and protection of land. In addition, Section 4 of the Act establishes the objectives of planning in Victoria; Section 6 sets out what a planning scheme can provide for; whilst Section 12 of the Act sets out the duties of a planning authority which in effect set the required content of the planning scheme. In preparing a planning scheme or amendment, a planning authority must have regard to the Minister's directions. In this regard Ministerial Direction No's 1, 6, and 8 are relevant when preparing this scheme and must be complied with.

18 ------

Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re 'on.

3. 1 La Trobe Strategy Prior to preparing the La Trobe Planning Scheme, the Department of Infrastructure gave the Council a $50,000 grant and the Commonwealth Government gave the Council a $100,000 grant to enable the formulation of the La Trobe Strategy.

The Strategy was adopted in December 1997 and was officially launched on 14 July 1998. It provides a strategic direction for the La Trobe Shire Council. This strategy has been reflected in the Municipal Strategic Statement. The La Trobe Planning Scheme aims to implement the Strategy's goals and objectives, and gives direction for La Trobe's future.

3.2 Schedules to various Zones Under the Schedules to the Mixed Use, Industrial 1, Industrial 3, Business 4, Rural, and Rural Living Zones , there are a number of various minimum and maximum areas listed. It is excellent that in some zones there are a range of sizes available depending on the specific criteria. There is however no justification given on why certain areas are given certain minimum or maximum areas and how those minimums and maximums were determined.

3.3 Heritage The Victorian Heritage Register as of 14 July 1998 contains the following 4 places as being important parts of our cultural heritage: Moe Loren (C 1853) - H1283 Toongabbie Mechanics Institute and Free Library (1883) Traralgon Court House (1886)- G368 Yallourn Yallourn ABC D and E Power Stations (1924, 1938, 1956, 1958, 1962) - Hl054

The following place should be included in the Heritage Overlay Schedule: • Moe Loren (C 1853) - H1283

The Mechanics Institute, Toongabbie and the Court House, Traralgon should have their Heritage Register numbers included in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.

Heritage Victoria have provided the Gippsland Regional Office with their comments on the La Trobe Planning Scheme. Their comments relate to the Heritage Overlay Schedule, mapping, and to the Local Planning Policy Framework. (Attachment 5 is a copy of Heritage Victoria's comments).

3.4 Amendment VC2 The Scheme will need to be adopted and approved in a format that reflects the changes made to the Victoria Planning Provisions under Amendment VC2. If any further amendments are made to the Victoria Planning Provisions before the Scheme is approved, these must also be included. The planning authority needs to ensure that any changes required as a result of any amendment are made prior to adoption, particularly changes required as a result of changes to the State Planning Policy Framework.

19 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

3.5 Use of Special Use Zone and Comprehensive Development Zone The planning authority needs to ensure that all the table of uses as shown are correctly written in respect of the land use terms and the concept of nesting. There are quite a few changes that need to be undertaken in the Schedules to the Special Use Zones and Comprehensive Development Zones. Corrections that need to be undertaken are detailed in the Department's comments in attachment 4. The planning authority should meet with the Gippsland Regional Office to discuss these issues.

3.6 Policy and Legislation The Policy and Legislation Unit of the Department have provided the Gippsland Regional Office with their comments on the La Trobe Planning Scheme. Their comments relate to their policy assessment as the Scheme reflects the State Planning Policy Framework. (Attachment 6 is a copy of the Policy and Legislation Unit's comments).

20 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

4 Land Use Zone and Overlay inconsistencies La Trobe Planning Scheme and adjoining Planning Schemes. Some inconsistencies have been identified between the adjoining zones and overlays used by the various municipalities. Where changes are considered appropriate, not all will need to be undertaken by La Trobe but rather by the adjoining municipality. The following discussion mentions these differences and if changes are deemed necessary by La Trobe, they have been highlighted with bold type.

4. 1 La Trobe and Baw Baw The northern and north western boundary of La Trobe joins the eastern and south eastern boundary of the Shire ofBaw Baw.

The Morwell-Thorpdale Road in the La Trobe Shire are zoned RDZI, however in Baw Baw the road is not zoned accordingly. Also, the Moe North Road (Moe-Rawson Road) in the La Trobe Shire is zoned RDZI, however in Baw Baw the road is not zoned accordingly.

Two areas of land north of Moe North Road, and around Purvis Road in the La Trobe Shire are zoned PUZI (service and utility) however the abutting zone in Baw Baw is zoned Rural. Discussions will need to take place with officers from Baw Baw to determine if these zonings are correct.

From Hunter Road in Baw Baw, in an easterly direction along the municipal boundary (to Wellington Shire/Thomson River) land is zoned PCRZ (except for four pockets ofland zoned Rural). Land abutting in the La Trobe Shire is zoned Rural (except for an area of land z.oned SUZI (Brown Coal), Tyers River is zoned PCRZ and a RDZI Zone). Discussions will need to take place with officers from Baw Baw to determine if these zonings are correct.

There are also some differences in land use zones between the municipal boundaries in the proximity of Moe, which is understandable.

With regard to overlays, generally south of the Princes Highway in Baw Baw, overlays include ESQ 1 (High quality Agricultural Land), Erosion Management Overlay and SLO 1 (Strzelecki Ranges). There are no overlays in the La Trobe Shire abutting these areas. Council should consider including appropriate overlays to protect areas of quality agricultural land and erosion management.

Baw Baw has included the Rural Floodway Overlay for the areas around the Latrobe and Tanjil Rivers. La Trobe has not included the Rural Floodway Overlay or Land subject to Inundation Overlay in any location within the Shire. Council should consider including appropriate flood or inundation overlays to protect areas from flood waters.

In Baw Baw, ES02 (Water Catchment) is proposed around Tanjil River and Tyers Park which abuts the boundary of La Trobe. La Trobe has no water catchments indicated. Council should consider including an appropriate water catchment overlay to protect water catchments ..

21 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

4.2 La Trobe and South Gippsland The south western and western boundary of La Trobe adjoins the north eastern boundary of the Shire of South Gippsland.

Within South Gippsland, land adjacent to the Old Darlimurla Road reserve is zoned PCRZ (Map 8), whilst within the La Trobe Shire land adjoining the same road reserve is included within a Rural zone (Map 26). Also, within South Gippsland land south and east of the township of Darlimurla is zoned PCRZ (Map 8), whilst within the La Trobe Shire land opposite is included within the Rural Zone (Map 26). Discussions will need to take place with officers from South Gippsland to determine if these zonings are correct.

With regard to Overlays, La Trobe, has used the Environmental Significance Overlay - Schedule 2 - (Water Catchment) south of the Township ofBoolarra and north of the (Map 26). South Gippsland have not placed this overlay in their abutting area.

Within the for various land parcels adjacent to La Trobe, South Gippsland has used ESOl (Area of Natural Significance), ES02 (Water Catchments) and ES07 (Areas Susceptible to Erosion) Overlays (Maps 8, and 21). Council should consider including appropriate overlays to protect water catchments, erosion areas, and areas of natural significance.

4.3 La Trobe and Wellington The eastern and south eastern boundary of La Trobe adjoins the western boundary of the Shire of Wellington.

La Trobe have included an area north west of Traralgon South (Map 31 ), and an area south of the Princes Highway east of Traralgon (Map 15) in the Environmental Significance 1 Overlay, however an adjoining area in Wellington is not included in the Overlay (Maps 33 and 51).

An area to the north and south ofTraralgon-Yarram Road is zoned Special Use Zone 1 in La Trobe (Map 15) however the adjoining area in Wellington is zoned Rural Zone (Map 33).

Wellington has placed the Latrobe River floodplain within the Rural Floodway Overlay (Map 33) whereas La Trobe has not used this Overlay at all. Council should consider including appropriate flood or inundation overlays to protect areas from flood waters.

Wellington has placed part of the Thomson River floodplain within the Rural Floodway Overlay (Map 8) whereas La Trobe has not used this Overlay at all. Council should consider including appropriate flood or inundation overlays to protect areas from flood waters.

22 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

5 References

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997, Agriculture Statistics

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1995, Documentation and Review of 1993 Victorian Floods, Volume 2, Gippsland Floods September 1993

Department of Infrastructure, 1996, Victoria in Future

Department of Infrastructure, 1997, Regional Victoria in Future 1996-2021 Regional Report Gippsland

Department of Infrastructure, 1998, Regional Victoria in Fact

Department of Water Resources Victoria, 1988, Report no. 27 - Review ofGippsland's Water Resources

Department of Water Resources Victoria, 1989, Report no. 44 - Nature Conservation Values ofthe Rivers and Catchments ofGippsland

Department of Water Resources Victoria, 1990, Report no. 30- Gippsland Water Strategy­ Directions Report

Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty. Ltd., 1979, Traralgon Creek Flood Study

Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty. Ltd., 1981, Traralgon Flood Study Stage 3

Historic Buildings Council Victoria, 1995, Victorian Heritage Register

Land Conservation Council, 1987, Latrobe Valley - Special Investigation, Final Recommendations

Latrobe Regional Commission, 1988, Steps ahead - Latrobe Regional Environment Policy

Latrobe Regional Commission, 1988, Steps ahead - Latrobe Regional Land Use Policy

State Rivers and Water Supply Commission Victoria, 1979, A Report on Flooding.from Traralgon Creek

Swan and Vol um, 1984, Assessment ofagricultural quality ofland in Gippsland

Vic Roads, 1990, Vic Roads 2000 Rural Arterial Roads Strategy Eastern Region

West Gippsland Regional Catchment and Land Protection Board, 1997, Regional Catchment Strategy

23 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department oflnfrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi stand Re ·on.

ATTACHMENT 1

Map of La Trobe

24 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ion.

ATTACHMENT 2

Traralgon Flood Plain Maps

25 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

ATTACHMENT 3a

1981, 1986, and 1991 Census statistics for La Trobe

Infrastructure Library

26 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

ATTACHMENT 3b

1996 Census statistics for La Trobe

27 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

ATTACHMENT 3c

1996 Census statistics for towns in La Trobe

28 ------

Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

ATTACHMENT 3d

Victorian Government's population projections for La Trobe

29 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·an.

ATTACHMENT 3e

Annual population growth in the Gippsland Statistical Division

30 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

ATTACHMENT 4

Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building and Development, Gippsland Region comments on the La Trobe Planning Scheme

31 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

These comments have been prepared by the Eastern Region of the Division of Local Government, Planning, and Market lnfonnation Services, within the Department of Infrastructure. These comments are not necessarily endorsed by the Minister for Planning and Local Government.

The general concerns, whilst extensive, do not presume to be comprehensive. It is recognised that further discrepancies with the Victoria Planning Provisions may be identified which will require consideration and detennination by Council as the planning authority.

Prior to adopting the La Trobe Planning Scheme, any amendments to the Victoria Planning Provisions which have occurred between the exhibition and adoption of the La Trobe Planning Scheme must be included by the planning authority. The implications of these changes need to be fully reviewed by the planning authority and the identification ofnecessary modifications to the scheme.

Unfortunately, unlike the other five draft planning schemes within the Gippsland Region, the draft La Trobe Planning Scheme was not offered to the Department to make comment upon prior to it going on exhibition. However, Council, as planning authority, is encouraged to work with the Department to refine and improve the new planning scheme, even by taking advantage of experience gained in other municipalities. For any queries, please contact Mrs Heather Hadley-Powell on (03) 51722677.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT

The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) appears to complement the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), and does utilise the same headings as the SPPF. In general tenns the MSS addresses and expands upon most of the components of the SPPF under the various strategic themes.

It is recommended that the numbering used in the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) is standardised to that used in the SPPF. That is, for example, use 21.01 and 21.02 rather than 21.1 and 21.2. This is clearly stated in the Victoria Planning System Toolkit on page 14, under 'Clause numbering'.

For easier readability of the Scheme it is recommended that the contents pages to the Scheme relating to the (LPPF) be expanded in a similar way that the SPPF has been expanded in the contents section, especially as the sections are not inserted alphabetically. In other words, the contents section should include the following: Under "21 Municipal Strategic Statement" 21.01 Introduction 21.02 Context 21.03 The Corporate Plan 21.04 La Trobe Strategy Plan vision 21.05 Settlements 21.06 Environment 21.07 Housing 21.08 Economic development 21.09 Infrastructure and under "22 Local Planning Policies" 22.01 Settlements 22.02 Environment 22.03 Housing 22.04 Economic development 22.05 Infrastructure 2 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Also for easier reading of the scheme, each page should indicate at least the clause number as some clauses run over many pages. The name of each clause would also help readers identify where they were in the scheme in relation to surrounding clauses. This is clearly stated in the Victoria Planning System Toolkit on page 14, under 'Headers, footers and page numbers'. 1n the standard clauses such as the State Planning Policy Framework, the standard zones, not including the schedules to the zones, the overlays, the particular provisions, the general provisions, and the defmitions, there is a footer that indicates the name of the section, and in relation to the zones, the actual zone is indicated.

Under clause 21.2-3 Population characteristics it states that "as at June 1996 Census (remuneration count) the population of the municipality was 70,367 persons". I think 'remuneration' is the wrong term that has been used, and the figure from "Victoria in Fact- Interim Report" gives the 1996 Census as 67,454 enumerated population excluding overseas visitors. The MSS goes on to say that "population forecasts for the next decade anticipate continuing population decline" and that "the strategic planning objective is to reverse this trend over the period of this Plan by creating and attracting new investment, new jobs, and hence creating a basis for reducing unemployment and then creating new growth". I congratulate Council in trying to turn this trend around. In case Council is unable to turn this trend around, maybe the Council should also plan for this decline in population. It is forecast in "Victoria in Future" that the population will continue to decline. The forecast for the 1996 population was thought to be 73,459. This has however now been amended to 67,454. In 2001 the population is predicted to have dropped to 66,948 based on an average annual change of -0.15% between 1996 and 2001. Based on an average annual change of -0.11 between 2001 and 2011 the population may be 66,212, and then possibly 66,014 by the year 2021 based on an average annual change of -0.03%.

Clause 21.2-4 Demographic characteristics goes on to highlight nine key demographic characteristics. In "Victoria in Future" the population which is split into age groups predicts that by the year 2011, the population aged 0-49 years will decline, however there will be an increase of 4.6% in the 50-59 year age bracket, and a 2.7% increase in persons aged 60-69, and 0.5% increase of persons aged 85 years and over, and there will be an increase of population by the year 2021 of2.2% in the 70-84 year age bracket. Other demographic characteristics, including the location of where younger families are located within the Shire, and where older people reside, should be investigated and cater for. For example, Moe had 17.2 % of its population being 60 years old and over as of the 1991 Census. There is no short or long ltmn objectives to cater for these demographic characteristics, and no mention of how the municipality will plan for these predictions in the future.

Clause 21.2-5 Opportunities for the future and clause 21.2-6 Investing for the future mention areas where the Council will: 1) assist business to exploit the competitive advantage of power generation in the area; 2) facilitate tourism developments in Moe; and 3) strive for the involvement of State and Commonwealth Governments in regional developments and to consider the impacts of their policies on regional areas. I believe this area could be increased and further expanded.

It is good that the La Trobe Shire Council's Corporate Plan 1996-1999 is referred to within the MSS under clause 21.3 The Corporate Plan. The MSS though only makes briefreference to the Corporate Plan, near the commencement of the MSS. I believe this could and should be strengthened. To achieve this, the MSS should indicate how it compliments the Corporate Plan, particularly in regard to Council's long term land use planning and development principles and objectives. There is a continuity problem with the Corporate Plan being for three years from 1996 to 1999, and that this does not coincide with the commencement of the MSS. For example, under Employment growth, within clause 21.3, reference is made to the Council creating "at least 2000 new jobs in the Shire in the three year period ending June 1998". This date will have been passed before the Scheme is even approved. 3 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

It is noted that the MSS does not include a Framework Plan (including maps) depicting the future strategic direction that Council sees the municipality aiming to achieve. It is suggested that the adopted planning scheme should include a Framework Plan within the MSS based upon the strategic principles adopted by the planning authority and complimenting the SPPF. The Framework Plan should indicate the future directions for land use and development in particular towns as depicted on their respective structure plans within the local policies. This would thereby depict the future strategic direction that Council sees the municipality aiming to achieve. For clarity, it may be considered appropriate to include the Framework Plan within a colour format. It must also be remembered that the future landuse framework (including maps) should identify the key elements of the strategy as well as illustrating the strategic direction of the municipality, rather than just indicating or showing existing conditions.

Under clause 21.4 LaTrobe Strategy Plan vision it is good that the Shire wishes to become known as a world leader in three areas, namely: 1) environmentally responsible, efficient and competitive use of brown coal; 2) energy research, education, and development of brown coal energy; and 3) environmentally responsible, sustainable timber production. The Shire also wishes to be a leading region in three areas, namely: 1) the supply of technical and professional skills and advice to the developing world; 2) the use of information technology, globally orientated and highly accessible to the world and an emerging national business centre; and 3) a supplier of fresh and processed agricultural farm products with a reputation for clean and green production. Most of the points in this vision rely on employers, other than the Council itself, in providing the economic progress and social development in order for the Shire to become a world leader or leading region. It is unclear how Council will ensure that employers will work with Council to achieve this vision.

The new planning system is based on clear strategic direction at both the State and local levels. The scheme must concisely and clearly express a strategic vision and policy basis. It must move logically from its policy basis and requirements to exercise of discretion. The MSS should contain the strategic planning, landuse and development objectives of the Council and strategies for achieving these objectives. There should be a general explanation of the relationship between those objectives and strategies and the controls on the use and development of land in the planning scheme. The MSS should also contain land use or development opportunities and constraints that are relevant to the municipality and which provide a context for local planning decisions. There should be clearly demonstrated links between strategic planning in the municipality, the objectives of surrounding municipalities in the region and the SPPF. If there is no statement of key land use and development issues and directions for the municipality it will be extremely hard for Council to be guided when a planning permit for a discretionary use is applied for.

Within Urban and Rural Settlement Strategies there is mention that development will be consolidated and unnecessary urban expansion and rural subdivision will be avoided. Further on under clause 21.5-1 Urban Form there is the statement that given the low level of population growth anticipated, expansion of urban areas beyond currently planned boundaries is not a major issue. Previous planning studies and strategic planning on which this planning scheme is based identify more than sufficient land to accommodate future urban development in all towns. This gives the reason why the urban areas have not been expanded, however there is no reason given why the amount ofresidentially zoned land is such a large amount. The introduction of the VPPs should be seen as the opportunity to view the La Trobe Shire as a clean slate with no prior zonings. The LPPF is then the strategy whereby the zonings can then be applied to various parts of the Shire. It appears, instead, that the zones have been translated across without any strategy.

___J 4 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

When constructing a new format planning scheme, there are several fundamental principles to be borne in mind. The new scheme is an expression of a considered vision and policies for an area and the planning requirements designed to achieve them., It is not a simple translation of past controls into the new format. There must be clear linkage between the objectives and outcomes sought by the MSS and local policies. The application of requirements such as zones, overlays, and local provisions must have a readily discernible basis in the SPPF or LPPF. The linkage should always be apparent. This does not mean that there must be a stated reason for the application of every requirement to every lot. From the top down, the reasons for the use of zones and overlays must be discernible from the MSS (including the Framework Plan) and Local Policies. There appears to be no clear strategy of how the vision, of consolidating urban and rural settlements for example, is to be achieved. The planning scheme maps have not significantly reduced the area zoned for residential development. More will be said of this later under the Zones section. There is also the statement that the quality and amenity of urban and rural areas will be enhanced. Again there is no strategy of how this is to be achieved. As the zones are so broad in that they prohibit a lot fewer uses than Council is used to, and the zones allow many uses with the issue of a planning permit, Council will be able to facilitate appropriate development if there are guidelines in the MSS in which Council can use in aiding their decision making.

With regard to detail, under clause 21.5-1 Urban Form the first dot point which starts with "In summary, ... ", this should not be a dot point but be the leading sentence prior to the following five dot points.

Under clause 21.5-2 Corridors there is a spelling mistake in the first paragraph under the Morwell Churchill Corridor. Under the Morwell Traralgon Corridor it states that the Council wishes to protect the corridor as a non urban area and to prevent the encroachment of development towards the airport and to maintain high speed road access between Morwell and Traralgon. With the development and use of land to the west ofTraralgon for major businesses, such as Wights Motor World and Colin Watson, already the corridor is being eroded with urban uses, and another use and development is being constructed to the west of Wights. The speed limit in this area has recently been reduced from 100 kilometres per hour to 90. To the east ofMorwell a new major industrial development and use has started which instead of being as close to the eastern boundary of Alexanders Road is separated by about 800 metres of undeveloped farmland. It is envisaged that there will be future requests to develop this area as well. These urban uses should be located in appropriately zoned land within the townships. The new regional hospital is being constructed in relative close proximity to the airport and the speed limit on the east bound lanes are expected to be reduced from 100 kilometres per hour to 80. 5 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Under clause 21.6 Environment, environmental matters for consideration could be expanded to include, amongst others: • the protection of high quality agricultural land from urbanisation; • effective erosion control in gullies; • measures to reduce the impact of flash flooding (this does not necessarily occur on floodplains); • measures to maintain the effectiveness of rivers and streams to carry out their main function of carrying and distributing water; • the provision of a safe and adequate water supply, sewerage system, energy system, and other public services; • the control of air pollution, water pollution, noise, and vibration control; • the transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes; • the disposal of non-hazardous wastes; • the progressive development of landscaping, tree planting, anti-litter measures; • the provision of bicycle paths, nature walks, community access to natural features and recreational activities and pursuits • the identification, preservation, and restoration of items of environmental heritage • the identification and clearance of sub-standard dwellings incapable ofrepair or improvement and the rehabilitation of blighted areas; and • the identification of natural resources and the prospective future demands for those resources as a reasonable precaution against their sterilisation and alienation, so that in future those resources could be made accessible for mining, fishing, extraction, harvesting, or felling;

Also air quality needs a dot point immediately before it.

Under Clause 21.6-2 Heritage the strategic direction is to protect and manage these assets and to ensure that future generations can benefit from these actions. Within the past decade there has been a number of completed heritage studies undertaken covering the Latrobe Valley.

Janice Horsefield was commissioned by the Latrobe Regional Commission to undertake "Latrobe Region Heritage Sites" which was launched in 1989. This study covers sites of: archaeological; botanical; geqlogical and geomorphological; historical; and zoological significance. Within the previous municipality of the , 10 sites were listed, of which 7 were of historical significance. Within the previous municipality of the Shire ofMorwell, 50 sites were listed, of which one was of archaeological significance, and 17 of historical significance. Within the previous municipality of the Shire of Rosedale, within the area which is now within the boundary of La Trobe, there were 4 sites of historical significance. Within the previous municipality of the , 17 sites were listed of historical significance. Within the previous municipality of the Shire ofTraralgon, 59 sites were listed of which two were of archaeological significance, and 14 of historical significance.

Chris Johnston, with funding provided by the Department of Planning and Housing, wrote "Latrobe Valley Heritage Study" which was published in 1991. This study was written as an historical document tracing the history of the settlement of the Latrobe Valley, agricultural activities, industrial activities, and forestry. It then went on to cover various modes and ways to transport people, animals, and goods. Housing styles, and township activities including churches, schools, local government, mechanics institutes, community buildings, government services, banks, and shops are covered, as well as cemeteries.

The previous municipality of the City ofTraralgon prepared the "Traralgon Heritage Study" which was prepared by Context Pty. Ltd. in 1992. This Study contains information on significant places which are differentiated into a list of significant places and a list of contributory places. Apart from individual buildings being identified, heritage precincts were also identified, of which seven were identified with having a definable heritage character. 6 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

All these documents above, provide a very sound basis for the Council to protect these assets to ensure future generations can benefit from their listing. However, Council has only placed five historical sites within the Heritage Overlay, of which three are covered by the Victorian Heritage Register. These are the Mechanics Institute in Toongabbie, the Court House and Post Office in Traralgon, and the Yallourn A, B, C, D, and E Power Stations in Yallourn.

Under Clause 21.7-1 Housing, the Council states that there is an existing supply of vacant land for new residential development, in both traditional suburban form and in rural residential subdivisions. The MSS goes on to state that in a period of forecast low growth, the emphasis will be placed on consolidation and infill development in the main urban settlements. There is no mention of how the Council determined the boundaries of residentially zoned land.

The Department has been concerned for a number of years about the large amount of residentially zoned land, especially around the major towns, and specifically to the north west ofTraralgon around Cross's Road and the Chenhall Crescent/Micheal Court area.

The Department wrote to the Council in January 1996 and expressed concern over the amount ofresidential zoned land that has remained undeveloped for over ten, even fifteen years. The Department suggested that some land north of Cross's Road may need to be back zoned to a rural zoning. The Department indicated that it was presumed that as part of the La Trobe Integrated Strategy Plan, the Council would investigate residential need in the future and prepare figures on residential supply and demand. Council officers gave an undertaking, to the Department, that the amount of residentially zoned land would be fully investigated.

It appears that the zoning of land and the amount of same zoned land has no strategic basis behind it, but rather a mere translation of zones has taken place. When choosing a zone or overlay to be applied within the La Trobe Planning Scheme, it must be justified through the MSS. In the 1995 Traralgon Residential Study, Council estimated that in the year 1999, 104 additional dwellings would be required, and by the year 2004, an additional 85 dwellings would be required. On current Council estimates of 1259 lots available from outline development plans, this would equate with over 13 years supply ofresidential land. Presumably not all residentially zoned land has an outline development plan connected with it. As such, it is presumed that there is a lot more zoned land that is required and the MSS gives no justification for this.

Under Clause 21.8-2 Activity centres there is mention made of the connection between all the town centres by convenient and high speed road, rail and other public transport. What is meant by the term 'high speed', especially with regard to road as a means of transporting goods and services.

Under Clause 21.8-3 Retailing, there is a plural 'tends' which should read 'tend'. The term 'Restricted Retail Premises' should be used to maintain its connection with the State standard definitions rather than 'Restricted Retailing Premises'. Also within the paragraph the word 'Permises' should be changed to 'Premises'. At the end of the first paragraph on the summary of current status of retail centres there is a semi colon, should there be more to the sentence, or should this be a full stop?

It is excellent that Council will be investigating oversupply of retail floor space. It is mentioned that additional substantial supply will be approved on the basis of community benefit. Often however, there is incremental increase which in the long term can equate to a substantial supply. Council will need to investigate the smaller, and what may seem to be minor, increases in retail floor space. 7 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

The MSS states that the emphasis needs to be on consolidation and redevelopment of existing retail facilities, with opportunities for expansion limited to retail forms which will provide net community benefit. As the VPP zones give more uses the opportunity to occur with the issue of a planning permit, Council may need to specifically list uses which they would discourage in certain location or areas as well as these uses which they would encourage in certain localities.

Under Clause 21.8-4 Industry there is a statement that there is an oversupply of industrial zoned land in the municipality. There is no reason given why Council has drafted the new Planning Scheme with an · oversupply of industrial zoned land. Both Morwell and Traralgon appear to have an oversupply of industrially zoned land. Council should seriously consider reducing the amount of industrially zoned land.

Most of the industrial areas seem to have grown in an ad-hoc manner, with many being close to, or adjacent to, sensitive uses, such as residential development. Council gives little indication of how it will manage the interface with sensitive uses, such as buffer type uses between industrial uses and residential uses, or even landscaping which may include vegetation screening, or even constructing bunds, earthen walls, or even other such barriers.

Under Clause 21.8-6 Agriculture it is indicated that there is a strong agricultural base which forms an important contribution to the local economy. It is not included by the Shire, however, trees planted or harvested for timber or wood should be included within the Agriculture Industry.

The Shire had approximately 1,5000 tonnes of softwood trees harvested for timber or wood pulp in 1996. The Shire also had 32,576 sheep and lambs, 11,780 milk cows, 17,581 dairy cattle, 36,875 meat cattle, and 71,507 layers, hens, and pullets producing 1,179,416 dozen eggs for human consumption. The shire also produced 26, 100 kilograms of honey including honey comb, and 460 kilograms of beeswax.

It is excellent that the Shire wishes to safeguard the agriculture resource base, however, there is little said of how this will be achieved within competing demands for various land uses.

Under Clause 21.8-7 Coal resources there is a statement that "this local policy relates to ... ". Local policies however are located further into the document with the local policy on coal resources being located under Clause 22.4-7.

It is good that the planning and development of the coal resource will be encouraged to consider a number of issues. One of these is the significance of fire as a major hazard. It, however, restricts that hazard only to people, plant, and equipment employed in the brown coal industry and the interruption of electricity supply. Planning and development should also consider landuses and developments surrounding the coal resource which could be impacted upon should a fire emanate from the coal resource and impact on the surrounding area. Also, there is the possibility of fire from a surrounding land use or development impacting on the coal resource area.

It is good that there is the encouragement of temporary uses to establish, and existing uses to continue, on land until the land is required for brown coal winning or processing. ------

8 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Although one of the criteria for the definition of economically winnable coal is a depth limitation to 200 metres below ground level, this is an arbitrary limit. In practice, the winning of a coal seam extending below this depth would not cease at the 200 metre depth but would continue downwards following the base of the seam, which may be as deep as 350 metres. There is nothing mentioned of what will happen to the land when coal winning ceases at any of the existing, or even future, brown coal mines. The open cut mines take up an enormous area both in vertical and horizontal distance, and in the area for overburden, and other ancillary stockpiles. The Shire could possibly intimate the possible uses that the various mines could be put to when each area is no longer used for coal winning.

Under Clause 21. 8-8 Coal related buffer areas Council states that the provision of buffers is in accordance with sound planning principles. The Council suggests that two possible uses which may be appropriate within the buffer areas are extensive animal husbandry and leisure and recreation. Council, however goes on to suggest other possible uses such as: industry which does not pose a fire hazard; and transport facilities. These two uses, especially the developments that may be associated with the uses, could be affected by subsidence if they're located within the buffer area.

The Interdepartmental Committee on Brown Coal Resource Boundaries recommended that a separation of 1,000 metres buffer be adhered to in order to avoid possible damage from subsidence. The area to the north of the Morwell Open cut has been dropping at an approximate rate of35 millimetres per annum, and there is some lateral movement as well. The 1,000 metre buffer distance would help to prevent any possible affects that ground movements would have on any uses or developments close to the open cut mines. Council is congratulated on maintaining the urban buffer at 1,000 metres.

Under Clause 21.9 Infrastructure the strategic direction of Council is stated as limiting urban development and consolidating the existing urban form. Should the word 'development' be changed to the word 'expansion'? Also, ifthe Council strategy is to limit urban development/expansion, and instead consolidate the urban area, then why has the Council zoned so much land Residential 1 Zone?

It is stated that any new development will require development contributions for the provision of a minimum standard of infrastructure. The previous system of collecting development contributions, or levies, were obtained under Section 62 (2)(h) of the Planning and Environment Act, by way of conditions placed on planning permits. These provisions were repealed at 31 May 1997, and levies may now be obtained only in accordance with the provisions of the new legislation.

There is no Development Contributions Plan included within the proposed Planning Scheme, and the Development Contributions Plan Overlay has not been used. If the Council wants development contributions to be used as a source of funding, a DCP must be prepared. The DCP should become the funding component of a local structure plan or other approved plan, and be incorporated into the Planning Scheme.

Under Clause 21.9-2 Transport there appears to only be support for an effective and efficient public transport strategy. The Council should be linking transport needs and requirements with other strategic statements. For example, for the tourism strategic statement, Council believes that it will be important to build on their natural and cultural assets, as well as their rural industries, arts and crafts, and history. The strategy for tourism also states that Moe is particularly well placed to improve its position as the focal point for tourists to the Shire and to other attractions in the Gippsland Region. As such, the Shire's transport strategy should reflect and follow on from this, giving Council direction on where roading infrastructure may need to be expanded or upgraded.

There is no mention in the transport strategy regarding rail, or the coordination of using public and private transport. For example, the railway stations linking with private car and bicycle parking. There is also no mention of bicycle routes. 9 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Again, with regard to the tourism strategic statement, the La Trobe Shire is well located from Melboillne in that it is approximately two hours drive between Melbourne and the townships within La Trobe Shire. As such, many tourists and travellers who pass through the area to go to the Gippsland Lakes and further, travel pulling a caravan, trailer, or boat. Most carparking in the towns are unsuitable for cars with trailers, caravans, or boats. As such, has the La Trobe considered their needs with regard to parking of long 'articulated' vehicles within the townships that they pass? These tourists and travellers may drive on through the towns if they cannot easily find a suitable place to park and so the Council has lost their custom.

The transport strategy appears to only cover the movement of people, and gives no strategy with regard to the movement of goods, including livestock, timber, and hazardous materials. With the location of Australian Paper and the brown coal mines, there is quite a large movement of very hazardous materials at certain times, along roads within the Shire. There appears to be little thought given to planning for these various transport movements, for example, how other uses and developments might have an effect on the transport system, or how the transport might have an effect on other uses and developments.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES

Clause 22 details all the local planning policies applicable to the municipality. I note that the policies are generally linked to the MSS and are even in the same headings within the MSS, thereby clearly linking the policies to the MSS. It is good that each of the Local Planning Policies state where they are to be applied, however, apart from a few instances, most of the 'Objectives' and 'Policy' could relate to any scheme rather than be specific to the La Trobe Planning Scheme. I believe the Local Planning Policies could be further strengthened by further expanding on the elements relevant to the La Trobe Shire.

The Council may wish to consider the appropriateness of introducing additional policies; particularly to assist a responsible authority in deciding upon applications for planning permits and also to assist applicants with regard to what should be submitted with an application. In some of the local policies there are Decision.Guidelines included however some policies don't have these guidelines. This is the case with regard to Clause 22.1-1 Urban form, Clause 22.1-2 Corridors, Clause 22.2-4 Biodiversity conservation, Clause 22.4-1 Activity centres, Clause 22.4-2 Retail, Clause 22.4-3 Industry, Clause 22.4-6 Timber production, Clause 22.5-2 Car parking, and Clause 22.5-3 La Trobe Regional Airport. It must be remembered, however, that any policy must be linked to the MSS.

Remember also, that these are policy statements, not controls. They are saying what the responsible authority will do in specified circumstances or what is the responsible authority's expectation of what should happen. A policy statement cannot say must or shall, or insist that an applicant do something, this would be a control and not a policy. Clauses which appear to be controls rather than policies are mentioned in more detail under each clause.

For a policy that has multiple policies due to sub-headings (Clause 22.4-2 Retail and Clause 22.4-7 Coal resources), the policy should be worded in the same format as that shown on page 23 of Attachments within the Manual. For instance, the lead in sentence should be strengthened so as to cover the various aspects, such as "It is policy that the following matters be taken into account when considering applications to use and develop land ... ". 10 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Under Clause 22.1-1 Urban Form one objective is "to plan land uses within the corridors between the urban settlements to retain a rural character in order to maintain high landscape qualities and to contribute to the individual character of each urban settlement.". This objective appears to be contrary to one of the policies in Clause 22.1-2 Corridors which states that "land within the Morwell-Traralgon Corridor to the east ofMorwell and north of the Highway may be developed and used to accommodate high amenity industry". Another Corridors policy which is contrary to an objective under Urban Form is that "the Morwell-Churchill Corridor be retained and the development and use of heavy industrial industry be supported".

Under Clause 22.1-2 Corridors should the "city of La Trobe" be changed to the 'Shire of La Trobe'? One of the policies states that "the Morwell-Traralgon and Moe-Morwell Corridors be retained as non urban in character and land uses may be considered where, by their nature, they generate high degrees of conflict in urban settings, but which require high degrees of access." In the Morwell-Traralgon corridor the policy is to accommodate high amenity industry which provides large low density development. These types of industry could be located in appropriately zoned land on roads which gain access from the highway but do not directly have access onto the highway. Many uses that require highway frontage do so to gain exposure to passing trade. These types of uses would be more retail in nature than low density high amenity industries or warehouses.

The uses which can generate high degrees of conflict in urban settings would appear to include various industrial uses, especially those which may emanate noxious or offensive odours or fumes, or include dangerous goods and hazardous chemicals. These types of uses do not appear to be those that Council would like to locate along the highway frontage. Therefore there appears to be some inconsistency in the types of uses that could be located on the highway frontage between Morwell and Traralgon.

The third policy states that no intensification or redevelopment will be permitted. The fourth policy states that development must be non urban in character. These are both controls rather than policies.

Under Clause 22.2-1 Flooding the policy applies to areas which are subject to inundation and flooding in both urban and rural areas. However, upon perusing the use of appropriate overlays, these are not utilised and I strongly suggest that Council closely reassesses this action. Two land management overlays which would be appropriate are the 'Rural Floodway Overlay' and the 'Land Subject to Inundation Overlay'.

In the existing Traralgon (City) Planning Scheme, there is a zone dedicated to help plan use in flood areas titled 'Streamside and Floodland Zone'. In the existing Morwell Planning Scheme, there is a Special Policy Area dedicated to protecting floodways titled 'Stream Protection and Floodway Area'. The purpose of this Policy Area is to minimise the risk of flood damage by limiting building development adjacent to flood prone waterways and to allocate uses to these areas which are least affected by flooding.

The last policy in Flooding states that in areas which are subject to less frequent, slower and shallower flooding, "development and use should be in accordance with planning guidelines for flooding". What are these planning guidelines? Is the Council referring to 'A Planning Guide for Land Liable to Flooding in Rural Victoria'?

Under the decision guidelines, the point that proposed building envelopes for houses must provide an adequate effluent disposal area which is free from flooding is a control, rather than a policy. The last decision guideline mentions that works that would obstruct flows are inappropriate in rural areas. Surely such works would be inappropriate in any location that obstructs flood flows - it should not just be specific to rural areas. 11 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Under Clause 22.2-2 Hill areas the third decision guideline appears to be grammatically flawed. The sentence does not make sense saying that there is the need to retain vegetation cover... to reduce by screening and the use of suitable materials. Is it meant to be two dot points rather than one?

Under Clause 22.2-3 Fire Safety the second decision guideline states that fire prevention measures will be in accordance with the relevant fire prevention guidelines. What and where are these guidelines? Are the fire prevention guidelines prepared by the Council or the relevant fire authority? Should the guidelines be included as an incorporated document?

Under Clause 22.2-5 Heritage one of the objectives is to protect places of significance, and it is policy to identify, protect, and manage all heritage values and assets. If this is the case, why have the La Trobe Shire Council only included five sites under the Heritage Overlay? As mentioned previously, the Latrobe Valley has had three notable heritage studies undertaken within the past ten years -'Latrobe Region Heritage Sites', 'Latrobe Valley Heritage Study', and the 'Traralgon Heritage Study'. These three documents provide a very sound basis for Council to protect heritage assets. If sites that are worthy of protection are not protected under the Planning Scheme, the assets will be unable to be protected from demolition for example.

The second decision guideline states that regard will be made to the Aboriginal cultural resource management grid map. Where is this map located? Should it be included as an incorporated document?

Under Clause 22.3 Housing, it is stated that the policy applies to residential development and use. The objectives however seem to apply more to residential subdivisions within towns, or in rural residential areas. Should the objectives cover residential use and development within rural areas, commercial business areas, and even industrial for caretaker dwellings for example? ·

The first objective is to contain new residential subdivision within residential areas shown on the local structure plans and planning schemes for each town. Where are the local structure plans? The structure plans should be included in the MSS. What is the Council referring to with regard to planning schemes for each town? How does the policy cope with new areas which are not part of a designated town or residential area, such as Hazelwood North and Jeeralang Junction? What is Council's policy with regard to servicing these outlying growing areas?

Under Clause 22.4-1 Activity centres the policy applies to the 'main' activity centres, however the first objective is to strengthen and reinforce existing 'major' activity centres. The same terminology should be used so as to reduce any confusion. The third policy states that no new major freestanding retail or office development will be permitted. This is a control rather than a policy.

The ninth policy states that "development and use in activity centres will provide for the movement of people and goods ... particularly for short and long term car parking". Has the Council considered the parking requirements of cars that are pulling a trailer, caravan, or boat? The Shire of La Trobe is a major thoroughfare for travellers to and from the Gippsland Lakes, and other destination points further to the east. Many of the existing carparking arrangements in the towns do not cater for these types of travellers.

Under Clause 22.4-2 Retail the last objective of the major retail centres appears to be missing a word or two as it currently states that the objective is "to encourage diversity between the major retail centres through urban maintain the individual attraction of each centre". 12 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

For the policies under Retail, I reiterate what was previously commented upon within my fourth paragraph under Local Planning Policies. The sentence stating that "It is policy that the following matters be taken into account when considering applications to use and develop land ... " should be located above the italic heading of Major retail centres. If the statement "It is policy that:" is placed under the italic heading then it should also be placed under the italic headings for Restricted retail premises, and for Neighbourhood centres and smaller town retailing centres.

There are a large number of vacant shops/offices within the major retail area ofTraralgon. It appears that any new development, such as that to the south of the Highway and north of the railway line, is taken up by existing operators rather than new businesses to the town, and the vacated premises seem to be left vacant for many months. It is all well and good to look at building approvals for the town and believe that there is a resurgence of activity, but little appears to be done with the large number of vacant premises in the heart of the major retail centres.

The policy states that redevelopment and upgrading of retail facilities within existing retail centres will be encouraged provided it contributes to net community and retail benefit. This is the same criteria used when Council considers new retail expansion. It appears that there is no hierarchy between new or existing development and use. Council may allow more new retail expansion and less redevelopment and upgrading, which would cause a number of vacant retail space within the towns. This will not give the town a vibrant image.

The policy for Restricted retail premises states that these uses would be carefully controlled through the zoning ofland. The objectives of the VPP zones is not to control use. It is up to Council to prepare guidelines which officers and Councillors can use when considering applications for permit required uses. These guidelines should be included in the MSS.

Under Clause 22.4-5 Rural the policy states that it applies to rural areas. What does the Council define as rural areas? Does it include Rural residential subdivisions? Is it restricted to rural zoned land which may be used for industrial, commercial, or various other types of uses, or does it cover rural uses on any type of zoned land?

One of the objectives it to ensure that quality agricultural land is protected. How does the Council define "quality"? As the word 'high' quality is not mentioned, the quality must be broader than that. Are there various degradations of quality, such as Class I and Class 2 agricultural quality? If so, these should be clearly indicated for both proposed applicants who wish to use the land, and for Council officers and Councillors to know what is meant by the objective. There should be a map indicating the areas Council believes show quality agricultural land.

Under the third dot point in decision guidelines, the responsible authority will consider "the effect on attractive views or the rural or natural landscape". Is this meant to be "of' the rural or natural landscape? Under the fifth dot point in decision guidelines, what is meant by "the effect of the safety of the roads"?

As mentioned above, before deciding on an application the responsible authority will consider the attractive views, however, there is no mention regarding the consideration of wildfire, flood, soil erosion, or other hazards in rural areas.

Under Clause 22.4-6 Timber production the "policy applies to plantations and timber". What are the plantations of? Should it read 'plantations of timber'? The definition of a plantation seems to be missing some wording. To define a plantation as "A plantation is considered to be an area which has previously been cleared". If taken literally, this could mean that the urban residential area which was cleared to enable development could be defined as a plantation. Within the second policy dot point there is a spelling mistake for the word 'important'. Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Under Clause 22.4-7 Coal resources policies, I reiterate what was previously commented upon within my fourth paragraph under Local Planning Policies. The sentence stating that "It is policy that the following matters be taken into account when considering applications to use and develop land ... " should be located above the italic heading of Natural environment. If the words "It is policy that:" are used then these should be placed above the italic heading for Natural environment, as well as above the italic headings for Social planning, Water resources, Timber production, Transport, and Rural areas.

Under the policy for Rural areas, the type of land use which should be strongly encouraged should be any land use which does not require development which would later have to be removed. This could be Extensive animal husbandry as well as Intensive animal husbandry, and various types of Crop raising. It could also include various forms of Leisure and recreation. Land uses which require development should only be encouraged ifthe landowner/occupier is aware of the coal resource beneath which may be required in the future.

The map 5 titled Coal Resources indicates areas zoned Special Use Brown Coal Zone and Other coal areas. There is no indication given on the timing of need or the category of coal in these areas. A map with the category of the coal indicated would be worthwhile and would be easy to obtain considering the maps are already available. A map which is of a larger scale would be easier to read the actual boundaries of the coal. This would be so much easier for people reading the maps rather than the scale of Map 5 which is 1:200,000.

A lot of previous work has been done to determine when various areas of land would be required for coal resource development. The Amendment to various planning schemes in the region, titled RL 1 to the Latrobe Regional Section of a number of planning schemes, clearly defined the boundaries of Category A, Category B, and Category C Coal. The maps which are part of Amendment RLl are at various scales depending on the mapping of the area, notably 1: 10,000, 1:25,000, and 1:30,000. It would be a pity if this information was not utilised or even lost over time, especially as the first decision guideline requires the planning authority and responsible authority to consider when the land is expected to be required for coal resource development.

With regard to the policy statements relating to conflicting land uses, the word 'must' is used. This should be a policy rather than a control.

Under Clause 22.4-8 Coal buffers the policy states that it "applies to the four identified coal related buffer areas shown on Map 6". Map 6 however shows only three different areas of which only one of the three is indicated as being a buffer. If the map is titled correctly and it is meant to only indicate the location and extent of the four buffers, then the map should not also indicate the Special Use Brown Coal Zoned land, nor the Other coal areas. These two areas are already indicated on Map 5 anyway.

A lot of previous work has been done (Amendment. RLl) to clearly define the boundaries of the Urban buffer, which are at various scales depending on the mapping of the area, notably 1: 10,000, 1:25,000, and 1:30,000. It would be a pity if this information was not utilised or even lost over time, especially as the policy basis is to minimise the land use conflict between the coal resource development and other development and use in the municipality.

Under the heading "Policies", the first paragraph starts by stating "It is policy that...", and the second paragraph states that "Within land identified as coal related buffer areas, it is policy to:". This is different to all other clauses which have policies. All previous clauses have the heading "Policy" and then a short statement "It is policy that:" and then the various policies are listed in dot form. There should be consistency in how the various local policies are written and set out.

The second, third, fourth and fifth dot points should change the words "allotment" and "allotments" to "lot" and "lots" to avoid confusion with terminology used in the Subdivision Act. ------

14 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Under Clause 22.4-9 Stone resources it is stated that the policy applies to land identified as an Extractive Industry Interest Area. Where is the map which indicates this area? There does not appear to be an overlay used or a policy map within the MSS. It will therefore be impossible to apply this policy.

Under Clause 22.5-1 Transport it states that other main relevant policies are urban form, activity centres, and the Morwell Traralgon corridor. The Transport policy should relate to any other policy that requires the transportation of people, goods, or materials. One of the objectives of the policy is "to maintain and upgrade regional road links between Melbourne and the Shire, as well as links to East Gippsland and the south-eastern region of New South Wales". This objective reiterates the east west direction of transport. Is Council not wishing to expand transport north and south? Under the Tourism strategic statement under Clause 21.8-5, it starts off by stating that "La Trobe is a gateway to Gippsland, one of the key tourist destinations for Victorians". It would be a pity if it was the gateway however the 'gates' were closed for anyone travelling north or south from the Princes Highway. The Tourism strategic statement goes on to state that "Moe is particularly well placed to improve its position as the focal point for tourists to the La Trobe Shire and to other attractions in the Gippsland region". From Moe you can travel north to Blue Rock Lake, Moondarra Park, Baw Baw National Park, Lake Thomson, and Walhalla, for example, or south to Wilsons Promontory National Park.

Another objective of the transport policy is "to maintain and upgrade road access between the principal urban areas within the municipality". The principal urban areas of the municipality are Moe, Morwell, Traralgon, and Churchill. As the Princes Highway, which is the regional road link between Traralgon and Moe, is fully funded and maintained by Vic Roads, and the road between Churchill and Morwell is classified as a Main Road, this would be the only road access between the principal urban areas which is maintained by Council through funds fully provided for from Vic Roads.

There should be an objective that specifically relates to work, and/or funding that the Council would need to undertake with respect of transport. There are also no objectives that specifically relate to the facilities provided at, or by, the airport, or railway line network. There is only reference made to public transport, which is more akin to people movement by bus, and taxi service, and possibly rail. There are no specific objectives relating to transport movement of good or materials .

. The third policy states "that there is adequate provision for car parking". What about other types of vehicles, such as buses, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, and vehicles pulling trailers, caravan, and boats?

Under Clause 22.5-2 Car parking under the heading "Policy", the first paragraph starts by stating "It is policy that, unless ... ". The policy goes on to state "The policy in relation to carparking demand management is as follows: ... ", "The policy on reduction or waiving of car parking requirements is as follows: ... ", and "The policy with regard to cash-in-lieu contributions is that...". This is different to all other clauses which have policies. All previous clauses, other than Coal buffers have the heading "Policy" and then a short statement "It is policy that:" and then the various policies are listed in dot form. The various topics are shown as heading with the various policies underneath. There should be consistency in how the various local policies are written and set out.

As mentioned previously, a policy statement cannot say must or shall. Under the first paragraph of the Car parking policy it states that " ... car parking provisions shall be in accordance with ... ". 15 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

To maintain consistency with drafting in the definitions the uses as listed in the table should have an upper case letter for the first word and the following words for the same use must be in lower case. Specifically: • Department store rather than Department Store; • Restricted retail premises rather than Restricted Retail Premises; • Betting agency rather than Betting Agency; • Place of assembly rather than Place of Assembly; • Funeral parlour rather than Funeral Parlour; and • Medical centre rather than Medical Centre. Also, for ease of reading uses should be either listed alphabetically or even grouped so all Retail premises are listed alphabetically, and so on.

Under the policy in relation to car parking demand management, under the third dot point, the term "temporal" sharing of car parking facilities might be better understood by the lay person reading the scheme as 'time-sharing'. Under the policy on reduction or waiving of car parking requirements, the second last clear dot point seems to need splitting into two clear dot points.

With regard to the cash in lieu contributions policy, the previous City ofTraralgon had an excellent system which had greater payments per car space the further you went away from the central activity centre. This was as an incentive to maintain businesses within the centre. With usually cheaper land outside the central activity centre, ifthere is also cheaper car parking levies, there is little incentive to keep businesses within the centre of the towns.

Under Clause 22.5-3 La Trobe Regional Airport the map 7 indicates the "Latrobe Regional Airport Airport Environment Policy Area". Is the name La Trobe or Latrobe? Whichever it is, the policy name, the map, and terminology within the policy must be the same. The map shows two circular areas with one within the other. Both of these circular areas are hatched the same. What the significance of the two circular areas? If they are not indicated in a legend on the map, and there is no difference in relation to the policy, the inner circular line should be removed to avoid any confusion in reading the map.

Under the first policy dot point, the word "must" musl be removed, as this is a policy and not a control. Where is the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces Plan located? Is there only one policy and that relates to building height, or is there a page missing after the map? 16 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

ZONES

It must be remembered that any requirement within a Schedule to a zone must be justified through the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF). Under Section 12A(3) of the Planning and Environment Act: A municipal strategic statement must contain - (a) the strategic planning, land use and development objectives ofthe planning authority; and

(b) the strategies for achieving the objectives; and

(c) a general explanation ofthe relationship between those objectives and strategies and the controls on the use and development ofland in the planning scheme; and

(d) any other provision or matter which the Minister directs to be included in the municipal strategic statement.

Clause 12A(3)(a) and (b) require an MSS to contain objectives, and strategies for achieving objectives. There is no explanation of the relationship between those objectives and strategies and the controls on the use and development ofland in the Planning Scheme as required by Clause 12A(3)(c). In other words, there needs to be an explanation of why particular zones and overlays have been applied where and what objectives they reflect. The application of zones and overlays should be one of the strategies designed to implement objectives.

Under Clause 32.04 Mixed Use Zone, the location specified in the Schedule is not justified in the MSS. Also, does the "south side of Shakespeare Street" mean all land to the south of Shakespeare Street, or does it refer to land which has a boundary on the south side of Shakespeare Street? The wording should be changed so there is no confusion in its interpretation. The reasoning of how Council determined the area of maximum combined leasable floor area of office, shop (other than adult sex book shop) and for trade supplies, is also not mentioned or justified in the MSS.

Under Clause 33.01Industrial1 Zone, and Clause 33.03 Industrial 3 Zone, the location specified in each of the Schedules to the zones, which covers all Industrial 1 and 3 zoned land respectively, is not justified in the MSS. Also, the reasoning of how Council determined the area of minimum leasable floor area for lighting shop and for restricted retail premises (other than equestrian supplies, lighting shop, and party supplies) is not mentioned or justified in the MSS.

Under Clause 34.04 Business 4 Zone, the location specified in the Schedule to the zone, which covers all Business 4 zoned land, is not justified in the MSS. Also, the reasoning of how Council determined the area of minimum leasable floor area for lighting shop and for restricted retail premises (other than equestrian supplies, lighting shop, and party supplies) is not mentioned or justified in the MSS. 17 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Under Clause 35.01 Rural Zone, the minimum area for which no permit is required to use land for a dwelling, and the location which covers all Rural zoned land is not mentioned or justified in the MSS: Also the minimum subdivision area, and the location of where it applies is not mentioned or justified in the MSS. The wording "All other land" under the heading 'Land' where it occurs for the minimum subdivision area, should be replaced with the wording "All other land included within the Rural zone". In this way it is clear that the land has to be within the Rural zone. Also, the description of where the 8 hectare minimum subdivision area is to be applied is difficult to understand the extent. It states that it is north of Princes Drive and east of Alexanders Road up to the Special Use - Brown Coal Zone, Morwell. On Planning Scheme Map 14 there is no mention made of Princes Drive, and it appears to possibly be named Princes Highway, and Alexanders Road is named Alexander Road. This inconsistency and confusion will need to be rectified in order to avoid any confusion. The extent of how far north the provision covers is unclear. Is it as far as Old Melbourne Road which then becomes zoned Industrial 2 Zone, or does it also cover the Rural zoned land to the east of the Industrial 2 zoned land?

Under Clause 35.03 Rural Living Zone, the minimum subdivision areas cover various amounts, and the location of where they each apply is not mentioned or justified in the MSS.

With regard to the specific locations: Quarry Road Yallourn North, changes its name near the southern end to Murray Road. Is this area also included in the Schedule? If the Murray Road section is not included, where does one road start and the other finish? It is extremely hard to see on Planning Scheme Map 1. Does it cover all land zoned Rural Living Zone in this area or only those lots which have frontage to Quarry Road? If the description of the land was taken literally it would only apply to the actual Quarry Road, Yallourn North. This is similar to every other description of land that only states a road name. Is Thompson Road, meant to be Thompson Drive as depicted on page 146 in the Country Fire Authority Gippsland Rural Directory for Regions 9 and 10 (CF A Map Book) Which is the correct terminology? I was unable to locate Rainbow Drive, Toongabbie North on the maps available. Is Weir Road, meant to be Cowwarr Weir Road, as listed on Planning Scheme Map 15?

The areas listed by estate name could be difficult to clearly define boundaries for, especially if over time one subdivision rolls over into the next with no clear demarcation. It would be better to name the actual land that is bounded by certain roads, or that front certain roads, than subdivision estates. The area specified in the Schedule as Tandarra Estate, Glengarry North, I found difficult to locate. On map 530 in the CF A Map Book there is an area listed as Tjalla Estate of which there is a road named Tindara Drive. On Planning Scheme Map 15 there are no road names marked in the area. What is the correct location?

Is Archibolds Lane, Tyers meant to be Archbolds Land? Is Riverview/Curtis Courts, Traralgon and surrounds meant to be Riverview Drive? I was unable to locate Curtis Court on the maps available. Is Nicholi Road, Traralgon meant to be Nicholi Drive as shown on Planning Scheme Map 21? There is no Minniedale Road shown on the Planning Scheme Maps, is it the same as Minniedale North Road as shown on Latrobe Valley map 8 in the CFA Map Book?

I was unable to locate a Riggalls Road in Traralgon. There is a Riggall Road in Traralgon the runs north south off McMahon Street, however there is no proposed land zoned Rural Living Zone. There is a Riggals Road north ofGlengarry shown on map 530 in the CFA Map Book, and a Riggalls Road north west of Glengarry shown on page 166 in the CFA Map Book. I was unable to locate Erinmore Court, Traralgon and surrounds, and Turnbulls Drive, Traralgon and surrounds. 18 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

The schedule lists land named Hazelwood North. Where exactly does 'Hazelwood North' start and finish? There is no town or area named as such on the Planning Scheme Maps, let alone an area which has clearly defined boundaries.

Darliamurla Road, Boolarra is not shown on Planning Scheme Map 26 or Map 30. On page 182 in the CFA Map Book there is a Darlimurla Road, that runs from Piggery Road and it extends into Duke Street, is this the same road? If so, only one or two lots are proposed to be zoned Rural Living Zone in this short road.

Macintoshs Road and Todd Road, Boolarra are not shown on Planning Scheme Map 26 or Map 30. On map 554 in the CFA Map Book there is a Todd Road and a Macintosh Road to the north west ofBoolarra. Which is the correct terminology, Macintoshs or Macintosh Road?

Gilberts Road, Whitelaws Track, Explorers Road, Middle Creek Road, Healys Road, and Brewsters Road, Boolarra are not shown on Planning Scheme Map 26 or Map 30. These roads appear to be more akin to Yinnar South than to Boolarra. On Map 554 in the CF A Map Book, there is a Healeys Road. Which is the correct terminology, Healys or Healeys Road?

On Planning Scheme Map 27 and Map 28, there is a McDonald Way, however there is no road titled East McDonald Way, Churchill.

South Glendonald Road, Churchill is not shown on Planning Scheme Map 26. On Map 28 there is a road named Glendonald Road. On Latrobe Valley Map 15 and Map 16 in the CFA Map Book, there is a Glendonald Road that extends from Monash Way to Thomson Road. There is no road named South Glendonald Road.

On Planning Scheme Map 31 there is a Whitlaws Track in Callignee, however in the schedule it is listed as Whitelays Track.

The schedule lists land named Moe South area. Where exactly does 'Moe South area' start and finish? There is no town or area named as such on the Planning Scheme Maps, let alone an area which has clearly defined boundaries.

The land titled South of Tambo Road, Moe South, could be confusing as Tambo Road is on the southern outskirts of Moe whereas Moe South is approximately 1 to 1.5 kilometres further south. The land 'South of Tambo Road', together with the location as Moe South, could add to the confusion as to how far south of Tambo Road does the schedule affect.

The extent of the land titled Coalville Road is difficult to determine its southern extremity. On Planning Scheme Map 6, Coalville Road is proposed to be zoned Road Zone -Category 2. Coalville Road then travels south and appears to become zoned Rural Living Zone, whilst the Category 2 road is named 'Road'. On Planning Scheme Map 1 there are very few road names, and a person looking at Map 6 and seeing Coalville Road extending off that map could easily presume that it extends into Map 1 and the area zoned Rural Living on that map. On Latrobe Valley Map 2 in the CFA Map Book, Coalville Road stops at grid reference 358714 and splits into South Road and Thorpdale Road.

Under Clause 35.03 Rural Living Zone, the minimum area for which no permit is required to use land for a dwelling, and the location of where it applies is not mentioned or justified in the MSS.

Infrastructure Library 19 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Under Schedule One to Clause 37.01 Special Use Zone a condition for both Dependent person's unit, and Dwelling (other than Bed and breakfast), in both Section 1 and Section 2 of the Table of uses states that it "must meet the requirements of Clause 2.2 of this schedule". There is no Clause 2.2 of this schedule. Also a condition for Dwelling (other than Bed and breakfast) states that the land may be excised under "Clause 3.1 of this schedule". There is no Clause 3.1 ofthis schedule.

What is the reasoning for requiring a planning permit for various uses which in other zones do require a planning permit, namely Apiculture, Carnival, Circus, and Search for stone, and any associated conditions that must be met? These uses are all uses which are either temporary or require very little development which would affect the long term use of the land for the brown coal mining and electricity generation.

Under Clause 2.0 to Schedule One to the Special Use Zone, the wording under the heading 'Amenity of the neighbourhood' does not read well with the wording ' ... including through the: .. .'.

Under the heading 'Decision guidelines', for Clauses 2.0 and 3.0, it is stated that the responsible authority must consider the sequential development of brown coal resources in the area. As such, why is there no map indicating the sequential development of brown coal resources? A lot of previous work has been done to clearly delineate the categories of coal. This map could be based on the information in Amendment RLl which affected land within the La Trobe Shire boundaries. Category A coal areas are areas currently under development or which may be required for development in the next 30 years. Category B coal areas are coalfields required for development in the next 60 years, but not sooner than 30 years. Category C coal areas are areas of coal which will not be required for development in less than 60 years. It is too soon to foresee specific projects or time of development for Category B and C coal, however as Category A coalfields are used up, the demand for Category B or C coalfields would need to be reassigned to Category A.

Under the heading 'Decision guidelines', for Clause 4.0, the word "loading" in the third dot point is spelt incorrectly.

Under Schedule Two to Clause 37.01 Special Use Zone the Table of uses needs to be extensively upgraded. The land use terms should all start with an upper case letter for the first word and the second and any subsequent words should all be in lower case letters. Specifically, Informal outdoor recreation, Minor utility installation, Natural systems, in Section 1, and Service industry in Section 3.

The land uses 'Mining' and 'Search for stone' are included in Section 2, however, they both have a condition 'If the Section 1 condition is not met'. This is not a condition, and must be placed immediately after the land use term under the first column titled USE. See Clause 36.04-1 to see how to draft land uses which are allowed if the condition isn't met.

The two land uses Carnival and Circus are usually included in Section 1 of various VPP zones with the condition that each 'Must meet the requirements of A 'Good Neighbour' Code of Practice for a Circus or Carnival, October 1997.''. Council, however, have not included these land uses in any of the land use tables. If these two uses were allowed with these conditions the uses would be of a short term temporary nature. Why have Carnival and Circus been omitted from the table?

The head of the nest Utility installation is included within Section 1 as well as the land use term Minor utility installation. Minor utility installation must therefore be removed from Section 1, unless Council have placed the head of the nest in the wrong Section. If so, then the head of the nest will need to be modified to read Utility installation (other than Minor utility installation), and placed in either Section 2 or 3. 20 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

As there is no catch-all phrase in the table of uses, all land uses should therefore be listed in order to avoid amending the zone at a later stage when an application comes forward for an unlisted land use. If you do not include a catch-all phrase in one of the tables, then the head of every nest should be listed in one of the Sections. There is no mention of Education centre or Transport terminal. With regard to terms included in the table of uses which are included within the nests, once one land use term in included, the head of the nest should be included to avoid any confusion. Specifically, Mineral, stone or soil extraction (other than Mineral exploration, Mining, and Search for stone) should be listed in Section 2. As Council has included Function centre, Place of worship, and Restricted place of assembly, in Section 2, presumably Place of assembly (other than Function centre, Place of worship, and Restricted place of assembly) will need to be included in Section 3. If Carnival and Circus are included in Section 1 with the condition as mentioned above, they will also need to be exempted from the head of the nest term Place of assembly.

For terms not included within nests, the following land use terms are not included in any of the table of uses: Car park, Cemetery, Crematorium, Display home, Home occupation, Hospital, Service station, Veterinary centre, and Winery. As there is no catch-all phrase, then these land use terms should be included in one of the Sections of the land use tables.

Council has placed Agriculture (other than Extensive animal husbandry) in Section 3. Why prohibit Apiculture, Horse stables, and Horticulture for example? Council has also placed Retail premises (other than Motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales) in Section 3. Why prohibit Plant nursery? I would have presumed that these above uses would have a positive impact at the entrance to the major regional urban settlements compared to other uses that Council is allowing with a planning permit, such as Function centre, Funeral parlour, Motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales, and Service industry which includes Motor repairs and Panel beating. Warehouse is prohibited, and Warehouse includes Boat and caravan storage. How visually different is a Motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales compared with Boat and caravan storage? Both of these uses can cover vast areas of land and, if anything the storage area could be nicely screened with extensive landscaping. A sales outlet, on the other hand, would more likely have extensive advertising signage, and be visually more intrusive, especially at night with lighting on high illuminated pole signs for both advertising and security lighting.

Under Clause 2.0 to Schedule Two to the Special Use Zone, the wording under the heading 'Amenity of the neighbourhood' does not read well with the wording ' ... including through the: .. .'. Under the heading 'Decision guidelines', the sentence prior to the dot points has two colons.

Under Clause 3.0 to Schedule Two to the Special Use Zone, the statement under the heading 'Permit requirement' appears to have been transposed from another clause as it states that a permit is required "if the maximum leasable floor area specified in the schedule to this zone is exceeded". There is no schedule to this schedule to this zone.

Under Clause 4.0 to Schedule Two to the Special Use Zone, under the heading 'Decision guidelines', the second dot point appears to not read well with the words ' ... vehicles providing for supplies .. .''. The word 'for' may be unnecessary.

Under Schedule Three to Clause 37.01 Special Use Zone the Table of uses needs to be upgraded. The land use terms should all start with an upper case letter for the first word and the second and any subsequent words should all be in lower case letters. Specifically, Informal outdoor recreation, and Motor racing track, in Section 2. 21 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

The land uses 'Mining' and 'Search for stone' are included in Section 2, however, they both have a condition 'If the Section 1 condition is not met'. This is not a condition, and must be placed immediately after the land use term under the first column titled USE. See Clause 36.04-1 to see how to draft land uses which are allowed if the condition isn't met. Also, Mining is not included as a use in Section 1, and Mineral exploration should not have a condition next to it in Section 1. It appears as ifthe Mineral exploration condition should actually be a the condition for Mining.

By placing the land use Place of assembly as a Section 1 use means that an Amusement parlour, Cinema, Drive in theatre, and Nightclub for instance are also Section 1 uses. Is this Council's intention? By placing Retail premises as a Section 2 use means that Adult sex bookshop, Gambling premises, Motor vehicle, caravan and boat sales, Restricted retail premises, and Trade supplies are also Section 2 uses. Is this Council's intention?

The catch-all phrase should be "Any other use not in Section 1or3" rather than 'Sections 1or3'.

Under Clause 2.0 to Schedule Three to the Special Use Zone, the wording under the heading 'Amenity of the neighbourhood' does not read well with the wording ' ... including through the: .. .'.

Under Schedule One to Clause 37.02 Comprehensive Development Zone the purpose of the zone is quite vague in that all the purpose of the zone is "To recognise the role played by the Mid Valley Shopping Centre". For example, ifthe shopping centre was having a negative impact on the retail facilities in the rest ofMorwell, Council could just recognise that negative impact and they have met the purpose of the zone.

The majority of conditions next to the Section 1 uses have the word 'Clause' spelt incorrectly. The land use term Shop is included in Section 1, and the land use term Restricted retail premises is listed in Section 2. Under the nesting principles, Shop includes Restricted retail premises, so therefore Shop must be written as "Shop (other than Restricted retail premises)" in Section 1.

As mentioned previously, when one or more uses within a land use nest are listed in the table of uses, the head of the nest should be inserted in the relevant table of use. Specifically, In Section 2 the following uses should be included: Leisure and recreation (other than Informal outdoor recreation), Mineral, stone or soil extraction (other than Extractive industry, Mineral exploration, Mining, and Search for stone), and Retail premises (other than Restaurant, Shop, Take away food premises, and Trade supplies).

The words "Shop (if Section 1 condition is not met)" should not be included in Section 3 as any use which has a condition which is not met is automatically prohibited, unless it is a Section 1 use and the use is also included as a Section 2 use stating "if the Section 1 condition is not met". This is quite clearly written in Clause 31.01-1 and 31.01-2.

The land uses 'Mining' and 'Search for stone' are included in Section 2, however, they both have a condition 'If Section 1 condition is not met'. This is not a condition, and must be placed immediately after the land use term under the first column titled USE. It should also read "If the Section 1 condition is not met". See Clause 36.04-1 to see how to draft land uses which are allowed ifthe condition isn't met. 22 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Under Schedule One to the Comprehensive Development Zone, the drafting of the wording should be consistent. That is, always use the same style (Upper and lower case letters) such as "Leasable floor area", rather than leasable floor area or Leasable Floor Area. As the term is a standard defmition in the general terms, the style 'Leasable floor area' should be used. The same can be said about the wording 'Shopping Centre', which has sometimes been written as such or as 'shopping centre'. Whatever is used it should be used consistently. Also, under Clause 2.5 the terminology "roads authority" is used, whereas under Clause 2.6 the words "Roads Corporation" are used. Presumably these words are being used interchangeably. Whatever is used it should be used consistently. Again, under Clause 2.6 the words "Princes Drive" are used, and then in the next star point the words "Princes Highway" are used. Presumably these two road names refer to the same road. Whatever is used it should be used consistently.

When reference is made to the various clauses within the Schedule then that reference and the use of upper and lower case letters should be consistent. Specifically: 1. Under Clause 2.0 Use of land, the words: • " ... in conformity with Section 2of1.0 Table of Uses." should instead read ' ... in conformity with Section 2 of Clause 1.0 of this schedule.'; • " ... take away food premises in Section 1 of the Comprehensive Development Zone: Morwell Mid Valley must not...'' should instead read ' ... take away food premises in Section 1 of Clause 1.0 of this schedule must not...'; and • " ... in the development plan approved under clause 2.2 or.. .'' should instead read ' ... in the development plan approved under Clause 2.2 of this schedule or .. .'.

2. Under Clause 2.2 Development plan, the words: • " ... the management plan referred to in Clause 2.3 and the traffic plan referred to in Clause 2.4" should instead read ' ... the management plan referred to in Clause 2.3 of this schedule and the traffic plan referred to in Clause 2.4 of this schedule'.

3. Under Clause 2.3 Management plan, the words: • " ... in accordance with clause 2.0, under sub-clause "Development Plan",. . .'' should instead read ' ... in accordance with Clause 2.2 of this schedule,. . .'.

4. Under Clause 2.4 Traffic plan, the words: • "... under the provisions of clause 2.2 being commenced... " should instead read '... under the provisions of Clause 2.2 of this schedule being commenced .. .'.

5. Under Clause 2.6 Section 173 Agreement, the words: • " ... pursuant to clause 2.2,. . .'' should instead read ' ... pursuant to Clause 2.2 of this schedule,. ..'.

6. Under Clause 2.8 Expiry date, the words: • " ... any use in Section 1 of the zone ... " should instead read ' ... any use in Section 1 of Clause 1.0 of this schedule .. .'; and • "... the Minister for Planning .. .'' should instead read ' ... the Minister for Planning and Local Government. .. '. 23 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Under Clause 37.03 Urban Floodway Zone the purpose of the zone includes: "to identify waterways, major floodpaths, drainage depressions and high hazard areas within urban areas which have the greatest risk and frequency of being affected by flooding; and to ensure that any development maintains the free passage and temporary storage of floodwater, minimises flood damage and is compatible with flood hazard, local drainage conditions and the minimisation of soil erosion, sedimentation and silting". A number of urban areas within the existing Morwell and Traralgon (City) Planning Scheme boundaries are currently covered by various flood zones or overlays. In Traralgon, for example, the Streamside and Floodland Zone covers various parcels of land around the Traralgon Creek through the centre of the City.

The area which may have been covered by the Urban Floodway Zone does not match that land previously covered by flood zones or overlays, and instead has been reduced. An example is Victory Park, Traralgon and the remainder of open space along the Traralgon Creek area which is proposed to be included in the Public Park and Recreation Zone. Under this zoning, a number of structures can be built within the area, without the need for a planning permit, such as shelters, fencing 1 metre or less in height, and a building carried out under the Local Government Act and various other Acts. This area is clearly within the flood plain boundaries and during any major floods is severely affected by floodwaters. However, under the Urban and Floodway Zone, a planning permit is required to construct a building including a fence other than post and wire and post and rail fencing. It appears as if Council only wishes to include undeveloped urban areas within the Urban and Floodway Zone, rather than existing developed open space, and even commercial and residential areas. As such, a suggestion is to include these floodplain areas within the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay. Council, however, has not included this overlay into the La Trobe Planning Scheme. Why not?

OVERLAYS

Under Schedule One to Clause 42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay the heading prior to the clauses is "URBAN AND CONSTRUCTION BUFFER". Under Clause 1.0 of the schedule, the statement of environmental significance states how the buffers protect those elements of the policy area. Under Clause 2.0 of the Schedule, the environmental objectives to be achieved all relate to butler areas in that: (1) they provide mutual protection of urban amenity and the coal resource; (2) they provide use and development that is compatible within a buffer area; and (3) adequate spatial separation is provided between works associated with the Morwell River Diversion and associated works and any proposed use and development on adjacent land. From all of the above, it seems that this Schedule should be for buffers only, but on the Planning Scheme Maps this overlay has been used for much more than just buffer areas.

Under Clause 2.0 to Schedule One to the Environmental Significance Overlay, "the Gippsland Coalfields Policy Area" is mentioned. For easier cross referencing in the Planning Scheme, it is suggested that the specific clause that the Gippsland Coalfields Policy Area is within should be mentioned, specifically Clause 21.8-7.

One of the environmental objectives to be achieved under Clause 2.0 to Schedule One to the Environmental Significance Overlay, is that adequate spatial separation is provided between the works associated with the Morwell River Diversion and associated works and any proposed use and development on adjacent land. There is no map that shows the area of the Morwell River Diversion. Currently in the Morwell Planning Scheme, there is a public purpose reservation that covers the river diversion and associated works. There is nothing in the La Trobe Planning Scheme that differentiates between the Morwell River Diversion area and other areas within the proposed Special Use 1 Zone. 24 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Under Clause 3.0, to Schedule One to the Environmental Significance Overlay, "the Construction Buffer Environmental Significance Area" is mentioned. There does not appear to be any area within the Planning Scheme where this Significance Area is mentioned. If it is supposed to be Schedule Ono to the Environmental Significance Overlay, then the Schedule should be named the same to avoid confusion. Also, under the fourth, fifth, seventh, ninth, and tenth, dot points the words "the Policy Area" are used. What is 'the Policy Area'? Is it the Gippsland Coalfields Policy Area as mentioned above in Clause 2.0, or is it referring to land in the Schedule One to the Environmental Significance Overlay? Whatever it is, the Area should be fully named so as to avoid any confusion.

Under the heading 'Decision guidelines' within Clause 3.0 to Schedule One to the Environmental Significance Overlay, the responsible authority must consider, amongst other dot points, two dot points that question "Whether the proposed development or use will adversely be affected by activities or works within the Special Use Brown Coal Area Zone which lies over the Morwell River Diversion and associated works ... ", and "Whether the proposed development and use will adversely affect or restrict activities or works within the Special Use Brown Coal Area Zone which lies over the Morwell River Diversion and associated works ... ". There is nothing in the La Trobe Planning Scheme that differentiates between the Morwell River Diversion area and other areas within the proposed Special Use I Zone. From these two dot points it could be s"urmised that all the Special Use Brown Coal Area Zone lies over the Morwell River Diversion. A map that clearly defines the boundaries of the proposed Morwell River Diversion and associated works should be prepared and included within the Planning Scheme.

It appears that there are some pages missing, as Clause 4.0 of Schedule One to the Environmental Significance Overlay lists decision guidelines that "... the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:". However there are no further pages relevant to that Schedule, as the next page is Schedule Two to the Environmental Significance Overlay. The Department is therefore unable to make comment on the rest of Schedule One to the Environmental Significance Overlay.

Under Clause 42.01-2 Environmental Significance Overlay, it states that "a permit is required to remove, destroy or lop any vegetation". Under Clause 3.0 to Schedule Two to the Environmental Significance Overlay, it states that "a permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation". In the Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions, under the heading 'Using Schedules' on page 16, it clearly says "Don't restate the control in the schedule. For instance, if an overlay states that a permit is required for buildings and works, this should not be repeated in the schedule". The schedule, however, may exempt the need for a permit, but this must be stated in the "permit requirement" clause. For example, "A permit is not required to [use, construct, carry out works etc] ... if any of the following apply ... {specify circumstances]". If Council is trying to indicate that a planning permit is not required to remove, destroy or lop vegetation that is not native vegetation then this should be written rather than restating the control.

Under Clause 43.01, under the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay, two areas are listed as not being included on the Victorian Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1995, when in fact they are included. Specifically these two heritage places are: the Mechanics Institute and Library, Toongabbie, (Reference number H544) and the Court House and Post office building complex, Traralgon (Reference number H368). .

An historic place which is included on the Heritage Register is Loren, the pre-fabricated iron building at Old Gippstown, Moe (Reference number Hl283), but it is not listed in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay. 25 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

How did Council decide which historic places to include in the Overlay and which to leave out? As mentioned previously under comments provided on Clause 21.6-2 Heritage the strategic direction is to protect and manage these assets and to ensure that future generations can benefit from these actions. Within the past decade there has been a number of completed heritage studies undertaken covering the Latrobe Valley, which have provided a very sound basis for the Council to protect these heritage assets to ensure future generations can benefit from their listing. However, Council has only placed five historical sites within the Heritage Overlay. .

There are no Statements of Significance for each heritage place as required by the Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions

Under Clause 44.03 Rural Floodway Overlay, two of the purposes are: 1) to identify waterways, major floodpaths, drainage depressions, and high hazard areas in rural and non-urban areas which have the greatest risk and frequency of being affected by flooding; and 2) to ensure that any development maintains the free passage and temporary storage of floodwater, minimises flood damage and is compatible with flood hazard. local drainage conditions and the minimisation of soil erosion, sedimentation and silting. As parts of the La Trobe Shire are flood prone, it would seem beneficial to identify those areas not covered by the Urban Floodway Zone to be covered by either the Rural Floodway Overlay or the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.

On the Morwell Planning Scheme Maps Sheets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 28, 42, and 43 there is land covered by the Special Policy Area overlay - 'Stream Protection and Floodway'. On Traralgon (City) Planning Scheme Maps 1, 2, 3, and 4 there is land zoned Streamside and Floodland Zone. On Traralgon (Shire) Planning Scheme Maps Sheets 1and2 there is land covered by the 100 Year Flood Line. Why has this information not been included somehow on the La Trobe Planning Scheme Maps?

Under Clause 45.02 Airport Environs Overlay, any new building must be constructed so as to comply with any noise attenuation measures required by Section 3 of Australian Standard AS 2021-1994, Acoustics - Aircraft Noise Intrusion - Building Siting and Construction. As stated in the Ministerial Direction on the form and content of planning schemes, the Minister directed under point 16: "If a planning scheme includes land in the Airport Environs Overlay, the planning scheme must ... incorporate Australian Standard AS 2021-1994, Acoustics - Aircraft Noise Intrusion - Building Siting and Construction, issued by the Standards Association of Australia by including it in the Schedule to Clause 81 ". This has not been complied with.

Under Schedule 2 to the Airport Environs Overlay, it states that it is "Shown on the planning scheme map as AE02." There is no AE02 shown on the Planning Scheme Maps. The airport area covered by the Airport Environs Overlay as shown on the Planning Scheme Maps 1 and 15 does not show any overlay area other than the general AEO area.

Under Clause 2.0 and 3.0, to Schedule to Clause 52.02, Easements, Restrictions and Reserves, the two schedules are left blank. As stated under the Ministerial Direction on the form and content of planning schemes, the Minister directed under point 7: "Ifno information is to be included in the schedule the words "None specified" must be included where appropriate to make the intent clear". This is also indicated quite clearly on page 19 of the Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions. Therefore the words "None specified" must be included under the heading 'Land' in both Clause 2.0 and Clause 3.0.

I J 26 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

MAPS The zones, in particular, should not just reflect zonings from the various planning schemes that the La Trobe Planning Scheme is replacing. Any Zone or Overlay being included within the La Trobe Planning Scheme must be able to be justified strategically through the Local Planning Policy Framework.

Scale of Maps The scale of the maps makes it extremely difficult to determine the exact areas and how each is zoned. The townships are at a scale of 1: 5000 which is good, however the rest of the Shire, as a whole, is split so that only four maps cover the entire municipality. One map is at a scale of 1:40,000 and three maps are at a scale of 1:80,000! The maps at this scale are so hard to read because they are very cluttered, and the thickness of the zone boundary lines means that the line itself covers approximately 50 metres on the ground!.

Land in Two Zones The VPP does not contain special provisions for land in two zones. Zone boundaries should therefore align with title boundaries or other defined featirres such as road centrelines or watercourses.

Extent of Map Boundaries Many of the town maps that join next to one another miss an exact join for the whole joining of that section, especially those maps that join horizontally with one another. This would make all that section of land effectively unzoned. This slab of area covers a width of approximately 10 metres by 2,000 metres on the ground at the joining of the two maps. This clearly relates to the joining of Maps 2 and 5, 3 and 6, 4 and 7, 9 and 12, 10 and 13, 11and14, 18 and 22, 19 and 23, 20 and 24, 21and25, 27 and 28. It may also partly relate to maps that join to their east and west boundaries, and the maps that join to the smaller scale maps, namely Maps 1, 15, 26, and 31. At this stage, for approval of the Planning Scheme, Council must submit 3 paper copy sets of the planning scheme maps, of which one endorsed true copy will be returned to the Council, and one set of maps in a digital format acceptable to the Department. Therefore the maps must be correct on paper for approval, and Council should not just rely on digital information.

Road Names On most instances the road names are placed on land adjoining the road rather than on the actual road on the map. It would be easier to read the names, and easier to know the road it correlates with, if the name of the road was placed within the road boundaries as shown on the map .. Also, in ipany instances, especially on the smaller scale maps, the road is not clearly titled and is just given the name "road". Specifically, the road names on the planning scheme maps Map 1, 15, 26, and 31 are not clear, with many roads just named "Road", or "RD". For easier readability for the public, as well as for council officers, the names of the roads should be listed wherever feasible. Also, in many instances, the road name and the road type - Road, Street, Avenue, Drive, etcetera -, should be placed together rather than placed, in at least one instance 40 centimetres, apart. On most of the maps this occurs, examples on Map 3, however, include Old Sale Road, Moore Street, and Narracan Drive in Moe.

On Map 1 there are a number of areas which are extremely difficult to determine the exact zoning of the land and the exact boundary of those parcels ofland, such as: 1) the RUZ and TZ areas in the Township of Tyers area on the eastern boundary of the map as it joins Map 15; 2) the PUZl and RUZ areas in the Yallourn North area on the western boundary of the map as it joins the Yallourn North area Map 8; 3) the PUZ2 and the PPRZ areas in the eastern area ofNewborough on the western boundary of the map as it joins the Moe area on Map 4; 4) the RUZ areas along the Princes Freeway between Moe and Morwell; 5) the PUZ4, RDZ2, and IN3Z areas in the western part of Moe on the eastern boundary of the map as it joins Moe Maps 2 and 5; 6) the PUZl and RDZ2 areas on the southern boundary of the map as it joins Map 26; and 7) the area that appears unzoned between RUZ and RLZ zoned land to the south of Moe on the northern boundary of the map as it joins Moe Map 6. In some places where the zone annotation is not within the actual zoned land, the annotation does not have a corresponding line indicating where the land that is zoned as such. This means that some land is unzoned and others are zoned two or more different zones. 27 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Similar problems as those occurring on Map 1 also occur on Maps 15 and 26 due to their scale. There is no need here to reiterate in detail those problems.

Please ensure that zone boundaries meet in the middle ofroads, except where it joins a Public Use Zone, Road Zone, or Special Use Zone.

On Planning Scheme Map 30 the township ofBoolarra should be spelt correctly rather than Boolara.

The exhibited Planning Scheme Maps of New Planning Schemes surrounding the La Trobe Planning Scheme boundary use the following scales: 1. Baw Baw (covers 4,030 square kilometres in area and has 31 base maps utilising 10 different overlays giving a total of 155 maps • 1: 5,000 - covering small townships, such as Trafalgar and Walhalla. • 1: 10,000 - covering larger townships, such as Drouin and Warragul. • 1:40,000 - covering many rural areas.

2. South Gippsland (covers 3,297 square kilometres in area and has 39 base maps utilising 14 different overlays giving a total of 175 maps). • 1:5,000 - covering small townships, such as Nyora and Port Welshpool. • 1: 10,000 - covering larger townships such as Korumburra and Mirboo North. • 1 :40,000 - covering many rural areas. • 1:80,000 - covering large rural areas with very few small differently zoned areas.

3. Wellington (covers 11,007 square kilometres in area and has 82 base maps utilising 28 different overlays giving a total of352 maps). • 1: 10,000 - covering townships, such as Gormandale, Maffra, and Sale. • 1:20,000 - covering rural areas, however there are small areas which are zoned differently. • 1:40,000 - covering many rural areas. • 1 :80,000 - covering large rural areas with very few small differently zoned areas.

As a comparison, La Trobe covers 1,405 square kilometres in area and exhibited 31 base maps utilising 5 different overlays giving a total of 58 maps.

Another municipality within the jurisdiction of the Gippsland Regional office of the Department, is the Council. Bass Coast does not join any of the boundary of the La Trobe Shire Council however Bass Coast is quite comparable in size with La Trobe. The Bass Coast Shire covers only 865 square kilometres in area. The Council however exhibited 36 base maps utilising 38 overlays giving a total of 172 maps. 28 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

Summary of major concerns

The key to the riew format planning schemes is the Municipal Strategic Statement. It is upon this, that the application of controls in the form of zones, overlays, and schedules need to be based.

More work will need to be undertaken to clearly articulate the strategic rationale so that the linkages between the MSS and the Planning Scheme Maps are evident. Work will need to be undertaken so that the · Scheme is as workable as possible, however further refinement will be inevitable and desirable as experience is gained in the application and interpretation of the new format Scheme.

Some of the local policies are very generalised and consist of parenthood type statements. It appears that La Trobe Shire Council has not yet recognised the importance that the MSS and the Local Planning Policy Framework will be in guiding discretion in planning permit applications.

There appears to have been a tendency to translate former zones into the new format zones, and former planning controls into either policies or overlay, particularly Design and Development Overlays. Further work will be required to review their format and content.

There appears to be no clear understanding of the meaning, nor commonality in the use, of the following terms: objectives; strategies; and policies. The "Report on trends and issues emerging from consideration of first five new format planning schemes" stated that the terms are often used interchangeably. The Panels have used the terms in the following sense: • objectives are general aims or ambitions for the future development of an are which should respond to key issues identified in the MSS; • strategies are the actions by which the current situation will be moved towards its desired future and meet the objectives; and • local policies are detailed directions that will guide day to day decision making about geographic or sectoral issues, so that cumulatively those decisions will support the achievement of the objectives, or at least will not undermine their achievement.

There do not appear to be clear distinctions being made between those strategies that will he implemented through the application of zones, overlays, schedules and local policies, and those that will be implemented, wholly or in part, through other activities of the Council.

Council has not paid specific heed to the requirements of Section 12A{3) of the Planning and Environment Act, which clearly states: A municipal strategic statement must contain- ( a) the strategic planning, land use and development objectives ofthe planning authority; and (b) the strategies for achieving the objectives; and (c) a general explanation of the relationship between those objectives and strategies and the controls on the use and development ofland in the planning scheme; and (d) any other provision or matter which the Minister directs to be included in the municipal strategic statement.

There is no explanation of the relationship between the objectives and strategies and the controls on the use and development of land in the Planning Scheme as required by Clause l 2A(3 )(c ). There needs to be an explanation of why particular zones and overlays have been applied and what objectives they reflect, and conversely why particular overlays may not have been applied. It is essential that the link between the maps and the objectives and strategies in the ordinance is made explicit. At present, the link can only be deduced. The planning scheme maps are supposed to be the means by which the objectives of the scheme are achieved. Any discrepancies between the maps and ordinance are bound to give rise to problems in the future. With the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework being such key determinants in the decision making process, it is vital that a robust approach is taken to eliminate, so far as possible, any potential problems. 29 Comments on the exhibited La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure

There is not much about the disadvantages and dilemmas faced by the Council. Council needs to acknowledge and address specifically the constraints and hurdles that need to be overcome, as well as the opportunities to be encouraged.

There is no Statement of Significance for each heritage place as envisaged by the Manual for the Victorian Planning Provisions.

In reporting to the Minister for Planning and Local Government the following questions, amongst many others, need to be addressed in the brief: • Is the scheme strategically well founded? • Do the strategic planning, land use and development objectives further the objectives of planning in Victoria and are they a reasonable response to regional and local issues? • Is there a clear relationship between strategic actions, local policies and the application of zones, overlays and schedules? • Are performance based or outcome based requirements used wherever practicable?

Consistency • Is the planning scheme consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Act? • Is the planning scheme consistent with Ministerial Directions under Section 12 of the Act, (specifically Direction No 1 and Direction No 6 in your case)? • Is the planning scheme consistent with the Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions?

Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) • Does the MSS contain realistic and reasonable strategies for achieving the objectives of planning in Victoria? • Is the planning scheme constructed to actively implement the MSS and local policies, rather than being a best fit translation of the previous scheme? • Are the strategic planning, land use and development objectives of the planning authority a reasonable response to the characteristics, regional context, development constraints and opportunities of the district? • Are the local policies clearly expressed and written following plain English principles? • Are only clearly justified local policies included? • What was the process in arriving at the MSS and are there satisfactory links with the Corporate Plan?

Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) • Is the LPPF and other local provisions consistent with the SPPF? • Are local policies soundly based and reasonably justified? • Will local policies be of practical assistance in day-to-day decision making about permit applications? • Are the local policies newly created as part of the new scheme or are they a replication of previous local policies?

Zones, Overlays, and Schedules • Are there clearly defined linkages between the MSS and the application of zones, overlays and schedule? Can the relationship between the strategic action and the application of zones, overlays and schedules be explained, together with the relationship with particular local policies? • Are overlays and schedules being used when it may be more appropriate to use local policies? • If the application of zones, overlays and schedules are not clearly linked to the MSS, is reasonable justification provided? • Are the zones, overlays and schedules reasonably compatible at the interface with adjoining schemes?

Incorporated documents • What is the basis for incorporating any documents apart from those in the VPP? • Can the intentions of the planning authority, in using incorporated documents, be better achieved by other techniques in the VPP, such as local policies? Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ion.

ATTACHMENT 5

Heritage Victoria comments on the La Trobe Planning Scheme

32 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on.

ATTACHMENT 6

Department of Infrastructure, Policy and Legislation, comments on the La Trobe Planning Scheme

33 Report to the Advisory Committee/Panel reviewing the La Trobe Planning Scheme by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, Building, and Development, Gi sland Re ·on. ·

34