1967-68

VICTORIA

TWENTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

OF THE

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BOARD OF

FOR THE PERIOD

lsr JULY, 1966, TO 30rH JUNE, 1967

PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OJ;' PARLIAMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 (2) OF THE TO\\''N AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1961

[Approximate C08t of Report.-Preparation, not given. Printing (225 copies), $785 J

By AUJhorzly: A. C. BROOKS. GOVERNMENT PRINTER. . No 38-1283/68.-"[40 cents]

INDEX

PAGE

Constitution of the Board 5

Legislation 5

Planning Schemes Being Prepared by the Board 5

Planning Schemes Being Prepared by Councils 15

Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme 16

Interim Development Orders 17

Revocations of Portions of Planning Schemes 17

Western Port Development .. 18

Gippsland Lakes Inquiry 18

Control of Junk Yards 19

Advertising Signs and Panels 19

Port Phillip Authority 20

Melbourne's Future Water Supply 21

Future Growth of Melbourne 22

Planning for Comprehensive Residential Development 22

Urban Redevelopment 24

Land Use Abutting Country Roads Board's Roads 26

Land Use Zoning-By-laws Under the Local Government Act 27

Scheme Under Section 605 of the Local Government Act 28

Australian Planning Institute Congress-Sydney 1966 28

Acknowledgments 28

Staff 29

Appendices-

I., II., Ill., and IV... 30

ILLUSTRATION. Map of Victoria .. at back

Town and Country Planning Board

TWENTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

179 Queen-street, Melbourne, 3000

The Honorable the Minister for Local Government, 61 Spring-street, Melbourne, 3000.

SIR, In accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1961 (Act No. 6849), the Board has pleasure in submitting to you for presentation to Parliament the following report on its activities during the twelve months ended 30th June, 1967. The delay in the submission is due largely to the Board's preoccupation with the major study and report on Melbourne's Future Growth undertaken at your request. During the period under review the Board held 45 meetings, and in addition was represented at a number of conferences held in the metropolitan area and various country centres.

CONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD. During 1966 Mr. A. N. Kemsley was invited by the Minister to agree to an extension of his membership of the Board for a period of one year. This was due to expire on 25th May, but with Mr. Kemsley's agreement the Governor in Council on the lOth May, 1967, approved a further extension to the 29th March, 1968. The continuation of Mr. Kemsley's membership of the Board which began on the 27th February, 1946 when the Board was first established, was warmly welcomed by his colleagues.

LEGISLATION. A Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1961 was introduced into the Legislative Assembly during the Autumn Session of Parliament (1967). The Bill represented a substantial amendment to the principal Act and in particular made provision for the establishment of regional planning authorities designed primarily to co-ordinate the planning of large urban areas consisting of more than one municipality where this could not be achieved by the individual municipalities.

The Bill was read a second time, but the House rose before it could proceed further.

Many of the amendments contained in the Bill had been recommended by the Board as the result of difficulties experienced in the preparation and administration of planning schemes. The Board is most anxious therefore in the interests of efficient planning administration that the amendment will be favourably considered at the earliest opportunity.

PLANNING SCHEMES BEING PREPARED BY THE BOARD. Two principal planning schemes prepared by the Board received Governor in Council approval during the period covered by this Report, the Councils being appointed responsible authorities for their respective municipalities. 6

The number of schemes being prepared by the Board (see Appendix Ill.) remains at eighteen as the Minister during the year directed the Board to prepare two additional schemes. These are for the environs of two reservoirs under construction by the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission, Lake Merrimu and Lake Nillahcootie.

APPROVED SCHEMES.

Eppalock and Tower Hill Planning Schemes. The Eppalock Planning Scheme was approved on 17th January, 1967, the responsible authorities being the councils of the Shires of Metcalf, Mclvor and Strathfieldsaye. It is typical of a number of planning schemes which are being prepared by the Board to safeguard the environs of reservoirs from development prejudicial to the functioning of the storages and to provide for the location of appropriate uses such as holiday camp areas, caravan parks, boating clubs and facilities and limited residential settlement.

The Tower Hill Planning Scheme was approved on the 17th May, 1967, the responsible authorities being the councils of the Borough of and the Shires of and Belfast. Although the objects of this scheme are similar to those of the Eppalock Planning Scheme its principal aim is the preservation of a striking and well known volcanic crater and its environs. The crater was once noted for its beautiful natural landscape the restoration of which is being undertaken by the Fisheries and Wildlife Department.

ADDITIONAL SCHEMES. Lake Merrimu and Lake Nillahcootie Planning Schemes. The Lake Merrimu Planning Scheme was commenced by the Board on 8th September, 1966, and in view of the need to bring the area under control as soon as possible an Interim Development Order was approved by the Governor in Council on 4th October. The Order covers only that part of the planning area within the Shire of , the balance of the area being under an Interim Development Order administered by the Gisborne Shire CounciL The bulk of the planning area is a proclaimed water supply catchment area within which the Soil Conservation Authority has designated land uses.

The statutory notice sent out by the Board to neighbouring municipalities, Government authorities and other interested organizations has produced much useful information. The drafting of planning proposals is proceeding.

The reservoir to be known as Lake Nillahcootie is on the Broken river. The planning area defined by the Board is divided by the boundary between the Shires of and Mansfield, the greater portion being within the latter Shire. The councils for both Shires agreed on the limits of the planning area and the Board resolved to commence the scheme on 1st January, 1967. Interim development control was obtained on the 7th February.

The planning area extends approximately two miles on either side of the Broken river for a distance of some six miles. A section of the Midland Highway which follows the river in this locality has been relocated clear of the reservoir area. There is no township in the planning area the land use of which comprises about 30 farms, the balance being Crown land. Major construction works to the stage of storing water have recently been completed. The area to be inundated will extend some four miles up the river from the dam. As with other schemes of this nature the Lake Nillahcootie Planning Scheme will be designed to protect the land surrounding the reservoir from speculative subdivision which would be liable to occur as a result of the attraction created by the reservoir. The scheme will also provide for the development of acceptable tourist or holiday type facilities and, if considered necessary, for limited residential settlement.

Phi/lip Island and Waratah Bay Planning Schemes. The Phillip Island Planning Scheme is still the subject of an Interim Development Order administered by the Board. The primary purpose of the scheme awaiting approval is the recognition of established land use on the Island and the promotion of orderly development within the committee areas. Apart from allowing for some extension of urban growth at established resorts such as Cowes, and a number of reservations designed to protect the natural habitat of the unique wildlife on the Island, the balance of the planning area has been retained in the rural zone. 7

The unique wildlife resources are a feature of the Island. There are few places, and certainly none in where so much unique wildlife can be observed in its natural surroundings and in such a compact and accessible area. With the growth of the tourist industry the value of these resources has greatly increased because of their natural attraction to overseas as well as local tourists. Consequently the need for planning has achieved a wider significance embracing not only organized development but factors such as management, particularly as regards the tourist section of the Island, and the protection of the rural landscape which provides a setting for the main wildlife habitats and of the foreshore scenery. In June, 1966, the Minister made a tour of the Island accompanied by the Chairman and the Shire President and council officials. After the tour the Minister requested the council to take action to remove or improve a number of unsightly residential buildings, the Country Roads Board to plant trees on sections of roadways to screen certain unsightly developments, and the Board to examine prematurely subdivided areas zoned residential with a view to reversion to rural use.

The Board's examination led to the view that the previous study of the Island for the purpose of zoning should be extended to permit the formulation of comprehensive proposals regarding management of the Island's tourist resources, amendments to the planning scheme to introduce more stringent measures to protect these resources and the landscape, and also treatment of prematurely subdivided and poorly developed areas. The Board is now preparing a report to the Minister along these lines. The Waratah Bay Planning Scheme was adopted by the Board on 9th November, 1966, and subject to the Minister's consideration awaits the approval of the Governor in Council.

The scheme is designed to protect an especially beautiful portion of the Victorian coastline, from Cape Liptrap to Shallow Inlet, some 125 miles south-east of Melbourne. The planning area of 39 square miles is within the Shires of Woorayl and South . These municipalities will administer the scheme in their respective areas when it is approved.

Lake Bel/field Planning Scheme and Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional Planning Scheme, Extension "A". These two schemes have been exhibited for the statutory period and are now receiving final consideration by the Board. The scheme extending the Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional Planning Scheme was exhibited for the period 6th July to lOth October, 1966, and two objections were received. The scheme has not yet been finalized due to the consideration being given to the desirability of overall revision and possible further extension of the area of the principal sub-regional scheme. As a result of the Board's consideration of objections received during the exhibition period of the Lake Bellfield Planning Scheme some provisions of the scheme are being modified prior to its adoption for submission to the Minister.

Lake Buffalo, and Lake Glenmaggie Planning Schemes, Eildon Reservior Planning Scheme () and Eildon Sub-Regional Planning Scheme, Extension " A". Due to the heavy commitments it must meet and the small staff at its disposal the Board has made no progress in the preparation of three of the above four planning schemes. However, it is anticipated that the Lake Glenmaggie Planning Scheme will be finalized and made available for public exhibition during the coming year. The scenic quality of the land surrounding Lake Glenmaggie underlines the importance of a comprehensive landscape study in schemes of this kind. Translating the requirements for landscape treatment into a statutory planning scheme presents considerable difficulty. In the Board's view it can best be achieved by flexibility in statutory schemes backed up by reliance by developers on the advice of qualified experts. The first three schemes listed above are similar in character in that the principal common aim is the protection of Government sponsored water storage basins. The Board is operating interim development control over each of the planning areas and is maintaining a close liaison with the councils concerned. 8

(Photos by courtesy o f Fisheries and W ildlife Department) 9

The scheme extending the Eildon Sub-Regional Planning Scheme has not progressed due to the protracted consideration being given to a report prepared by the Board at the request of the Fisheries and Wildlife Department on the status and extent of both reserved and privately-owned land and the effect of existing and proposed planning provisions in the vicinity of Snobs Creek Fisheries Research Station.

Coastal Planning Schemes. When it first made representations to the Minister to introduce planning control over the unprotected strip of Victoria's coastline the Board was conscious of the cumulative effects of two important influences. On the one hand the increase in the use of the motor car and a rising standard of living demanded the opening up of recreation areas previously considered too remote, while on the other hand additional leisure time was extending the period for recreational activities.

At the Minister's request the Board, in 1964, compiled a report on the need for planning measures along the coastline and the likely consequences of failure to restrain unwarranted speculation in land subdivision.

The Minister immediately requested the Board to prepare planning schemes for the coastline from to the South Australian border in the west and from Lake Tyers to Cape Howe in the east. The introduction of interim development control over these areas was followed by similar action in the Borough of thus, with planning control previously established, safeguarding almost the entire Victorian coastline against excessive exploitation for recreation purposes.

It was mentioned in the Twenty-first Annual Report that base maps had been prepared and the survey of existing conditions was proceeding. The extent and nature of existing development in the planning scheme areas has now been charted.

The next stage will be to carry out a study of the natural resources of the coastal areas with a view to assessing the justification to encourage and, in some instances discourage, access and development. In this work the Board expects to be able to rely on the availability of data already collected by several authorities, universities and other expert bodies.

Implicit in the study of resources is the recognition of the need to prevent the dispersal of urban development and to encourage its concentration in settlements at selected points of particular attraction with sufficient capacity to ensure maximum benefit from the services which must be provided. The planning schemes which will be based on the studies of resources will give close attention to relating and balancing on the one hand the need for access to coastal settlements and places of scenic interest and on the other hand the ecological need to preserve some areas in their primitive state. The study of resources is aimed at giving recognition to the following special conditions :­ (1). The exceptional scenic, recreational, scientific and educational value of coastal areas. (2). The difficulty of balancing the various demands for coastal utilization. (3). The effect which the potentially unstable landforms in coastal areas such as swamps, estuaries, sand dunes, &c., could have on the ecology of the areas if they were seriously disturbed.

It will embrace physical resources such as topography, climate, &c., and the manner in which these resources are utilized. It will also involve an evaluation of the potential of the coastal areas in terms of the likely demand to be made of them and of the nature and variety of this demand in order to determine the best use or combination of uses for particular areas. This will involve a quantitative analysis of the distribution and likely future requirements of the tourist and the holiday maker. Such an analysis will involve an identification of the economic, social and geographical factors operating in the various localities.

On the other hand it will also be necessary to identify areas which should be reserved or restricted to limited access and utilization. The Board has in mind areas of high scenic value and also areas of natural, scientific or historic value. The accompanying photographs (page 8) show just two areas of the coastline which must be protected from indiscriminate human intrusion. 10

Such protection should extend also to natural resources such as soil and minerals. The opinions and recommendations of experts in the particular fields under review will be invaluable in this regard. The classification of the various land types will also be necessary. Particular regard will be given to natural features of interest, the general degree of stability and the possible dangers from erosion, wind and wave action and the present and potential productivity of the various land types for specific uses. Finally the Board will examine and identify areas where rehabilitation measures are necessary as a result of inappropriate land use such as premature subdivisions or agricultural misuse. The Victorian coastline provides sharp contrasts as the photographs opposite show. Because of contrasts such as these it is essential that planning provisions be based on the most up-to-date and comprehensive information available.

Simpson Planning Scheme.

The expan~ion of the Rural Finance and Settlement Commission's Heytesbury Land Settlement project focussed attention on _the ability of the existing small township of Simpson, first established in 1956, when the project was commenced, to support the rural development envisaged. Simpson, with a population of about 80 people, is located in the heart of the project area at the junction of the Cobden- road with the Princetown road, and has 17 occupied houses (see photographs below), a store, a fuel depot, 3 churches, an oval and tennis courts, cattle saleyards and a cheese factory, and the local offices and works depot of the Rural Finance and Settlement Commission. The town is typical of a number of small rural centres in the Western District and other parts of Victoria.

The Commission envisages that 500 dairy farms will be established in the district by 1972. At present 265 farms are occupied and the rural population numbers about 1,400. Following receipt of the Minister's request to prepare a planning scheme for Simpson the Board carried out a study over a wide area including a number of neighbouring towns. The study was designed to establish, having regard to the existence of several towns within a ran~e of some 30 miles, the justification for a rural centre providing the goods and services and social and cultural opportunities for an increasing rural population and as a processing centre capable of handling the increased rural produce.

The survey entailed an analysis of the services already provided by the existing townships of Colac, Camperdown, Cobden and . It was then possible to isolate those functions, if any, the new township of Simpson could usefully provide and the employment opportunities that would be created. 11 12

The following map shows the location of the town in relation to surrounding townships.

LOCATION P L A N SIM PSON

HEnESBURY PROJECT

~tTTl MENT Al<:tA

10 I IN

The growth of the town has been planned in three stages, the first stage catering for a population of 500 people by 1972. The second stage extends the basic design to cater, if found necessary, for 1,500 people by 1985. At the later stage there should be nearly 400 houses, 30 retail establishments, a variety of other services and institutional activities such as churches, a fire brigade, hospital, &c., and recreational facilities. The third stage extends the basic design to cater for a long-range possibility of 3,000 people. 13

The illustrations which follow show the plan of Simpson developed to the third stage .

...------~-~"~c------~------,

R.C

I<~AF'I C:f--l~F='SS FACIORY ARES'A.

F' 0 p u L.. A T I 0 N G R o W T H TOWN o&SI&N 9T~Ei I. pt::o pw '-'AT!ON NOT TO <;"CA 1-1:!'., !?'00·

Towns of this size and even some much larger, all over the State have for many years been almost at a standstill in terms of population increase. Many show signs of decline particularly in their business centres resulting no doubt from the increased mobility of consumers who in rural areas are apparently travelling further afield than their local towns to make their purchases. Many small towns undoubtedly subsist on a tradition derived from serving past generations less mobile than the present. The present generation is tending to pass them by. Future generations may neglect them altogether.

The town of Simpson is being established in the face of these trends and therefore there must be some reservations about its future. Nevertheless the demand for a local centre and attendant amenities can be fairly clearly established arising probably from the comparative remoteness 14

F" 0 p u 1- A T I 0 N 6 R 0 W T H POPUL.A'f'ION TOWN OBfi'lt:;t-J 'STASJ!!I 2.. r-soo NOT TO

of the project area from other rural settlements. Educational, recreational, religious and minor business and service facilities will certainly be needed, while the existence of the large cheese factory is an assurance of reasonable stability.

It was pointed out in the Board's last Annual Report that the boundary between the Shires of Heytesbury and Otway severed the present township area and the planning area and that the councils of the two shires recognized that an adjustment of the boundary would be necessary. This has not yet been resolved but the Board's plan for the town should provide additional data on which to base the decision. 15

... ·.. ·.· :. •'.

I

N 0 t TH

p 0 ~ u A T I 0 N TOWN Ol!rSISN NO"'i To ..;'CAL-l=!.

PLANNING SCHEMES BEING PREPARED BY COUNCILS. During the year the Board continued to promote a closer relationship with councils preparing and administrating planning schemes. The Chairman and officers of the Board attended many council meetings to discuss the administration of Interim Development Orders or approved schemes, or, to speak to the councils about planning and development control. The Board is satisfied that this closer liaison with councils has helped greatly in facilitating the planning procedure. However, although close personal contact with councils and officials undoubtedly promotes better understanding on both sides it heavily taxes the Board's limited resources. Progress measured in the number of planning schemes handled by the Board can only be achieved by a substantial increase in staff. Planning schemes examined by the Board during the year are listed in Appendix II to this Report, while those which are in course of preparation are listed in Appendix I. A complete list of approved planning schemes is included in Appendix IV. 16

There are still a large number of towns in Victoria in which the responsible councils have not taken advantage of the planning powers available in the Act. The staff and facilities of the Board are always available to these councils should they wish to discuss any aspect of town planning and its application to their particular situation.

A problem arising from the inadequacy of municipal boundaries many of which were delineated in the last century is very apparent in some important areas. The orderly growth under planning control of some provincial centres towards their municipal boundary is often prejudiced by uncontrolled and sometimes incompatible development taking place beyond the boundary in the adjoining municipality.

An example of this is where residential growth of good standard in a large provincial city has extended to the municipal boundary to be confronted by a number of minor industries established on the other side of the municipal boundary. Sometimes residential growth from the centre municipality under a planning scheme overspills in the adjoining shire where there is no planning control and thus no relationship between urban growth and public utilities. There is also the case where a major provincial city has expanded into adjoining municipalities all of which have planning schemes prepared independently and lacking the co-ordination that is essential in the overall planning of a single urban entity.

In all these instances there is a need for the introduction of joint planning control to ensure a compatibility of development over areas separated only by a line drawn on a map many years ago, but not now relevant to the existing situation. The Town and Country Planning Act provides for joint planning by municipalities but relatively few councils have taken advantage of it. There are admittedly certain weaknesses in the present provisions but these would be rectified by the amendment proposed in the Bill referred to earlier in this Report under " Legislation."

MELBOURNE METROPOLITAN PLANNING SCHEME. Interim Development Order. On the 19th September, 1966, the Board of Works resubmitted its Interim Development Order for renewal for a further period of twelve months as required by section 55 of the Act. The Order at the same time, incorporated Modification No. 4, which comprised map modifications to include the Minister's determination of objections lodged during the Ministerial Exhibition of the scheme, current proposals by public authorities, approved local planning scheme provisions and other zoning changes. The Interim Development Order incorporating Modification No. 4 was subsequently re-approved by the Governor in Council on the 13th December, 1966.

Tullarmarine Freeway. In view of the public interest affected by this proposal the Minister directed that details of the proposed route be made available for public inspection. Following consideration of the objections lodged the Board of Works submitted a modified route to the Minister for incorporation in the Interim Development Order. The amendment to the Order was subsequently approved on 30th August, 1966.

Minister's Exhibition. Reference has been made in the last two Annual Reports to the Board's examination of objections lodged during the Minister's Exhibition of the planning scheme. The Board has now completed its examination of the 644 objections referred to it and its recommendations have been forwarded to the Minister.

Approval of the Scheme. The Metropolitan Planning Scheme prepared by the Board of Works in 1954 has been modified from time to time in the ensuing thirteen years. These modifications have been dictated by changing circumstances and by the need to incorporate determinations made by the Minister on objections to provisions of the scheme and appeals against decisions by the responsible authority. Following a meeting between representatives of the Board and the Board of Works in March, 1967, it was decided that printing of the Scheme maps should be proceeded with in anticipation of the Minister's intention to submit the Scheme for the approval of the Governor in Council as early as practicable. It was agreed that apart from determination by the Minister of outstanding objections and appeals any further modifications to the Scheme should be effected by amendments after the Scheme had been approved by the Governor in Council. 17

INTERIM DEVELOPMENT ORDERS. During the past year the Board examined and reported on 23 applications for interim development control. Fourteen of these were made under section 55 of the Act which requires that Interim Development Orders operating within the metropolitan area must be resubmitted for the approval of the Governor in Council every twelve months. The remaining nine applications, made by the City of Brighton, the Shires of , Towong, Whittlesea, Wodonga, Yackandandah (2 schemes), Yarrawonga and the Wangaratta Sub-Regional Planning Committee, were reported on by the Board pursuant to section 17 of the Act. The Order made by the City of Brighton is within the area of the Metropolitan Scheme. The planning scheme to which the Order relates covers a small section of substandard development and the council intends to rectify the problem by a gradual process of redevelopment under planning control. The Orders made by the Orbost and Towong Shire Councils relate to planning schemes already commenced and proceeding satisfactorily. The Orbost scheme is for the township of Orbost and its environs while the Towong (Bethanga-Talgarno) scheme covers that part of the municipality which borders Lake Hume. The Order made by the Towong Council has already been approved by the Governor in Council and the Orbost Order is expected to receive approval shortly. Following the Whittlesea Shire Council's resolution to prepare a scheme for that part of its municipality outside the area of the Metropolitan Planning Scheme boundary an Interim Development Order was approved by the Governor in Council on 6th December, 1966. The Order defines areas for urban development at Whittlesea, Mernda and Kalkallo and prohibits the subdivision of land into allotments of less than ten acres outside these defined urban areas except for certain specified uses. The introduction of planning control in this area of the Shire of Whittlesea completes the pattern of planning control around the periphery of the Board of Works' planning area. The Order made by the Shire of Wodonga and approved in 1963 was replaced on 23rd May, 1967, by a new Order. The original Order covered only part of the municipality and was instituted for the control of development of the urban areas and to protect the foreshore of Lake Hume from unsatisfactory development. The new Order extends control over the whole of the municipality in conjunction with a new resolution to plan this extended area. The provisions of the new Order are similar to those which previously operated. The Yackandandah Shire Council is preparing two separate planning schemes within its municipal district, one covering the township of Yackandandah and the other the adjacent townships of Kiewa and Tangambalanga. The Council is proceeding expeditiously with the preparation of these schemes and the approval of the two Orders on the 29th November, 1966, will enable the council to control development pending approval of the schemes. The Order made by the and approved by the Governor in Council on 20th September, 1966, followed a resolution by the council in July, 1965, to prepare a planning scheme for the area extending from Yarrawonga to the between the Murray Valley Highway and Lake Mulwala. The scheme aims to control development in the vicinity of the highway and the southern shores of the lake and will be prepared in conjunction with the planning scheme for the township of Yarrawonga, which has been under interim development control since 1954. The Interim Development Order approved on the 25th January, 1967, in respect of the Wangaratta Sub-Regional Planning Scheme replaces an Order previously approved in 1951. The new Order brings the form of control into line with the current provisions of the Act and dispenses with the need to grant permits for dwellings in areas zoned residential in the planning scheme which has already been adopted by the Joint Planning Committee and submitted for approval.

REVOCATIONS OF PORTIONS OF PLANNING SCHEMES. Section 32 (4) of the Act provides that the Governor in Council may revoke the whole or part of any planning scheme upon the application of the Board, a responsible authority or any any interested person. The purpose of this section is to remove the impediment of a scheme to development which in the Minister's opinion on the advice of expert authority should be permitted to take place. This is generally used to permit development not foreseen by the planning scheme but which can be justified in the public interest. After revocation it is expected that the land concerned will in due course be re-instated in the scheme appropriately zoned or provided for in the ordinance. During the past year the Board reported to the Minister on ten such applications, nine of which were subsequently approved. 1283/68.-2 18

WESTERN PORT DEVELOPMENT. During the year the State Development Committee completed its Report on the desirability of developing further port facilities at Western Port. The Report confirmed Western Port's natural advantages as a prospective deep water port but indicated that in the absence of firmly expressed intentions by industrial interests the question of what type of development might take place must remain largely a matter of speculation. Closely following on the release of the Committee's Report a number of large industrial concerns announced that they had plans for large-scale development of land near the township of Hastings. In view of the ramifications of these proposals a meeting convened by the Secretary of the Premier's Department, widely representative of Government Departments and public authorities likely to be involved in the provision of essential works and services such as transport (both road and rail), power, water and sewerage, housing, &c., was held on 26th April, 1967. The Board was represented at the meeting by its Chief Town Planner, Mr. B. J. Opie. The purpose of the meeting was to convey to the authorities the known extent of the proposed developJn-ent and to ascertain where possible the ability of the authorities to meet likely future requirements. Such large scale industrial development involving as it must a variety of authorities responsible for works and services, extends its influence far beyond the actual location of the industries concerned. In this case the whole of the Mornington Peninsula extending north to Frankston and Dandenong and including Cranbourne will feel the effect of the proposals. In the Board's view the broad development planning required should be the responsibility of a regional planning authority. Regional planning on a scale capable of implementing government policy affecting land use and development as outlined in the article in this Report entitled "Future Growth of Melbourne", is not provided for in the Town and Country Planning Act as it now stands. Clearly, the development contemplated at Western Port demonstrates the desirability of providing for it.

GIPPSLAND LAKES INQUIRY. In August, 1966 the Board was invited by the State Development Committee to submit evidence in connection with the Committee's inquiry into " the control, maintenance, promotion and development of the Gippsland Lakes " . · Mr. B. J. Opie, Chief Town Planner, represented the Board and stressed the adverse effect that uncontrolled development could have on areas of natural beauty, attractive to tourists and holidaymakers. The following photograph shows that these qualities are apparent in the Gippsland Lakes area. 19

He compared what had been achieved under the Board's planning schemes for Lake Eildon and the , with examples such as the unbroken ribbon of development along the inland side of the Nepean Highway from Dromana to Portsea which had occurred prior to the introduction of planning control. He pointed out that most councils are now aware of the need for planning measures to precede development as a positive influence in shaping a satisfactory environment. Four municipalities embrace the perimeter of the Gippsland Lakes-the Shires of Avon, Rosedale, Bairnsdale and Tambo. The councils of the latter three are administering Interim Development Orders pending the approval of the planning schemes they are preparing. However, the Rosedale Order is the only one of the three which entirely covers the section of the Lakes perimeter within the municipality. The foreshores of the Lakes without any planning control amounts to almost half of the total length. While acknowledging the existence of some planning control the Board's evidence stressed the need for a comprehensive and co-ordinated planning concept of the needs of a single geographical feature such as the Gippsland Lakes. Regardless of the potential for further tourist activity the existing circumstances justifies the setting up of a joint planning committee, including representatives of the four councils concerned to produce a co-ordinated planning scheme to guide the future development of the Lakes area. Amendments to the legislation in the future may provide a more satisfactory means of achieving the ends desired but in the meantime the bringing together of the councils in a joint venture to plan the Lakes as a whole unified resource will assist in bringing recognition to the need for a comprehensive and overall approach to the area.

CONTROL OF JUNK YARDS. In its Twenty-first Annual Report the Board drew attention to the unsightliness of junk yards, their detrimental effect on the neighbourhoods in which they occur and the inability of municipal councils not administering planning measures to control their location and general appearance. Following a report made subsequently to the Minister by the Board, the Local Government Act has now been amended to give the council of any municipality power to require an owner or occupier of property to remove or destroy refuse on or in such property. The same amendment enables a council to require an owner or occupier of land, which in the opinion of the council is unsightly, or in any way affects the amenity of the neighbourhood, or is dangerous to the public, to enclose or to screen the land to the satisfaction of the council. In the event of any owner or occupier failing to comply with the council's direction the council can do the work at the owner or occupier's expense. A circular (No. 7) has been prepared by the Board for the guidance of planning authorities giving suggestions for the control of the use of land and buildings for the storage of junk by means of a planning scheme made under the Town and Country Planning Act. The circular describes the characteristics of junk yards and refers to factors such as location appearance, loading and unloading of vehicles and parking facilities, nuisance such as noise, smell or the discharge of smoke, advertising signs and appropriate zoning, which a planning authority should consider when dealing with proposals for the establishment of junk yards. In the Board's opinion junk yards should only be included in industrial or rural zones and be subject to the grant of a permit by the responsible authority. The latter provisions would enable the responsible authority to require an applicant to advertise the application so that any person who may be detrimentally affected by the proposed use can object and if he is aggrieved by the determination of the responsible authority appeal to the Minister.

ADVERTISING SIGNS AND PANELS. The need to introduce a uniform code to replace the multiplicity of controls now operating over the erection, location and design of outdoor advertising signs and panels was referred to in the Board's Twenty-first Annual Report. The Outdoor Advertising Association itself has expressed the opinion that some restraints on advertising signs are necessary if they are to be effective. The situation has arisen largely from the lack of uniformity in the by-law controls imposed by different municipal councils, and in some traffic and direction signs. Advertising may also be controlled under the Town and Country Planning Act by which a responsible authority may make provision in a planning scheme for- " prohibiting restricting or regulating the construction erection and use of advertising signs or hoardings whether illuminated or not and whether attached to buildings or other structures or not." Many councils have taken advantage of this provision, but the wide discretion which they have reserved to themselves in their planning schemes has often added to the confusion. 20

Some councils have made no attempt to control advertising under any of the powers available to them. During the period under review the Outdoor Advertising Association with the support of the Municipal Association, made representations to the Minister, who agreed to convene a meeting of interested parties to initiate discussions on the formulation of a uniform code. The result was the formation in March, 1967 of the Outdoor Advertising Committee representing the Local Government Department, Country Roads Board, Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, Town and Country Planning Board, Municipal Association and Outdoor Advertising Association. The main concern is the built-up areas. The Country Roads Board operates controls over advertising along the roadsides of declared roads and in some cases roads (under the Board's control) in the metropolitan area. These requirements could easily be incorporated into the code. A draft code prepared by the Outdoor Advertising Association as a basis for discussion, is presently under review by the Committee. In the Board's view any code for the control of advertising should have statutory application under the Town and Country Planning Act. Municipal councils would adopt the code in whole or in part the appropriate provisions being included in the planning scheme ordinance. Some discretion must of course be allowed to the responsible authority as circumstances vary from place to place. Furthermore, the responsible authority should have the right to impose conditions in granting permits to advertisers. For many years, as town planning schemes submitted to the Board have been examined, the Board has endeavoured to adjust the ordinances to secure as much applicable uniformity as possible. However, it is envisaged that the code which is being formulated will afford a reasonable degree of uniformity over the whole State and eliminate the confusion that exists at present.

PORT PHILLIP AUTHORITY. No part of the Melbourne area or for that matter of the State has been taken so much for granted as Port Phillip Bay. Yet its economic, social and environmental value, though difficult to assess, could hardly be over-estimated. It is the gateway to two major ports which handle almost the entire State maritime trade. The Port of Melbourne is the second biggest in Australia in terms of tonnage handled. The waters of the Bay support a substantial fishing industry and although not always kind to the participants it provides great scope for a large fleet of small boats whose amateur sailors of all ages operate from clubs located at points along almost the whole length of foreshore. The Bay is indeed a vast recreation area not only for sailors but also for anglers and swimmers. Few cities anywhere in the world have so much sheltered water at their door-step. It has been a big influence on the pattern of Melbourne's growth and although not outstanding scenically it has a particular kind of beauty and a charm which has attracted many residents to its shores. The value of land at bayside suburbs is evidence of its popularity. Fortunately, the foreshore for 1he most part, is available to the public through generous reserves and esplanades set aside before growth and land alienation took charge. Old friends taken for granted are often neglected. They can always be relied on to be there. Port Phillip Bay has probably suffered neglect since the first day of settlement and any improvements in official treatment are likely to have been offset by growth in population. The convenience of its location has been valuable for regulated disposal of effluent but has led also to abuses and resultant pollution. Neglect or ill-informed treatment along the foreshores has resulted in much erosion and even ruination of certain beaches. This neglect has not necessarily been for want of powers or authorities to control the causes. The greatest need is co-ordination of control and this has now been recognized by the Government in setting up the Port Phillip Authority. The Minister for Lands pointed out to the Legislative Assembly on the 12th October, 1966, in his second reading speech relating to the Bill setting up the Port Phillip Authority, that a large number of Government Departments and instrumentalities, some with statutory powers and some without, had an interest in the Port Phillip area. These include the Melbourne and Geelong Harbour Trusts, the Ports and Harbours Branch of the Public Works Department, the Fisheries and Wildlife Department, the Chief Secretary's Department through the operation of the Motor Boating Act, the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, the Department of Crown Lands and Survey, the Local Government Department the Town and Country Planning Board, the Soil Conservation Authority and the Tourist Development Authority. To this imposing list can be added the many councils whose municipalities abut the foreshore of the Bay. The Port Phillip Authority Act provides the machinery for co-ordination of the operation of all the authorities who have responsibilities related to Port Phillip Bay and for the control of certain classes of development. 21

The Authority set up under the Act comprises a full-time independant chairman and part-time representatives of the Department of Crown Lands and Survey, Public Works Department Soil Conservation Authority and the Town and Country Planning Board. In commenting on the draft Bill before it was submitted to Parliament the Board criticized its encroachment into the field of land-use control already available under the Town and Country Planning Act. Division of land use controls, the Board argued, was confusing to developers and the cause of delays in arriving at decisions on development applications. The Board's view was that the Authority could be just as effective if it were to function as a consulting body to planning authorities, with power of veto where necessary. A further criticism by the Board was the limitation of the Authority's powers as regards unalienated Crown land on foreshore areas. However, subject to these criticisms the Board welcomed the setting up of the Authority as a control, research and vigilance body for what is not only a vital natural asset but a single entity requiring a substantially uniform approach.

MELBOURNE'S FUTURE WATER SUPPLY. The year 1967 is so far a remarkably dry year. Unless there is good spring rain the ability of the existing water storage basins to serve the Melbourne metropolitan area will be severely tested over the summer months. It is confidently predicted that Melbourne's present growth rate of 50,000 persons per year­ or more than 2 · 5 per cent. per annum--will increase to a marked degree in the foreseeable future. It is obvious therefore that additional water will have to be found to cope with the needs of a much larger Melbourne 30 years from now. The whole question has been exercising the mind of the Government for some years. As a result of a report in 1962 by the Board of Works recommending a staged programme to draw water from mountain catchments to provide for a metropolitan population of 5 millions the Government decided to have the situation thoroughly examined and an inquiry was begun by the Parliamentary Public Works Committee. Two progress reports have been presented by the Committee and the Final Report is expected in the near future. The first report sought and received Government acknowledgement that the waters of the Big River would not be made available for metropolitan use. 1t also recommended that the Board of Works be authorized to develop the water resources of five creeks located in the Yarra Valley. The second progress report was released in November, 1966. It stated that in planning a water supply for a metropolitan population of 5 million people and for a further I million in the Mornington Peninsula, and in West Gippsland by the year 2000 large new storage areas would be required. It recommended that action be taken to reserve for future water conservation purposes possible storage sites at Cardinia Creek, at Yarra Brae in the Yarra Valley, and at Sugarloaf Creek and Watson's Creek in the Christmas Hills area. The Cardinia Creek project in the Shires of Sherbrooke and Berwick was given highest priority and the Board of Works has been authorized to acquire the necessary land. As regards the other sites the Committee did not feel it could reasonably recommend the outright reservation of the land involved, pending the presentation of its Final Report at a later date. At the Minister's request the Board examined the planning situation regarding the proposed dam sites. The Cardinia Creek site did not present any problems as the Board of Works had received authority to commence acquiring the land. The remaining three sites are located in three municipalities-the Shire of Lillydale which is administering its approved planning scheme and the Shires of Eltham and Healesville which are operating Interim Development Order~ while preparing their planning schemes. The examination revealed that practically all of the land which might conceivably need to be protected, both for actual water storage purposes and for use as a buffer zone, was located in rural zones under the different schemes although there is some variation between the zone provisions as to the minimum allotment sizes allowed. The Board then had preliminary discussions with officers of the councils to examine the nature of the existing planning controls over the areas concerned and to assess whether these controls where sufficient to adequately protect the reservoir sites and their environs. Subsequently the three councils, together with the Council met and resolved to form a Regional Planning Committee to plan development in the Upper Yarra Valley on a regional basis. Th~ councils ~lso decided to press for an early decision by the Government on the recommendatiOns made m the progress reports of the Parliamentary Public Works Committee on future water storages for the Melbourne metropolitan area. 22

The Board commends the formation of such a committee as a realistic planning approach on a regional basis although action along these lines will have to be deferred until enabling legislation is enacted. In the meantime firm action by the councils to adhere strictly to the provisions of the rural zones in the administration of their Interim Development Orders should ensure ample protection for the vital areas which have been indicated as necessary to reserve for water supply purposes.

FUTURE GROWTH OF MELBOURNE. A number of references have been made in other sections in this Report to the generally accepted prediction that Melbourne's population will reach 5 million people by about the turn of the century. In its last Annual Report the Board stated that the Minister had sought the Board's advice on the likely future shape and nature of Melbourne, the most suitable method of planning and regulating its future growth, and the most desirable administrative arrangement to supervise this growth. As the Minister had requested immediate action and as the Board's staff was already heavily committed to routine responsibilities, he authorized the Board to retain a firm of urban and regional research consultants, to assist in the study. Following preliminary studies the Chairman of the Board conferred with the executives of a number of public and private bodies interested in or responsible for metropolitan development. These discussions revealed on the part of all those concerned an intense interest in metropolitan growth problems and appreciation of the pressing need for overall direction. The Chairman also visited planning authorities in other States and New Zealand to study their methods of dealing with metropolitan and regional growth problems in large cities comparable to Melbourne. The Board's preliminary studies revealed that although Melbourne's growth had assumed many unsatisfactory characteristics the area affected was in fact almost entirley contained either by the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme prepared by the Board of Works or by planning schemes administered by local authorities. The Board has therefore turned its attention to what it considers to be the first fundamental need-an effective organization for strategic planning for a greatly enlarged area of some, 7,000 square miles. The Board considered such a large area necessary not only to accommodate 5 million people but all their attendant recreation and conservation requirements. The area includes Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula, and the whole of Westernport and the Mornington Peninsula. In the Report being drafted for submission to the Minister, the Board has adopted the term " strategic planning" to describe long-range broad plans and programmes designed to integrate the key components of development such as land use, conservation and the infrastructure works and public services of State Government Departments and statutory authorities. Physical planning within this broad framework would be the responsibility of local government bodies specially constituted to function as regional planning authorities. Many of the Government Departments and public authorities concerned with metropolitan growth have their own forward planning well in hand. The fact that there has not been the opportunity to integrate these plans into a comprehensive strategic plan which gives due weight to the justifiable claims of each of these organizations appears to the Board to be the fundamental problem which must be overcome. This is the key to the organization which the Board will recommend. Although the administrative machinery which the Board is envisaging is designed primarily for Melbourne it could and should be applied to any area in the State with an existing or potentially viable economic base. The Latrobe Valley immediately suggests itself and there are undoubtedly other areas which come within this category. The Report which the Board will submit to the Minister in the near future deals with one of the most pressing problems of our time. The tendency to urbanization is posing serious problems as big cities all over the world absorb an increasing share of their country's population growth.

PLANNING FOR COMPREHENSIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. The Board's Fifteenth Annual Report included a proposal under the heading " Provision for Estate Development in Planning Schemes". This arose out of the Board's concern that land made available by zoning for residential development particularly in the Melbourne area was being used extensively as a medium for speculation, with the undesirable results that the price of subdivided land for the house builder was usually highly inflated and that a much greater surplus of subdivided land was created than was needed for building requirements. The Board recommended in its Report that consideration be given to amending the Town and Country Planning Act to enable the approval of a planning scheme designed specially to set aside land for " estate development" the aim being to ensure that land embraced by the scheme was fully developed. 23

Years have elapsed since this proposal was put forward without any noticeable improvement in the conditions which evoked it. Since that time more land has been made available for residential development ostensibly to accommodate increased population and attendant needs. Although no up-to-date figures are available it is certain that the surplus of subdivided land has increased substantially. Subdivision not tied to building commitment and only faintly related to building needs has been a feature of the growth of all Australian capital cities and many of the larger provincial cities. Almost from the time of first settlement cities have expanded outwards behind a wide belt of subdivided land into which buildings have gradually penetrated to remain widely scattered often for many years supported by the minimum of services. While consolidation of the areas of scattered development was slowly being achieved with population increase the flood of subdivision was spreading further outwards. The problem is also acute in the United States and the defects of sprawl as it has been termed have been succinctly enumerated in the American journal House and Home. The Perth Metropolitan Region Planning Authority thought the journal's reference so apposite to conditions in Perth that it had the whole issue reproduced in an official pamphlet :- " Suburban sprawl is why almost every city is surrounded by a blight belt of by-passed land whose owners held out for too high a price and did not sell. Suburban sprawl is one big reason why downtown is stagnating and downtown stores are losing trade. Suburban sprawl is why almost every city spreads out over three to five times as much land as it uses. Suburban sprawl is why so many houses have to waste big money on septic tanks and disposal fields that will be junked when the sewer lines reach them. Suburban sprawl is one of the two big reasons why land development costs twice as much as it should-double the cost of more compact expansion with shorter street extensions, shorter sewer extensions and shorter utility extensions. Suburban sprawl is one big reason why money is tight ; i.e., the money we need to build houses is being misspent to extend urban services far out into rural areas years before they should be needed." The disadvantages of this system of urban fringe growth are suffered both by the community as a whole and the individual occupants of the fringe areas. In earlier times (and even in recent times) the community has had to bear the costs of providing services under utterly uneconomic conditions. A study in Sydney several years ago cited one example, typical of urban fringe conditions, in which 4,000 lots created 25 years earlier were supporting only 110 houses, and another in which 28 scattered houses were served by 4 miles of formed streets and water mains the equivalent of about 600 feet of street and water main per house. In a later study it was estimated that the water supply facilities available to vacant building lots represented an idle asset of $5 million. Although there are no figures on which to base comparisons, Melbourne has probably suffered as much as any other Australian city from excessive land subdivision. Before planning controls were introduced there was much premature " opening up " of land around the entire metropolitan periphery, some of it extending well out onto the Mornington Peninsula and to the foothills of the Dandenongs. In the introduction of planning controls it is usually the practice to include all subdivided land that has a reasonable prospect of being ultimately developed and so there are many examples of zoning capacity being greatly in excess of actual need. There is one example in which the capacity of the subdivided land or the equivalent in residential zoning is four times the actual number of dwellings. In another instance in spite of several years of rapid growth there are as many vacant building lots in the municipality as houses. The occupants of scattered settlements suffer much inconvenience through remoteness from schools, shops and transport and even health risks through lack of sewerage and drainage and not infrequently garbage disposal facilities. In most cities surpluses of subdivided land have been cut back by the introduction of zoning resulting in more compact development. In some cities responsibilities for providing water supply and sewerage have been imposed on subdivision resulting in less surplus subdivision and better living conditions for occupants. In recent years estate development, or what is sometimes called project housing, has begun to feature in some Australian urban growth following a trend evident in the United States for many years. Subdivision without building is a hinderance to estate development as pointed out in the Board's earlier Report. The estate developer can only operate satisfactorily and economically on wide tracts of unsubdivided land. Estate development has many commendable features. The occupant has the assurance of an established neighbourhood and all that this means in social contacts. He has also a reasonable assurance of full services and easy access to schools, shops, recreation areas and transport. The individualist who prefers a house of his own design in preference to the wide range usually offered by the developer can have a house built to his own specifications. 24

Estate development benefits the authorities responsible for supplying water, sewerage, drainage, electricity, gas and telephones, by enabling them to estimate and plan more precisely and economically the requirements for development. The trend towards estate development should be exploited by planning authorities because it offers the most satisfactory means of avoiding the waste of public funds inherent in haphazard scattered development and what is more important opens the way to pre-planning of new areas, installation of services including sewerage as part of the development process, and the setting aside and actual development of sites in suitable locations for schools, shops and other amenities. Many estate developers, provided they have a large enough tract of land to operate on, actually develop whole neighbourhoods so complete that they include not merely houses but all the amenities that people living in communities need. The Board has been endeavouring to promote the concept of estate development and where it has been practicable, has been urging councils in zoning new areas for residential use to require the subdivider to undertake building on a substantial part of his area as a condition of consent. This method is not entirely satisfactory for a number of reasons but it appears to be the only practical course under prevailing circumstances. The real solution lies in a method by which a large enough area can be assembled to form a unit for pre-planning as a neighbourhood and systematic development as such. One of the obstacles to be overcome is that land available for residential development is often in small rural holdings under different ownership. Another is the idea cherished by many owners of land that there is an inherent right in the ownership of land to reap the rich harvest of subdivision and sale to the highest bidder. Land ownership does indeed confer certain rights but it is now fairly widely recognized that it also carries certain obligations. Owners of land with a potential for greatly increased value due to urban expansion have been the slowest to recognize these obligations. It is a well established belief that multiple ownership of land in small lots in metropolitan inner suburbs has so far inhibited redevelopment of these areas by private enterprise. The assembling of land into sufficiently large units is regarded as a prerequisite to redevelopment and is referred to elsewhere in this report. The same principal applies in the development of new areas. The responsibility for applying it at the present rests with planning authorities.

URBAN REDEVELOPMENT. In its Twenty-First Annual Report the Board drew attention to the Carlton Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan, prepared by the Housing Commission in association with the Melbourne City Council, as significant of broader thinking in terms of urban renewal. In the ensuing year no progress appears to have been made with the project while the need for comprehensive redevelopment particularly in the inner suburbs has continued to be stressed through various forms of publicity media. The need invites little emphasis. As so often occurs in the advocacy of all kinds of reforms in urban planning and development little attention has been given to the need for a satisfactory organization for comprehensive redevelopment. In the meantime the Housing Commission is proceeding within the strict limits of its charter and to the accompaniment of the usual criticism of public housing enterprise with isolated clearance and rebuilding projects. Just how extensive is the need for full scale redevelopment in the inner suburbs of Melbourne has not been determined. Some parts can certainly be classified as substandard and the Housing Commission has been progressively dealing with them. Other parts have experienced a revival of popularity as living areas and a minor degree of rehabilitation has been achieved without the drastic purges so popular with the advocates of high density housing. Obviously there is a case for both rebuilding and rehabilitation (which can be broadly defined as redevelopment) but only a comprehensive study would reveal the areas where the different approaches were appropriate. There would then remain the problem of comprehensive planning and execution.

In the Board's opinion the problems of redevelopment in the b~oadest sense can only be sastisfactorily resolved by the establishment of a redevelopment authority. In Melbourne the inner suburbs were built at a time when public transport either did not exist or was barely established. In the journey to work the distance between homes and jobs was of paramount importance and so there was a very practical reason for compact housing. Although inner suburban houses are tightly packed they mainly consist of individual units on what have come to be regarded as substandard building plots with very small frontages and areas. The extension of the tramway and suburban railway systems removed one of the main reasons for compact housing and so began the neglect of the inner suburbs. In the meantime the central area was extending outwards and large and small factories were penetrating the inner suburbs, hastening their decline as acceptable residential areas. 25

All of the municipalities embracing the inner suburbs experienced a decline in population in the intercensal periods between 1947 and 1961 and except for St. Kilda and Prahran this was again evident in 1966. Except for the slum clearance work by the Housing Commission, the inner suburbs in spite of their eminent suitability have been largely shunned by private enterpreneurs who have sought more congenial environment and less difficult redevelopment conditions in suburbs further removed from the City. The Commission sells about 5 acres a year to private developers for inner city projects such as Hotham Gardens at North Melbourne. Apart from the social need for the redevelopment of inner suburban housing, there is also the strong economic justification derived fron the choice location that most of the inner suburbs enjoy both with respect to physical considerations and their proximity to the central area. Up to the present time central area and inner suburban redevelopment in Australia has been piecemeal. This applies particularly to the central areas where redevelopment has been spasmodic and confined to key locations, generally conforming to existing street patterns and without acknowledgment to any overall plan. In the inner suburbs redeveploment has been handled by State housing authorities again in a fairly spasmodic way. Encouraging departures from this practice have been the Carlton Redevelopment Project still in an embryonic state, even though the technique is being repeated elsewhere, the Church of England project at Edgecliff in Sydney which is more advanced and the Rocks (Sydney) project which in spite of the great advantage of Government ownership of most of the land involved, does not appear to have progressed beyond preliminary planning. However, none of these form part of what can be regarded as a comprehensive programme. Constitution of Redevelopment Authority. Consideration of the structure of an authority to handle comprehensive redevelopment requires an appreciation of the redevelopment process and of the interactions between the areas in which redevelopment is to take place, that is, between the central area and the inner suburbs and again between these latter areas and the metropolis as a whole. The redevelopment process involves- (a) Survey and analysis-to assess potentiality and the need and the degree of need for replacement or rehabilitation. (b) Planning-both broad planning to select and define project areas and detailed planning once a project has been initiated. (c) Finance-to assess financial requirements and to establish financial resources. (d) Promotion-to launch and pilot projects for rebuilding and rehabilitation and to co-ordinate the activities of both private enterprise and the public authorities likely to be involved. (e) Estate management-for all physical operations related to the project site including land assembly where clearance is involved, development rights and charges, sales and development control. It is obvious from consideration of these major responsibilities that they could not be undertaken separately and independently by the different authorities which may be involved. Comprehensive redevelopment is a series of major operations requiring close integration and co-ordination. It should be recognized also that the several operations in the redevelopment process are general enough in character to be performed by a single authority to the degree necessary regardless of whether the project is to be undertaken by public or private enterprise. Once again considering the redevelopment process as outlined above it is apparent that no existing authority as at present constituted is equipped to carry out all of the operations involved. It is essential that there should be a close alliance between the redevelopment authority and appropriate planning authorities to ensure the utmost co-ordination in the investigations that these authorities may be carrying out or are responsible for. A similar need for co-ordination applies to the planning operation particularly in the selection and defining of project areas. The financial operation in the kind of redevelopment envisaged is one which in this country has little foundation to work on. Up to date the only funds that have been made available for redevelopment on a large scale have come from the State Government for Housing Commission slum clearance. Comprehensive redevelopment in which private enterprise would be expected to play a major part would require new avenues of finance particularly where wholesale site acquisition is envisaged. Although these need not be entirely dependent on Government sources a close alliance with the Treasury is essential. Thus the foregoing envisages a single authority responsible for comprehensive redevelopment with a territory not necessarily limited but primarily concerned with the inner municipalities and with powers and resources to enable it to carry out all the operations involved in the redevelopment process. 26

The Board accordingly recommends that consideration be given to the possibility of setting up such an authority so that the present piecemeal approach to redevelopment can be replaced by a co-ordinated programme based on a full knowledge of all the factors involved.

LAND USE ABUTTING COUNTRY ROADS BOARD'S ROADS. The enormous increase in car ownership over the last twenty years has led to changes in the design and location of a number of commercial establishments in which the principal aim is to cater for the motorist. Examples are drive-in theatres, shopping centres and motels. Consequently land with frontage to main traffic arteries has come to enjoy a high premium for its commercial potential. The Country Roads Board, which is charged with the responsibility of planning, constructing and maintaining a State-wide network of arterial roads, has become concerned, as regards commercial uses attracting large volumes of motor traffic, over matters such as the location and adequacy of vehicular entrances to and exits from the site and also the adequacy of off-street parking facilities. When an application is made to the Licensing Court for the establishment of an hotel the Country Roads Board can object if it considers the proposal inadequate as regards vehicular access or off-street parking facilities. However, the Country Roads Board has been frustrated by the absence of obligation on a planning authority to bring to the Board's notice any application for development whose traffic generating characteristics could affect the flow of traffic on declared roads. The Board found itself in the position of having to rely either on a press notice of intention to apply for a permit, or on a planning authority or any council electing to seek the Board's expert advice in dealing with a development application. In the circumstances the Country Roads Board sought the Board's assistance to ensure that all applications for development which abutted declared roads and were likely to generate a substantial amount of traffic were referred to it for comment prior to consideration of the application by the planning authority. The Town and Country Planning Board considers the control of development along main road frontages of vital importance to the maintenance of the efficiency of the main road system.

In the planning of land uses along arterial roads care must be taken to allocate uses which generate the least amount of local traffic. Arterial roads are designed primarily to carry " through " traffic which normally travels at a greater speed than purely local traffic. The passage of large volumes of traffic does however make the frontages of arterial roads popular as sites for certain commercial enterprises. These in turn generate local traffic which is liable to interfere with the flow of through traffic and thus the reduce efficiency of the road.

It is obvious therefore that consultation between town planning authorities and the Country Roads Board should take place not only during the preparation of planning schemes but also when the former are dealing with applications for development which will generate large volumes of local traffic directly onto Country Roads Board declared roads. Consultation might well also be extended to include other major roads and those which councils understand are likely to become declared roads. As a result of the representations by the Country Roads Board the Board prepared a circular (No. 6) explaining the relationship between road planning and land use planning and setting down a procedure to be followed by Responsible Authorities when dealing with applications for land use where consent is required either under an approved planning scheme or an Interim Development Order. The procedure is as follows :- (i) On the receipt of an application for a permit for the use or development of land for the purposes of an hotel, hotel /motel, motel, licensed motel, sports centre, sports oval, racecourse, supermarket, regional shopping centre, drive-in theatre or any other use such as a large factory, service station or car sales yards which may be regarded as a large generator of traffic, the Responsible Authority to immediately notify the Country Roads Board of the application where the site of the proposed development abuts a State Highway, main road, tourists' road, forest road or by-pass road within the meaning of the Country Roads Act 1958 or abuts a road joining such a declared road and is within 5 chains of the intersection of the two roads. The Responsible Authority should also consider whether the advice of the Country Roads Board would assist in the determination of applications for similar classes of development along the frontage to other important roads or roads which the Authority understands may become declared roads. 27

(ii) The application to be not determined until 21 days after the Country Roads Board has been notified or such further period as may be requested by that Board which in the opinion of the Responsible Authority is reasonable having regard to the matters involved ; and (iii) The Responsible Authority in determining the application to take into consideration the views of the Country Roads Board on the particular application or any standards which the Board may from time to time issue in regard to the type of development proposed. The circular has been distributed to every council in Victoria and the Board expects that the adoption by planning authorities of the procedure outlined will assist the Country Roads Board and result in better town planning standards.

LAND USE ZONING-BY-LAWS UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT. Section I97 of the Local Government Act prescribes those matters which may be provided for in by-laws prepared by municipal councils.

Where a by-law made under the provisions of this section prescribes residential areas or other land use controls or deals with other matters of town planning significance the Minister normally seeks the Board's comments. During the period under review three such by-laws prepared by the Cities of Brighton and Maryborough and the were referred to the Board. The by-law prepared by the Brighton City Council was designed to permit the establishment of a petrol filling station, motor car show room and car park on land designated in the base by-law as part residential and part commercial. The Board offered no objection to the approval of this by-law. The proposal of the Maryborough City Council to use its by-Jaw making powers to permit the erection of flats in the commercial area of the city draws attention to the relative merits of by-laws and planning schemes.

This particular by-law was designed to enable flats to be erected on sites appreciably smaller than required in the remainder of the municipality and to dispense with the need to provide the requisite amount of open space at ground level and with the provisions for ofl'-street car parking. The council could have achieved its objective simply by amending its planning scheme ordinance, providing of course the proposal was acceptable. However, it chose to prepare a by-law under a section of the Uniform Building Regulations specifically introduced to cater for the special requirements for flats in the Business Areas of the City of Melbourne.

In the Board's view, it would have been much more desirable to amend the ordinance to allow the desired use with the appropriate conditions. In support of its proposal the council argued that the flats would provide the type of accommodation suitable for those white collar workers such as teachers and bank employees who are subject to transfer in their employment.

The Board has consistently maintained that factors such as site sizes, height and bulk of buildings and the provision of open space are more appropriately controlled under town planning powers which offer greater flexibility than the uniform provisions specified in the Uniform Building Regulations. This matter has been referred to by the Board in many of its previous Annual Reports and in other submissions which it has made. Often the detailed study required in the preparation of a planning scheme substantiates a case for setting aside the more rigid provisions of the Uniform Building Regulations.

The area concerned in the Maryborough case is zoned Commercial " A " in the planning scheme and the Board agreed to the approval of the by-law as a temporary measure subject to the council undertaking to prepare an appropriate amendment to its planning scheme in respect of the erection of flats in this zone. The council has since submitted the amendment for inclusion in the scheme which is now awaiting the approval of the Governor in Council.

The remaining by-law submitted by the Bacchus Marsh Shire Council, was a modified form of a by-law previously referred to the Board for comment. As the by-law generally accorded with the views expressed by the Board when the by-law was first submitted no objection was offered to its approval save to reiterate the opinion given in conjunction with recommendations in regard to previous by-laws of this nature that a soundly based planning scheme for Bacchus Marsh would be far superior to the present unsatisfactory method of land use control through the operation of by-laws, a method so far favoured by the Bacchus Marsh Shire CounciL 28

SCHEME UNDER SECTION 605 OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT. Section 605 of the Local Government Act provides that a municipality may purchase or compulsorily take land which, although surplus to its primary intention of opening, altering, increasing or diverting any street or road, would, if so purchased or taken, permit a more satisfactory and economical use of the land. One case of this kind came before the Board during the period under review. The Heidelberg City Council intends carrying out the resubdivision of an area known as the Rosanna Golf Links Estate in which some existing streets are to be closed and some streets to be opened giving access to land for subdivision. Approval of the scheme would enable the council to provide a substantial amount of public open space through the sale of the subdivisional lots. The Board, in its report, recommended approval of the scheme subject to some amendment to the design.

AUSTRALIAN PLANNING INSTITUTE CONGRESS-SYDNEY 1966. The Ninth Australian Planning Congress under the sponsorship of the Sydney Division of the Australian Planning Institute was held in Sydney from the 21st to 26th August, 1966. The Chairman Mr. R. D. L. Fraser, the Chief Town Planner, Mr. B. J. Opie and Mr. N. T. Wale, Planning Officer attended the Congress. The Congress programme provided for four working sections as follows :- Section I : Planning in South East Asia-the subject countries included 1ndia, Thailand, New Guinea, the Phillipines, Indonesia and Singapore and the papers presented dealt with matters such as housing, village planning, town planning, urban renewal and industrialization. Section ll : Political and Economic Planning-the papers presented dealt with political aspects of the use and development of water resources, financial aspects of the implementation of local planning schemes and regional economic planning. Section Ill: Technological Change and Planning Techniques-this section covered a number of technological subjects and the papers presented dealt mainly with the application of analytical methods and planning practice to this particular field. Section IV : People and Planning-this section dealt particularly with the involvement of the public in the whole machinery of community planning. In Section IV a paper was presented by the Minister, The Honorable R. J. Hamer, M.L.C., on "Planning for Recreation and Leisure in Victoria", which set down in some detail the manner in which the Victorian Government is on the one hand ensuring that ample public open space is provided along with development, and on the other that existing open space fronting the coastline and water storage areas are safeguarded for the enjoyment of the community at large. Plenary papers were delivered by Mr. Edmund Bacon, Executive Director of the Planning Commission of the City of Philadelphia, whose subject was "Planning as a Viable Democratic Process "; Mr. William Clark, Director of the Overseas Development Institute of London, who spoke about " Planning for Economic Development "; and Khalid Shibli, Chief, Physical Planning and Housing Sector, National Planning Commission, Pakistan, whose topic was "A New Approach to Planning in Pakistan ". Finally one session of the Congress was devoted to Landscape Planning and two papers were delivered on this topic.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The effectiveness of town and country planning as a public undertaking depends very much on the exchange of information, co-ordination and good will between the authorities concerned. The planning authority, on the one hand, in its pursuit of satisfactory standards in urban and rural development is bound to consult specialist authorities whose proposals are likely to be influenced or even initiated by planning scheme provisions. On the other hand all public authorities have an obligation to inform the planning authority about their intentions and policies which might affect or influence development in the planning area. The Board enjoys harmonious relations with the many public authorities with which it is associated and is grateful for their co-operation. The Board has been particularly gratified by the amount of contact it has been able to achieve with local government authorities during the year. It also records its appreciation of the co-operation it has received from the increasing number of private organizations representing different sections of community interest with which it is in contact. 29

STAFF. The inadequacy of the Board's staff strength and equipment remains its most pressing problem even though, through the special representations of the Minister it was able during the year to increase its staff by five officers and to purchase a motor vehicle. The Board has two major aims. The first is to strengthen its relations with the local authorities responsible for preparing and administering planning schemes in order to bring about a better understanding of planning and what it is capable of achieving, and also to extend the scope of planning particularly in relation to urban environment. The Board's second major aim is to intensify research and investigation so that its own planning and that of the local planning authorities can be based on a deeper and wider understanding of the economic, social and environmental influences on urban growth and change. Both aims are important in a community which has a sense of responsibility for its own well-being and that of succeeding generations. Yet to achieve them the Board has only a staff of 28 and two vehicles. Its field of responsibility is the whole of the State including Melbourne and its environs, many large towns, and also large country areas where conservation is a vital necessity and where in most instances the Board is solely responsible for the planning. Geographically Victoria is a small State by Australian standards. However, it is the most intensively developed State in the Commonwealth and thus it might be said that the need for land use and environment planning is broadly in inverse ratio to geographical size. These circumstances together with the potentiality for further substantial economic growth which is now abundantly evident means it is essential that every square mile of land be carefully evaluated. It must be continually stressed that it really does pay to look ahead comprehensively and intelligently even over relatively short periods in urban growth and change. Without such recognition the future promises little in the way of better conditions for living, working and leisure. While it deplores its inability to come to grips fully with its responsibilities through inadequate resources the Board records its appreciation of the Minister's deep interest in its work and of his efforts to raise the status of town and country planning in this State. It also expresses its gratitude to the staff and their leaders for their efficiency, enthusiasm and loyalty.

Yours faithfully,

R. D. L. FRASER, Chairman.

A. N. KEMSLEY, Member.

A. C. COLLINS, Member.

27th March, 1968

BRUCE J. OPIE, Chief Town Planner.

W. A. CRAIG, Secretary. 30

APPENDIX I.

PLANNING SCHEMES IN COURSE OF PREPARATION.

Exhibition Received Planning Scheme. Date of I.D.O. Report to Commencement. Approved. Period for Expired. Report Minister. ------1------Cities.

Ararat, Amendment No. 8 21.6.66 9.9.66 25.10.66 29.3.67 .. l .I!. 54 25.1.55 7.9.62 17 .10. 63 Bendigo, Amendment No. I 6.7.64 16.8.64 16.9.64 Bendigo, Amendment No. 2 18.8.64 27.9.64 5 .4. 65 Box Hill (part) 14.8.61 13.12.66 18.8.66 30.6.67 Brighton (part) 14.12. 64 4.10.66 Broadmeadows, Amendment No. 16 20.7.65 27.10.65 19 .11. 65 Broadmeadows, Amendment No. 17 14.9.65 13.1.66 Brunswick, Amendment No. 13 5.12.66 11.5. 67 8.6.67 Camberwell, Amendment No. 17 13.10.64 Camberwell, Amendment No. 22 1.6. 65 26.7.65 1.9.65 Camberwell, Amendment No. 26 26.10.65 15.3.66 2.12.66 Camberwell, Amendment No. 28 14.12.65 24.3.66 Camberwell, Amendment No. 29 14.12.65 24.3.66 18.8.66 14.9.66 Camberwell, Amendment No. 30 14.12.65 26.4.66 Camberwell, Amendment No. 34 13.9.66 5 .1. 67 26.4.67 21.6.67 Camberwell, Amendment No. 35 30.5.67 14.7.67 Camberwell, Amendment No. 36 30.5.67 14.7.67 Castlemaine (1) 21.11.46 25.3.47 (2) 22.8. 63 (part) (3) 6.6.67 *Coburg .. 26.3.56 7.2.67 19.2.59 22.6.61 Colac 23.6.48 10.8.48 5.9.63 11.12.64 Doncaster and Templestowe 8.5.64 24.1. 67 28.10.66 Echuca 15.7.57 19.12.61 5.1.67 Frankston (part) .. 27.2.59 17.3.59 Geelong, Amendment No. 4 to Geelong Planning Scheme 26.10. 66 26.7.67 Hamilton 12.9.46 15.10.46 30 .11. 65 *Heidelberg 25.8.52 7.2.67 27 .4. 59 22.5.62 Heidelberg, Amendment No. 3.9.63 27.7.66 Horsham 3.2.59 12.1. 65 *Malvern .. 20.4.53 7.2.67 27.2.58 8.3.63 Malvern, Amendment No. 1 20.5.58 31.10.58 26.3.63 Malvern, Amendment No. 2 20.5.58 31.10.58 26.3.63 Malvern, Amendment No. 3 ().10.64 26 .4. 65 Maryborough I. 7.48 21.12.48 13.12.61 30.1.63 18.11.64 Melbourne (part) .. 17.10.61 24.1. 67 16.3.65 Mildura .. 8. 5.47 21 .11. 50 31.3.67 Moe, Amendment No. 9 8.9.65 25.10. 65 8.12.65 10.6.66 Moe, Amendment No. 12 28.6.67 Moe, Amendment No. 13 28.6.67 Moe, Amendment No. 14 28.6.67 Moe, Amendment No. 15 28.6.67 Moe, Amendment No. 16 28.6.67 Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 19 2.5.67 28.9.67 Newtown and Chilwell, Amendment No. 5 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 30.6.66 25.10.66 29.11.66 *Preston .. 18.2.52 22.11. 66 (1)12.2.55 11.8.64 (2)31. 7. 63 *Richmond 22.9.52 2 .11. 66 2.7.53 10.2.59 Richmond, Amendment No. 1 28.3.66 26 .4. 67 Ringwood, Amendment No. 2 10.4.67 Sale 19.7.54 16.8.55 Sandringham, Amendment No. 5 14.12.65 Swan Hill 7.3.50 4.4.50 , Amendment No. 8 to the Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional Planning Scheme 26.10. 64 8.2.65 27.4.66 Warrnambool (1) 26.9. 50 (2) 30.9. 58 *Waverley 16.8.51 23.5.67 2.6.55 9.6.58 26.5.59 Waverley, Amendment No. 1 22.4.59 14.8.59 18.12.59 Waverley, Amendment No. 2 28.2.61 29.6.61 11.9.61 Waverley, Amendment No. 3 27.2.62 29.6.62 30.8.62 Waverley, Amendment No. 4 18.12.62 8.5.63 24.7.63 Waverley, Amendment No. 5 3.3.64 7.4.65 25 .10. 66 Waverley, Amendment No. 6 30.11 65 14.3.66 25.10.66

Towns. Camperdown ...... 12.1 .66 Portland, Amendment No. 8 to Portland Planning Scheme 13.9. 66 10.3.67 Stawell .. 1 .10. 62 19.2.64 23.6.66

Boroughs. Kerang (Townships of Kerang, Koondrook, and Quambatook) 17.4.56 11 . I . 56 28. I . 59 24.8.62 22.2.63 18.2.65

• The Board's reports on these schemes and the amendments thereto are being held in abeyance pending the approval of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Planning Scheme. 31

PLANNING SCHEMES IN COURSE OF PREPARATION-continued.

Received Planning Scheme. Date of I for Report to Report. Minister. -~---~-~~~~~~~ ------~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----~-~--i Commencement.

Shires.

Alberton (Coastal) 1.9.59 9.8.60 15.11.61 12.12.62 11.8.66 Alberton, Amendment No. I 7. 11.63 23.12.63 3.4.64 Alberton (Inland Areas) 9.9.65 3.11.65 *Altona, Amendment No. 3 12.12.57 12.7.66 8.4.59 4.7.60 Altona, Amendment No. 8 10.9.59 26.10.59 3.12.59 23.12.59 Altona, Amendment No. 19 20.10.66 14.3 67 Bairnsdale (Parishes of Bairnsdale, Broadlands, Wy-Yung, and Moormurug) 1.12.59 23.5.61 Ballarat (Miner's Rest) 15.6.65 26.10.65 Ballarat, Amendment No. 14 13.2.67 17.4.67 21.4. 67 Barrabool (part) .. 16.3.61 2.8.61 5' I. 67 Barrabool, Amendment No. 2 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 19.8.65 3.12.65 20.1.66 Barrabool, Amendment No. 6 to Ocean Road Planning Scheme 20.4.67 8.4.67 Barrabool, Amendment No. 7 to Ocean Road Planning Scheme 16.11.66 8.7.67 Barrabool, Amendment No. 8 to Ocean Road Planning Scheme 20.4.67 Barrabool, Amendment No. 9 to Ocean Road Planning Scheme 16.3.67 Barrabool, Amendment No. 10 to Ocean Road Planning Scheme 18.5.67 Bass 10 8.62 16.10.62 19.1.67 Beechworth (part) 10.5.65 Bellarine (part) 4.12.58 7.6.60 Bellarine, Amendment No. 4 to Geelong Planning Scheme 20.2.67 31.7.67 Bellarine, Amendment No. 5 to Geelong Planning Scheme 3.5.67 Benal\a, Amendment No. 2 19.10.65 4.12.65 20.1.66 7.12.66 Berwick (Berwick Riding) .. 21.5. 56 9.2.60 1. 6. 67 Berwick (Beaconsfield, Pakenham, and Iona Ridings) 16.11.59 22.3.60 Buln Buln 17.3.64 13.10.64 Cohuna (part) 19.9.63 19. 11.63 Colac (part) (!) 8.11.48 (2) 9.5. 67 Corio, Amendment No. 8 to Geelong Planning Scheme 16.11.66 18.4.67 Corio, Amendment No. 1 to Lara Planning Scheme .. 16.11.66 18.4.67 Cranbourne (part Cranbourne and Tooradin Ridings) 11.12.59 1.3.60 24.10.63 5.3.65 Cranbourne, (Lang Lang, Koo-wee-rup, and Tooradin Ridings) 17.4.64 13.10.64 Croydon, Amendment No. I 16.12.63 .. 23.12.64 Croydon, Amendment No. 2 19.10.65 24.5.66 1.3.66 Croydon, Amendment No. 3 2.8.66 19.4.67 Deakin (Tongala Township) 19.9.60 11.7.61 *Diamond Valley 25.8.52 7.2.67 27 .4. 59 22.5.62 Eltham (Eltham Township) (I) l. 11.58 2.11.66 (2) 19.2. 63 (3) 23.3.64 Eltham (part) 1.11 .58 27.2.63 Euroa (part) 11.9.46 12.11.46 Flinders, Amendment No. 2 17.8.66 6.12.66 Flinders, Amendment No. 3 17.8.66 3.10.66 14.10.66 23.6.67 Flinders, Amendment No. 4 21.12.66 14.2.67 22.3.67 Flinders, Amendment No. 5 15.2.67 19.4.67 16.5. 67 28.6.67 Flinders, Amendment No. 6 21.6.67 6.8.67 Flinders, Amendment No. 7 21.6.67 Flinders, Amendment No. 8 21.6.67 6.8.67 Gisborne 3.10.61 30.1.63 Hastings 1.11.60 21.12.60 14.9.67 Healesville 1.6.60 9.1 62 Kilmore .. (I) 4.10. 56 7.6.60 (2) 2.3.60 Knox:, Amendment No. 2 .. 2.2.66 16.5.66 28.6.66 Knox:, Amendment No. 6 .. 5.10.66 12.11.66 27.1.67 Knox, Amendment No. 8 .. 21.12.66 25.2.67 14.3.67 Knox, Amendment No. 9 .. 21.12.66 25.4.67 I. 6. 67 Knox, Amendment No. 12 15 3.67 12.5.67 30.5.67 Knox:, Amendment No. 13 15.3.67 26.5.67 21.6.67 Knox, Amendment No. 14 15.3.67 26.7.67 Knox, Amendment No. 15 15.3.67 24.6.67 Knox, Amendment No. 16 15.3.67 26.5.67 Knox, Amendment No. 17 17.5.67 24.6.67 Korumburra 1.5.64 28.9.65 Kyneton (part) 10.9.64 9.12.64 24.11 .66 Lillydale, Amendment No. 2 22.8.66 7.12.66 12.4.67 Lillydale, Amendment No. 3 27.2.67 24.8.67 Lillydale, Amendment No. 4 27.2.67 30.6.67 (Maffra Township) 1.10.59 1.6.60 3.4.67 Mansfield (Mansfield Township) (1) 1.1. 65 (2) 1. 6. 65 Mansfield, Amendment No. 3 to Eildon Reservoir Planning Scheme 25.1.67 15.3.67 16.5.67 Melton (part) (I) 24.2.59 10.8.60 12.8.65 (2) 14.8.62 Mildura (part) l7 .11.58 2.1.59 Mornington, Amendment No. 13 26.5.65 19.7.65 27.8.65 25.11.65 Mornington, Amendment No. 17 25.5.66 18 7.66 21.10.66 Mornington, Amendment No. 19 27.7.66 11.11.66 4.1.67 Mornington, Amendment No. 20 26.10.66 10.2.67 22.5.67 Mornington, Amendment No. 21 5 .I. 67 27.2.67 22.5.67 Mornington, Amendment No. 22 5 .I. 67 25 .4. 67 22.5.67 *The Board's reports on these schemes and the amendments thereto are being held in abeyance pending the approval of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Planning Scheme. 32

PLANNING SCHEMES IN COURSE OF PREPARATION-continued.

-- -·---~------Exhibition Received Planning Scheme. Date of 1.0.0. Period for Report to Commencement. Approved. Expired. Report. Minister.

Shires----<:ontinued. Mornington, Amendment No. 24 21.3.67 15.7.67 Mornington, Amendment No. 26 18 .4. 67 13.6.67 Morwell, Amendment No. 17 15.6.66 27.2.67 20.3.67 21.6.67 Morwell, Amendment No. 18 20.7.66 16.6.67 Morwell, Amendment No. 19 17.8.66 10.6.67 Morwell, Amendment No. 20 18.1.67 17.4.67 8.6.67 Morwell, Amendment No. 21 14.12.66 Morwell, Amendment No. 22 2.3.67 1.5.67 30.5.67 Morwell, Amendment No. 23 4.5.67 28.7.67 Morwell, Amendment No. 2 to the Yinnar Planning Scheme .. 15.6.66 25 .4. 67 30.5.67 (Myrtleford Township) 22.6.61 2.8.61 14.10.66 Narracan (Trafalgar-Yarragon) 6.6.66 12.7.66 Nathalia (Nathalia Township) 20.1. 64 6.5.64 Newham and Woodend 3.9.57 Orbost (Orbost Township) .. (1) 1.2.64 (2) 1.2.67 Otway ( Township) 1.2.66 Portland, Amendment No. 4 to the Portland Planning Scheme 11.12. 65 2.4.66 27.4.66 22.6.67 Rochester (Parish of Wharparilla) 3.12.64 16.6.65 9.9.65 14.3.67 Rochester (Rochester Township) 3.6.65 4.8.65 Rodney (Merrigum Township) 26.3.62 20.6.62 Rodney (Mooroopna Township) (1) 26.3.62 19.6.62 (2) 3.9.62 22.1.63 (3) 28. 10. 63 (4) 2.5.66 Rodney (Tatura Township) 26.3.62 20.6.62 Rosedale (part) 16.7.62 14.11.62 Seymour (Seymour Township) (1) 9 .9.46 1 .10.46 30.4. 52 (2) 10.5.65 20.1. 66 21.9.66 Shepparton (part) 1. 7. 63 13.5.64 Sherbrooke, Amendment No. 2 2.5.66 16.2.67 14.4.67 Sherbrooke, Amendment No. 3 19.9.66 28.12. 66 Sherbrooke, Amendment No. 5 1. 5. 67 26.6.67 South Barwon (Connewarre) (1) 18.7.61 28.10.64 14.8.67 (2) 7.7.64 South Barwon, Amendment No. 6, to the Gee1ong Planning Scheme 15.2.66 27.6.66 South Barwon, Amendment No. 7, to the Geelong Planning Scheme 21.6.66 21.12.66 16.5.67 South Barwon, Amendment No. 8, to the Geelong Planning Scheme 21.6.66 19.9.66 18 .I!. 66 South Gippsland (part) 9.8.62 16.10.62 21.9.66 Swan Hill (Nyah-Nyah West) 8.7.64 2.9.64 31.8.67 Tambo (Townships of Lakes Entrance, Kalimna, Cunninghame, and East Cunninghame) 21.7. 59 24.2.60 Towong (Bethanga-Talgarno) 19.10.64 7.2.67 Upper Murray (Corryong), Amendment No. 2 7.6.66 21.10.66 2.12.66 15.5.67 Upper Yarra 6.8.63 Warragul, Amendment No. 9 14.4. 65 27.8.65 Warragul, Amendment No. 10 14.4. 65 27.8.65 Werribee (part) 8.9.60 19.10.60 30.9.63 11.3. 65 Werribee, Amendment No. 1 11.3. 65 24.6.65 16.7.65 Whittle sea 1.10.66 6.12.66 Wodonga (part) .. 1. 2. 61 23.5.67 11.8. 67 Woorayl (part) 12.5.61 5.7.61 30.10. 63 20.1.66 Woorayl, Amendment No. I 10.3.67 30.8.67 Yackandandah (Kiewa Township) 1. 5.65 29 .I!. 66 30.11. 65 5.8.66 Yackandandah (Yackandandah Township) 1.5.65 29.11.66 30.11. 65 5.8.66 Yarrawonga (Yarrawonga Township) ( l) 7.9.54 1.12.54 (2) 6.7.65 20.9.66 Yea 11.7.60 29.3.61

Joint Committees. A.rarat and District ( and part ) 15.12.60 11.4.61 Ballarat and District (City of Ballarat, and part Shires of Ballarat, Bungaree, Buninyong, and Grenville) (1) 1.10.55 12.11.57 18.12.59 29.6.67 (2) 2. 9. 57 Wangaratta Sub-Regional ( and part Shires of Oxley and Wangaratta) 12.7.51 24.1.67 9.4. 58 10.8.66 Wangaratta Sub-Regional, Amendment No. I 16.3.66 27.6.66 16.9.66

Board of Works. Melbourne and Metropolitan 11.1.50 13.12.66 21.10.54 2.11.59 19.2.64 Melbourne and Metropolitan, Amendment No. 9.8.60 I Melbourne and Metropolitan, Extension " A" 19.11.58 20.5.59 1.12.59 3.2.60 19.2.66 Milleara Area (1) 18.3.64 7.4.66 7.2.67 (2) 8. 7. 64 . 33

PLANNING SCHEMES IN COURSE OF PREPARATION-continued.

I I Exhibition Received Planning Scheme. Date of I.D.O. Period for Report to Approved. Expired. Report. Minister.

Town and Country Planning Board

Eildon Reservoir (Shire of Alexandra) ...... 23.9.59 I 27.3.62 ...... Eildon Sub-Regional, Extension "A " ...... 31.10.63 26.11.63 ...... Lake Bellfield (part ) ...... 12.9.62 31.10.62 31.3.66 .. . . Lake Buffalo (part Shires of Myrtelford and Oxley) .. . . 10.5.63 18.6.63 ...... Lake Glerunaggie (part ) . . . . 28.4.65 25.5.65 ...... Lake Merrimu (part Shires of Bacchus Marsh and Gisborne) .. 8.9.66 4.10.66 ...... (part) ...... Lake Nillahcootie (part Shires of Benalla and Mansfield) . . 11.1.67 7.2.67 . . .. Lake Tyers to Cape Howe Coastal (part ) . . 31.10.64 24.11.64 ...... Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional, Extension "A" .. . . 16.9.64 13.10.64 10.10.66 . . .. Phillip Island ...... 6.2.61 20.3.62 30.9.63 . . 13.5.64 Simpson (part Shires of Heytesbury and Otway) . . . . 2.5.66 25.5.66 ...... South Western Coastal (part ) . . . . 7 .I. 65 3.2.65 ...... South Western Costal (part ) . . . . 7.1.65 3.2.65 ...... South Western Coast (part ) .. . . 7 .1. 65 3.2.65 ...... South Western Coastal (part Shire of Portland) . . . . 7. l. 65 3.2.65 ...... South Western Coastal () .. . . 7 .1. 65 3.2.65 ...... Waratah Bay (part Shires of Woorayl and South Gippsland) .. 15.3.61 28.3.62 13.12.65 .. 9.11.66 Wonthaggi Coastal (part ) .. .. 28.4.65 19.5.65 ......

____ ...... __~~-~

1283/68.-3 34

APPENDIX JI.

PLANNING SCHEMES EXAMINED BY THE BOARD DURING THE PERIOD 1sT JULY, 1966 TO 30TH JUNE, 1967.

A. APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL.

Planning Scheme. Date of Approval.

Cities. Benalla 1953, Amendment No. 2, 1966 16.8.66 Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 27, 1965 20.9.66 Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 31, 1966 10.1.67 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 32, 1966 27.6.67 Geelong, Amendment No. 3, 1966 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 23.5.67 Geelong West, Amendment No. 7, 1966 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 13.12.66 Moe-Newborough 1951, Amendment No. 11, 1966 8.11.66 Moorabbin, Section I, Amendment No. 13, 1966 10.1.67 Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 18, 1966 30.5.67 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 20, 1967 30.5.67 Newtown and Chilwell, Amendment No. 4, 1965 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 20.9.66 Nunawading 1954, Amendment No. 3, 1966 29.11.66 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 11, 1966 10.1.67 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 12, 1966 28.2.67 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 13, 1966 30.3.67 *Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 14, 1966 11.10.66 Traralgon Amendment No. 11, 1965 to the Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional Planning Scheme .. not approved *Traralgon, Amendment No. 12, 1967 to the Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional Planning Scheme 18.4.67

Towns. Portland, Amendment No. 7, 1966 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 20.12.66

Shires. Barrabool, Amendment No. 5, 1966 to the Ocean Road Planning Scheme 1955 18.4.67 Bellarine, Amendment No. 2, 1964 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 27.9.66 Bellarine, Amendment No. 3, 1966 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 4.10.66 Benalla 1953, Amendment No. 2, 1965 16.8.66 *Bulla 1959, Amendment No. I, 1967 .. 30.5.67 Cobram 1949, Amendment No. 6, 1965 23.8.66 Cobram 1949, Amendment No. 7, 1966 11.4.67 Corio, Amendment No. 7, 1965 to Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 23.5.67 *Croydon 1961, Amendment No. 5, 1966 11.10.66 Flinders 1962, Amendment No. 2, 1966 28.2.67 Knox 1965, Amendment No. 1, 1967 .. 7.2.67 Knox 1965, Amendment No. 3, 1966 .. 17.1.67 Knox 1965, Amendment No. 7, 1966 .. 11.4.67 Knox 1965, Amendment No. 10, 1967 .. 18.4.67 *Knox 1965, Amendment No. ll, 1967 7.2.67 *Knox 1965, Amendment No. 18, 1967 27.6.67 Lillydale 1958, Amendment No. 1, 1966 13.12.66 Mansfield, Amendment No. 1, 1965 to the Eildon Reservoir Planning Scheme 1959 29.9.66 Mansfield, Amendment No. 2, 1965 to the Eildon Reservoir Planning Scheme 1959 20.9.66 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 18, 1966 7.2.67 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 25, 1967 10.5.67 *Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 28, 1967 30.5.67 Numurkah 1956, Amendment No. 2, 1966 18.4.67 Portland 1957, Amendment No. 3, 1965 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 20.6.67 Portland 1957, Amendment No. 5, 1965 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 11.10.66 *Portland 1957, Amendment No. 6, 1966 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 10.1.67 *Portland 1957, Amendment No. 7, 1966 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 1.2.67 Sherbrooke 1965, Amendment No. I, 1966 10.5. 67 South Barwon, Amendment No. 5, 1966 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 15.11.66 Upper Murray (Cooryong) 1960, Amendment No. 2, 1966 30.5.67

B. REPORTS UNDER CoNSIDERATION BY THE MINISTER.

Cities- Ararat 1953, Amendment No. 8, 1966. Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 29, 1966. Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 34, 1966.

Shires- Alberton (Coastal) 1962. Flinders 1962, Amendment No. 3, 1966. Flinders 1962, Amendment No. 5, 1967. Morwell 1954, Amendment No. 17, 1967. Portland Amendment No. 4, 1966 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957.

• Processed under Section 32 (6) of the Act. 35

APPENDIX liT.

PLANNING SCHEMES PREPARED BY THE BOARD. (a) Approved.

I Date of Government Gazette. Board's by Report to Approval Scheme. ! Governor in ~finister. Council. No. Date,

Club Terrace (Shire of Orbost) 6.5.54 24.5.55 330 1.6.55 Eildon Reservoir () .. 31.3.65 10.8.65 66 11.8.65 Eildon Sub-Regional (part Shire of Alexandra) 19.12.52 26.5.53 484 27.5.53 Eildon Sub-Regional, Amendment No. 1, 1955 16.8.55 6.3.56 264 21. 3. 56 Eildon Sub-Regional, Amendment No. 2 10.4.58 8.5.58 42 21.5.58 Eppalock (part Shires of Metcalfe, Mcivor, and Strathfieldsaye) 8.4.65 17.1.67 5 18.1 67 4.12.64 24.2.65 14 3.3.65 Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional 1949 (Comprising portions of the Shires of Morwell, Narracan, Rosedale, and Traralgon) 26.2.51 24.7.51 710 25.7.51 Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional 1949, Amendment No. 1, 1953 4.1. 54 22.6.54 634 30.6.54 Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional 1949, Amendment No. 5 .. 26.2.64 10.3.64 17 11.3.64 Ocean Road 1955, (comprising portion of the Shires of Barrabool, Otway, South Barwon, and Winchelsea) 12.7.57 15.4.58 33 30.4 58 Ocean Road 1955 (Shire of South Barwon), Amendment No. 2, 1961 6.7.61 11.7.61 56 12.7.61 Tallangatta 1956 5.5.58 25.6.58 61 9. 7.58 Tallangatta 1956, Amendment No. 1, 1965 8.11.65 16.11. 65 93 17.11.65 Tower Hill (part Shires of Warrnambool and Belfast and part ) 29.3.67 17.5.67 44 24.5.67 Tyers Township 5.10.53 14.2.56 226 22.2.56 Yallourn North (comprising portions of Shires of Morwell and Narracan) 18.6.53 1 24.5.55 409 29.6.55

(b) In Course of Preparation.

F

Eildon Reservoir (Shire of Alexandra) ...... 23.9.59 27.3.62 . . .. Eildon Sub-Regional, Extension " A" ...... 31.10.63 26.11.63 . . .. Lake Bellfield (part Shire of Stawell) ...... 12.9.62 31.10.62 31.3.66 .. Lake Buffalo (part Shires of Mynleford and Oxley) .. .. 10.5.63 18.6.63 .. .. Lake Glenmaggie (part Shire of Maffra) ...... 28.4.65 25.5.65 .. .. Lake Merrimu (part Shires of Bacchus Marsh and Gisborne) .. 8.9.66 4.10 66 . . . . (part) Lake Nillahcootie (part Shires of Benalla and Mansfield) . . .. 11.1. 67 7.2.67 . . . . Lake Tyers to Cape Howe Coastal (part Shire of Orbost) .. .. 31.10.64 24.11.64 .. . . Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional, Extension "A " ...... 16.9.64 13.10.64 10.10. 66 .. Phillip Island ...... 6.2.61 20.3.62 30.9.63 13.5.64 Simpson (part Shires of Heytesbury and Otway) ...... 2.5.66 25.5.66 . . .. South Western Coastal (part Shire of Belfast) ...... 7 .1. 65 3.2.65 .. . . South Western Coastal (part Shire of Heytesbury) ...... 7 .1. 65 3.2.65 .. .. South Western Coastal (part Shire of Otway) ...... 7 .I. 65 3.2.65 .. . . South Western Coastal (part Shire of Portland) ...... 7 .1. 65 3.2.65 .. . . South Western Coastal (part Shire of Warrnambool) . . .. 7 .1. 65 3.2.65 . . .. Waratah Bay (part Shire s of W 0 oray 1 and South Gi pp sland .. 15.3.61 28 .3. 62 13. 12. 6 5 Wonthaggi Coastal (part Borough of Womhaggi) 28 .4. 65 19.5.65 36

APPENDIX IV.

PLANNING SCHEMES APPROVED.

Government Gazette. Scheme. No. Date.

Cities. Ararat 15.12.53 15.11.55 870 24.10.S6 Ararat 1953, Amendment No. 1, 1961 9.10.61 17.10.61 90 18.10.61 Ararat 1953, Amendment No. 2 26.2.63 9.4.63 31 10.4.63 Ararat 1953, Amendment No. 3 31.7.63 12.11.63 89 13.11.63 Ararat 1953, Amendment No. 4, 1964 4.2.65 2.3.65 14 3.3.65 Ararat 1953, Amendment No. 5, 1964 21.10.65 25.1.66 7 26.1.66 Ararat 1953, Amendment No. 6 17.12.65 11.1.66 4 12.1.66 Ararat 1953, Amendment No. 7, 1966 18.4.66 15.6.66 45 22.6.66 Benalla (part) .. 4.10.54 11.1.55 7 19 .1. 55 Benalla, Amendment No. 1 .. 28.7.61 12.9.61 81 13.9.61 Benalla Amendment No. 2 .. 11.5.66 16.8.66 61 17.8.66 *Broadmeadows, Part I 13.9.50 14.10.52 833 22.10.52 *Broadmeadows, Part I, Amendment No. 1 26.2.54 4.5.54 333 12.5.54 *Broadmeadows, Part I, Amendment No. 2 .. 30.3.54 30.11.54 1148 8.12.54 *Broadmeadows, Part I, Amendment No. 3 4.3.55 27.4.55 233 4.5.55 *Broadmeadows, Amendment No. 7, 1961 18.8.61 29.8.61 77 30.8.61 *Broadmeadows, Amendment No. 8 .. 13.12.62 22.1. 63 s 23.1.63 *Broad meadows, Amendment No. 10, 1963 2.10.64 4.11.64 90 11.11 64 *Broadmeadows, Amendment No. 11, 1963 23.3.64 28.4.64 33 29.4.64 *Broadmeadows, Amendment No. 13, 1964 6.5.65 9.6.65 4S 16.6.65 *Broadmeadows, Amendment No. 14, 1965 18.10.65 19.10.65 86 20.10.65 *Brunswick No. 1 10.6.49 25.10.49 879 26.10.49 *Brunswick No. 2 .. 25.7.52 25.8.53 768 2.9.53 *Brunswick No. 3 .. 21.5. 54 16.6.54 587 23.6.54 *Brunswick 1956 .. 27.3.57 22.10.57 264 4.12.57 *Brunswick 1956, Amendment No. 1 .. 2.12.58 22.12.58 7 21.1. 59 *Brunswick 1956, Amendment No. 3 .. 9.11.59 17 .11. 59 106 2.12.59 *Brunswick 1956, Amendment No. 4 .. 1.2.61 11.4.61 36 10.5.61 *Brunswick 1956, Amendment No. 5, 1960 8.9.61 12.9.61 81 13.9.61 *Brunswick 1956, Amendment No. 6, 1960 29.8.61 3 .4.62 34 4.4.62 *Brunswick 1956, Amendment No. 7, 1962 11.4.63 4.9.63 73 11.9.63 *Brunswick 1956, Amendment No. 8 .. 12.3.64 9.6.64 so 10.6.64 *Brunswick 1956, Amendment No. 9, 1963 13.3.64 28.4.64 33 29.4.64 *Brunswick 1956, Amendment No. 10, 1964 .. 2.6.65 29.6.65 so 30.6.65 *Brunswick 1956, Amendment No. 11, 1965 .. 10.11.65 14.12.65 102 15.12.65 *Camberwell 1954 .. 14.2.56 8.10.57 2S2 30.10. 57 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 1 7 .4. 61 20.6.61 50 21.6.61 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 2 8.5.62 22.1.63 5 23.1.63 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 3, 1961 27.7.62 9.6.65 45 16.6.65 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 4, 1962 8.6.62 12.6.62 59 13.6.62 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 5, 1962 19.6.62 26.6.62 67 27.6.62 *camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 6 10.7.62 28.8.62 96 29.8.62 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 7 26.9.62 27 .11. 62 122 28.11.62 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 8 20.9.63 3.12.63 94 4.12.63 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 9, 1963 .. 9.4.64 8.9.64 76 9.9.64 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 10, 1963 .. 28.8.63 10.9.63 73 11.9.63 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 11 8.7.64 18.8.64 72 19.8.64 •camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 12 8.7.64 11.8.64 71 12.8.64 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 13 5.6.64 21.7.64 68 29.7.64 •camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 14, 1964 .. 26.3.65 6.4.65 27 14.4.65 •camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 15, 1964 .. 8.7.65 15.9.65 78 22.9.65 •camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 16, 1964 .. 30.6.65 15.9.65 78 22.9.65 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 19, 1965 .. 7.7.65 10.8.65 66 11.8.65 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 20, 1965 .. 19.1.66 16.3.66 21 23.3.66 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 21, 1965 .. 24.3.65 22.4.65 28 23.4.65 •camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 23, 1965 .. 29.10.65 30.11.65 97 1.12.65 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 24, 1965 .. 27.10.65 23.11.65 96 24.11.6S *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 25, 1965 .. 20.5.66 6.12.66 91 7.12.66 *camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 27, 1965 .. 1.9.66 20.9.66 72 21. 9. 66 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 31, 1966 .. 9.11.66 10.1.67 9 1.2.67 *Camberwell 1954, Amendment No. 32, 1966 . . . . 15.6.67 27.6.67 52 28.6.67 *Coburg No. 1, Bell-street extension ...... • 19.3.51 21.8.51 843 22.8.51 Geelong-Amendment No. 1 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 9.4.64 9.6.64 50 10.6.64 Geelong-Amendment No. 2 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 18.2.65 30.3.65 23 31.3.65 Geelong-Amendment No. 3 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 10.5.67 23.5.67 44 24.5.67 Geelong West-Amendment No. 1 to the Geelong Planhing Scheme 1959 13.3.63 16.7.63 58 24.7.63 Geelong West-Amendment No. 2 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 23.12.63 17.3.64 18 18.3.64 Geelong West-Amendment No. 3 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 29.4.65 16.6.65 49 23.6.65 Geelong West-Amendment No. 4 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 11.2.65 23.3.65 19 24.3.65 Geelong West-Amendment No. 5 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 9.4.64 14 4.64 27 15.4.64 Geelong West-Amendment No. 6 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 16.6.65 6.7.65 53 7.7.65 Geelong West-Amendment No. 7 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 23.11.66 13.12.66 92 14.12.66 Moe, 1966 12.2.54 12.10.54 933 20.10. 54 Moe 1966, Amendment No. 1 18.6.58 2.7.S8 65 16.7.58 Moe 1966, Amendment No. 2 20.8.59 3.2.60 10 17.2.60 Moe 1966, Amendment No. 3 2.7.59 28.7.S9 73 12.8.59 Moe 1966, Amendment No. 4 21. 2. 62 14.3. 62 27 14.3.62 Moe 1966, Amendment No. 5, 1963 17.3.64 12.5.64 37 13.5.64 Moe 1966, Amendment No. 6 15.12.64 6.4.6S 25 7 .4.65 Moe 1966, Amendment No. 7, 1964 10.6.66 28.6.66 46 29.6.66

* In Metropolitan Area. 37

PLANNING SCHEMES APPROVED-COntinJied.

Date of Government Gazette~ Board's Approval by Scheme. Report to Minister. Governor in Council. No. j Date.

Cities-continued. Moe 1966, Amendment No. 8, 1965 ...... 10.2.66 22.3.66 21 23.3.66 Moe 1966, Amendment No. 11 ...... 19.10.66 8.11.66 86 9.11.66 *Moorabbin, Section 1 ...... 20.2.52 9.12.52 3 7 .1. 53 *Moorabbin, Section 1, Amendment No. 1 ...... 18.1.53 15.9.53 777 16.9.53 *Moorabbin, Section I, Amendment No. 2, 1956 ...... 23.7.57 20.8.57 243 18.9.57 *Moorabbin, Section 1, Amendment No. 3, 1957 . . • • • . 14.3.58 1.4.58 41 14.5.58 *Moorabbin, Section 1, Amendment No. 5 ...... • • 16.12.59 8.3.60 29 6.4.60 *Moorabbin, Section 1, Amendment No. 6 ...... 12.4.61 20.6.61 50 21.6.61 *Moorabbin, Section 1, Amendment No. 7, 1960 ...... 6.6.61 11.7.61 56 12.7.61 *Moorabbin, Section 1, Amendment No. 8, 1961 ...... 23.3.62 2.5.62 45 2.5.62 *Moorabbin, Section 1, Amendment No. 9, 1963 ...... 12.9.63 19.5.64 43 20.5.64 *Moorabbin, Section 1, Amendment No. 10 ...... 10.7.64 11.8.64 71 12.8.64 *Moorabbin, Section 1, Amendment No. 11, 1964 ...... 21.4.65 18.5.65 34 19.5.65 *Moorabbin, Section 1, Amendment No. 12, 1965 ...... 15.9.65 5 .10. 65 82 6.10.65 *Moorabbin, Section 1, Amendment No. 13, 1966 ...... 21.12. 66 10.1.67 3 11.1.67 *Moorabbin, 1952 ...... 23.11.54 31.5.55 409 29.6.55 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 1, 1955 ...... 17.9.56 13 .11. 56 1029 12.12.56 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 2, 1956 ...... 19.9.56 13.11.56 1029 12.12.56 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 3, 1956 ...... 2.7.57 20.8.57 243 18.9.57 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 4, 1957 ...... 22.4.58 10.6.58 53 18.6.58 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 6, 1957 ...... 22.4.58 27.5.58 52 11.6. 58 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 7, 1958 ...... 28.1.59 24.2.59 20 4.3.59 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 8 ...... 10.8.59 20.10. 59 103 25.11.59 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 9 ...... 14.12.59 15.12.59 8 10.2.60 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 10 ...... 11.4. 61 20.6.61 50 21.6.61 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 11, 1960 ...... 4.7 .61 22.8.61 75 23.8.61 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 13 ...... 11.10. 62 13.11.62 125 14.11.62 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 14 ...... 30.8.63 7.4.64 23 8.4.64 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 15, 1964 ...... 23.9.64 27.1.65 7 3.2.65 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 16, 1964 ...... 30.4.65 1.6.65 38 2.6.65 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 17, 1965 ...... 29.10.65 23.11.65 96 24.11.65 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 18, 1966 ...... 6.4.67 30.5.67 47 31.5. 67 *Moorabbin 1952, Amendment No. 20, 1967 ...... 16.5.67 30.5.67 47 31.5.67 Newtown and Chilwell-Amendment No. 1 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 ...... 29.4.63 28.5.63 41 29.5.63 Newtown and Chilwell-Amendment No. 2 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 ...... 20.5.65 22.6.65 49 23.6.65 Newtown and Chilwell-Amendment No. 3 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 ...... 26.4.66 7.6.66 40 8.6.66 Newtov.'ll and Chilwell-Amendment No. 4 to the Geelong Planning Seheme 1959 ...... 7.9.66 20.9.66 72 21.9. 66 *Nunawading (Part) ...... 30.8.50 15.5.51 515 23.5.51 *Nunawading 1954 (Part) ...... 8.8.55 19.6.56 721 11.7. 56 *Nunawading 1954, Amendment No. I, 1962 ...... 5.7.63 20.8.63 68 21.8.63 *Nunawading 1954, Amendment No. 2, 1963 ...... 12.2.64 14.4.64 27 15.4.64 *Nunawading 1954, Amendment No. 3, 1966 ...... 4.11.66 29.11.66 90 30.11.66 *Ringwood (Part} ...... 6.8.64 18.8.64 72 19.8.64 *Sandringham 1948 (Part) ...... 3.11.48 26.4.49 328 4.5.49 *Sandringham 1948, Amendment No. 1 ...... 30.4.51 28.8.51 910 29.8.51 *Sandringham 1948, Amendment No. 2, 1956...... 21.1. 58 1.4. 58 113 17.12.58 *Sandringham 1948, Amendment No. 3 ...... 6.7.62 21. 8. 62 92 22.8.62 *Sandringham 1948, Amendment No. 4 ...... 23.8.62 4.9.62 98 5.9.62 Shepparton 1953 ...... 12.7.54 17.5.55 315 25.5.55 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. I, 1956 ...... 6.8.57 18.12.57 5 29.1. 58 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 2 ...... 30.4.59 28.7.59 75 19.8.59 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 3 ...... 25.1.61 26.4.61 40 24.5.61 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 4, 1960 ...... 12.2.62 12.6.62 59 13.6.62 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 5, 1963 ...... 13.12.62 27.8.63 70 28.8.63 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 6 ...... 5.9.62 16.10.62 112 17.10.62 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 7, 1963 ...... 5.9.63 15.10.63 85 16.10.63 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 8, 1963 ...... 13.11.63 14.1.64 3 15.1.64 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 9, 1965 ...... 10.12.65 25.1.66 7 26.1.66 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 10, 1965 ...... 6.5.66 5.7.66 48 6.7.66 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 11, 1965 ...... 21.12.66 10.1.67 3 ll.l.67 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 12, 1966 ...... 13.2.67 28.2.67 19 1.3.67 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 13, 1966 ...... 14.3.67 30.3.67 20 5.4.67 Shepparton 1953, Amendment No. 14, 1966 ...... 29.9.66 11.10.66 77 12.10.66 Traralgon 1957 ...... 14.5.59 20.9.60 92 5.10.60 Traralgon 1957, Amendment No. 1 ...... 22.4.63 18.6.63 48 19.6.63 Traralgon 1957, Amendment No. 2 ...... 20.1.66 1.3.66 15 2.3.66 Traralgon-Amendment No. 2 to the Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional Planning Scheme 1949 ...... 26.1.60 10.5.60 49 1.6.60 Traralgon-Amendment No. 4 to the Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional Planning Scheme 1949 ...... 17.9.62 9.4.63 31 10.4.63 Traralgon-Amendment No. 12 to the Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional Planning Scheme 1949 ...... 29.3.67 18.4.67 33 19.4.67 Traralgon-Amendment No. 1 to the Tyers Planning Scheme 1952 .. 10.3.65 30.3.65 23 31.3.65

Boroughs. Kyabram 1963 21.9.65 23.5.67 44 24.5.67 • In Metropolitan Area. 38

PLANNING SCHEMES APPROVED-continued.

Government Gazette~ Scheme. No. Date.

Towns. Portland-Amendment No. 1 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 8.9.61 81 13.9.61 Portland-Amendment No. 2 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 27.7.62 98 5.9.62 Portland-Amendment No. 3 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 29.7.64 74 2.9.64 Portland-Arnendment No. 4 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 11.11.64 91 18.11.64 Portland-Arnendment No. 5 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 2.12.64 9 17.2.65 Portland-,-Amendment No. 6 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 12.11.65 105 22.12.65 Portland-Amendment No. 7 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 15.12.66 3 11.1.67

Shires. Alexandra-Amendment No. 4 to the Eildon Sub-Regional Planning Scheme 1951 27.4.64 12.1.65 3 13.1. 65 *Altona 1958 18.4.57 25.3.58 24 2.4.58 * Altona 1958, Amendment No. 1 9.12.58 22.12. 58 13 4.2.59 *Altona 1958, Amendment No. 2 28.3.61 20.6.61 50 21.6.61 *Altona 1958, Amendment No. 4 21.1.60 3.2.60 10 17.2.60 *Altona 1958, Amendment No. 5 18.12.59 12.1.60 5 20.1.60 *Altona 1958, Amendment No. 7 3.3.60 8.3.60 31 22.4.60 *Altona 1958, Amendment No. 9 24.2.60 8.3.60 31 22.4.60 *Altona 1958, Amendment No. 11 30.11. 60 17.1.61 13 15.2.61 *Altona 1958, Amendment No. 12 27.2.61 20.6.61 50 21.6.61 *Aitona 1958, Amendment No. l3 11. 4. 61 6.6.61 55 5.7.61 *Altona 1958, Amendment No. 15 28.3.62 12.6.62 59 13.6.62 *Altona 1958, Amendment No. 16 6.8.62 4.9.62 98 5.9.62 *Altona 1958, Amendment No. 17 17.8.62 11.9.62 101 12.9.62 *Altona 1958, Amendment No. 18 20.9.62 30.10. 62 115 31.10.62 Ballarat 1956 (Part) 14.8.57 29.1.58 10 19.2.58 Ballarat 1956, Amendment No. 1 5.2.59 14.7.59 75 19.8.59 Ballarat 1956, Amendment No. 2, 1959 9.6.61 11.7.61 56 12.7.61 Ballarat 1956, Amendment No. 3 16.9.60 2.11.60 106 16.11.60 Ballarat 1956, Amendment No. 4 15.9.61 28.5.63 41 29.5.63 Ballarat 1956, Amendment No. 5 26.4. 61 2.5.61 35 10.6.61 Ballarat 1956, Amendment No. 7, 1961 1.11.61 8.11.61 102 15.11.61 Ballarat 1956, Amendment No. 9, 1961 19.4.62 26.6.62 67 27.6.62 Ballarat 1956, Amendment No. 10 12.7.62 4.9.62 98 5.9.62 Ballarat 1956, Amendment No. 11 5.9.62 25.9.62 108 26.9.62 Ballarat 1956, Amendment No. 12, 1965 18. 11.65 21.12.65 105 22.12.65 Ballarat 1956, Amendment No. 13, 1965 9.3.66 16.3.66 21 23.3.66 Barrabool-Arnendment No. 1 to the Ocean Road Planning Scheme 1955 7.12.59 9.2.60 15 2.3.60 Barrabool-Amendment No. 2 to the Ocean Road Planning Scheme 1955 15.3.60 12.4.60 36 4.5.60 Barrabooi-Amendment No. 4 to the Ocean Road Planning Scheme 1955 22.3.65 13.4.65 27 14.4.65 Barrabooi-Amendment No. 5 to the Ocean Road Planning Scheme 1955 12.1.67 18.4.67 33 19.4.67 Barrabool-Amendment No. 1 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 3.12.65 11.1.66 4 12.1.66 Bellarine-Amendment No. 1 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 26.8.64 1.9.64 74 2.9.64 Bellarinc-Amendment No. 2 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 12.9.66 27.9.66 76 5.10.66 Bellarine-Arnendment No. 3 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 14.9.66 4.10.66 76 5.10.66 Benalla 1953 (Part) 4.10.54 11.1. 55 7 19.1.55 Benalla 1953, Amendment No. I, 1960 22.7.58 5.8.58 84 17.9.58 Bulla 30.4.64 11 .1. 66 5 19.1.66 Bulla 1959, Amendment No. 1, 1967 25.5.67 30.5.67 47 31.5.67 Cobram 1949 (Cobram Township) 11.10.49 19.12.50 1051 20.12.50 Cobram 1949, Amendment No. 1 18.6.59 27.10.59 109 16.12.59 Cobram 1949, Amendment No. 2 8.2.63 23 4.63 34 30.4.63 Cobram 1949, Amendment No. 3 27.3.63 23.4. 63 34 24.4.63 Cobram 1949, Amendment No. 4, 1964 15.9.64 27 .1. 65 7 3.2.65 Cobram 1949, Amendment No. 5, 1964 13.5.65 9.6.65 45 16.6.65 Cobram 1949, Amendment No. 6, 1965 15.8.66 23.8.66 63 24.8.66 Cobram 1949, Amendment No. 7, 1966 29.3.67 11.4.67 32 12.4.67 Corio 1961 (Lara Township) 16.12.64 22.3.66 21 23.3.66 Corio-Arnendment No. 1 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 5.9.63 14.1.64 3 15.1.64 Corio-Amendment No. 2 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 22.8.63 3 12.63 94 4.12.63 Corio-Amendment No. 3 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 15.8.63 29.10.63 87 30.10.63 Corio-Amendment No. 4 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 1.11 '63 28 .I. 64 7 29.1.64 Corio-Amendment No. 5 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 6.4.64 19.5.64 43 20.5.64 Coria-Amendment No. 6 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 14.5.65 14.7.65 57 21.7.65 Coria-Amendment No. 7 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 .. 10.5.67 23.5.67 44 24.5.67 Cranbourne 1960 (Cranbourne Township) 4.7.62 27.7.63 70 28.8.63 Croydon 1961 16.9. 63 30.11.65 97 1.12.65 Croydon 1961, Amendment No. 5, 1966 29.9.66 11.10.66 77 12.10.66 Flinders 26.6.64 5.5.65 33 12.5.65 Flinders, Amendment No. 1 24.9.65 26.10. 65 89 27.10.65 Flinders 1962, Amendment No. 2 13.3.67 28.2.67 19 1.3.67 *Frankston (Part) .. 12.5.60 15.6.60 61 19.6.60 *Frankston, Amendment No. 1 18.10. 62 13.11.62 117 14.11.62 Knox 1965 1.3.65 24.8.65 69 25.8.65 Knox 1965, Amendment No. 1, 1967 .. 24.1.67 7.2.67 10 8.2.67 Knox 1965, Amendment No. 3, 1966 .. 4.11.66 17.1.67 5 18.1.67 Knox 1965, Amendment No. 4, 1966 .. 22.6.66 5.7.66 48 6.7.66 Knox 1965, Amendment No. 5, 1966 .. 16.5.66 15.6.66 45 22.6.66 Knox 1965, Amendment No. 7, 1966 .. 17.3.67 11.4.67 32 12.4.67 Knox 1965, Amendment No. 10, 1966 4.3.67 18 .4. 67 33 19.4.67 Knox 1965, Amendment No. 11, 1967 24.1.67 7.2.67 10 8.2.67 Knox 1965, Amendment No. 18, 1967 9.6.67 27.6.67 52 28.6.67 Lillydale 1958 16.9.63 30.11.65 97 1.12.65 Lillydale 1958, Amendment No. 1, 1966 9.12.66 13.12.66 92 14.12.66 • In Metropolitan Area 39

PLANNING SCHEMES APPROVED-continued.

Board's Date of Government Gazette* Scheme. Report to Approval by Minister. Governor in ! Council. No. 1 Date. 1------·------·!------

Shires--continued.

Mansfield-Amendment No. I to Eildon Reservoir Planning Scheme .. 29.8.66 20.9.66 72 21.9.66 Mansfield-Amendment No. 2 to Eildon Reservoir Planning Scheme .. 1.9.66 20.9.66 72 21.9. 66 Mornington 1959 ...... 17.2.61 30.5.61 48 14.6.61 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 2 ...... 5.11.62 11.12.62 125 12.12.62 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 3 ...... 30.1.63 27.2.63 16 6.3.63 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 4 ...... 24.1.63 27.2.63 16 6.3.63 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 6 ...... 30.11.62 22.1.63 5 23.1.63 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 7, 1963 ...... 16.12.63 22.12 64 99 23.12.64 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 8, 1963 ...... 10.10.63 24.3.64 20 25.3.64 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 9, 1963 ...... 19.6.64 10.11.64 90 11.11.64 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 10, 1964 ...... 14.7.65 24.8.65 69 25.8.65 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 11, 1964 ...... 21.7.65 24.8.65 69 25.8.65 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 12, 1965 ...... 25 .11. 65 21.12. 65 105 22.12.65 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 14, 1965 ...... 7.12.65 11.1. 66 4 12.1.66 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 15, 1965 ...... 10.3.66 10.5.66 36 11. 5. 66 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 16, 1965 ...... 10.6.66 6.9 66 66 7.9.66 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 18, 1966 ...... 24.1.67 7.2.67 10 8.2.67 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 25, 1967 ...... 5.5.67 10.5.67 43 17.5.67 Mornington 1959, Amendment No. 28, 1967 ...... 15.5.67 30.5.67 47 31.5.67 Morwell 1954 (Morwell Township) ...... 31.8.55 15.1.57 109 20.2.5'7 Morwell 1954, Amendment No. 1 ...... 5.9.58 7.10.58 108 3.12.58 Morwell 1954, Amendment No. 2 ...... 6.2.58 5.5.59 77 26.8.59 Morwell 1954, Amendment No. 3 . . . . • . . . . . 15.12.60 21.12.60 3 11.1.61 Morwell 1954, Amendment No. 7, 1961 ...... 30.6.64 18.8.64 72 19.8.64 Morwell 1954, Amendment No. 9, 1962 ...... 24.6.65 10.8.65 66 11.8.65 Morwell 1954, Amendment No. 10, 1964 ...... 19.5.65 10.8.65 66 11.8.65 Morwell 1954, Amendment No. 11, 1964 ...... 13 .10. 65 9 .11. 65 91 lO.Il .65 Morwell 1954, Amendment No. 14, 1965 . . . . • • . . 17.12.65 8.2.66 12 16.2.66 Morwell 1954, Amendment No. 16, 1965 ...... 26.5.66 15.6.66 45 22.6.66 Morwell (Boolarra) ...... I. 6. 56 27.5.58 13 4.2.59 Morwell (Boolarra) Amendment No. 1, 1960 . . . . 6.6.61 11.7.61 56 12.7.61 Morweli-Amendment No. 6 to the Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional Planning Scheme 1949 ...... 27.5.64 30.6.64 59 1.7.64 Morweli-Amendment No. 7 to the Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional Planning Scheme 1949 ...... 11.11.64 9 .12. 64 98 16.12.64 Morwell-Amendment No. 9 to the Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional Planning Scheme 1949 ...... 6.10.65 9 11.65 91 10.11.65 Morwell (Yinnar) ...... 6.2.56 27.5.58 13 4.2.59 Morwell (Yinnar) Amendment No. 1 ...... 25.1.61 21.3.61 27 12.4.61 Narracan-Amendment No. 1, 1964 to the Yallourn North Planning Scheme 1957 ...... 15.6.65 14.7.65 57 21.7.65 Numurkah 1956 (Numurkah Township) ...... 25.5.59 23.8.60 83 31.8.60 Numurkah 1956, Amendment No. 1 ...... 19.3.63 28.5.63 41 29.5.63 Numurkah 1956, Amendment No. 2 ...... 13.2.67 18.4.67 33 19.4.67 Orbost-Amendment No. 1 to the Club Terrace Planning Scheme 1953 10.11.64 24.11.64 94 25 .11. 64 Otway-Amendment No. 1 to the Ocean Road Planning Scheme 1955 .. 30.8.60 25.10.60 106 16.11.60 Otway-Amendment No. 2 to the Ocean Road Planning Scheme 1955 .. 20.9.62 30.10. 62 115 31.10.62 Portland-Amendment No. 1 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 .. 21.5.63 22.10.63 86 23.10.63 Portland-Amendment No. 2 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 .. 7.5.64 12.5.64 37 13.5.64 Portland-Amendment No. 3 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 .. 12.4 67 20.6.67 51 21.6.67 Portland-Amendment No. 5 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 .. 5.10 66 11 10.66 77 12.10.66 Portland-Amcndment No. 6 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 .. 21.12.66 10.1.67 3 11 .1.67 Portland-Amendment No. 7 to the Portland Planning Scheme 1957 .. 24.1.67 1.2.67 10 8.2.67 Sherbrooke 1965 ...... 1. 3. 65 24.8.65 69 25.8.65 Sherbrooke 1965, Amendment No. 1 ...... 24.4 67 10.5.67 43 17.5.67 South Barwon-Amendment No. 1 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 19)9 25.7.63 30.7.63 60 31.7. 63 South Barwon-Amendment No. 2 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 12.8.64 13.10.64 84 14.10.64 South Barwon-Amendment No. 3 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 2.10.64 24.11.64 94 25 .11. 64 South Barwon-Amendment No. 4 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 21.10.65 16.11. 65 93 17.11. 65 South Barwon-Amendment No. 5 to the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959 19.10.66 15.11.66 87 16.11.66 South Barwon-Amendment No. 1 to the Ocean Road Planning Scheme 1955 ...... 22.3.60 16.8.60 83 31.8.60 South Barwon-Amendment No. 3 to the Ocean Road Planning Scheme 1955 ...... 25.8.65 15.9.65 78 22.9.65 Swan Hill (Castle Donnington) ...... 6.8.62 29.10.63 87 30.10.63 Swan Hill (Robinva1e) ...... 9.11 60 11.4.61 38 17.5.61 Towong-Amendment No. 2 to the Tallangatta Planning Scheme 1956 .. 29.8.66 20.9.66 72 21.9.66 Traralgon-Amendment No. 2 to the Tyers Planning Scheme 1952 .. 27.10.65 23.11.65 96 24.11.65 Upper Murray (Corryong) ...... 26.2.63 29.10.63 87 30.10.63 Upper Murray (Corryong) 1960, Amendment No. 1, 1965 . . . . 29.7.65 3.8.65 62 4.8.65 Upper Murray (Corryong) 1960, Amendment No. 2, 1966 . . . . 15.5.67 30.5.67 47 31.5.67 Warragu1 1954 (Warragul Township) ...... 20.6.57 4.2.58 42 21 5 58 Warragul 1954, Amendment No. I ...... 29.6.60 30.8.60 87 21.9.60 Warragul 1954, Amendment No. 2 ...... 12.12.60 21.12.60 3 11.1.61 Warragul 1954, Amendment No. 3 ...... 25.1 .61 7.3.61 18 8.3.61 Warragul 1954, Amendment No. 4 ...... 18.12.62 22.1.63 5 23.1.63 Warragul 1954, Amendment No. 5, 1963 ...... 9.4.65 9.6.65 45 16.6.65 Warragul 1954, Amendment No. 6, 1964 ...... 24.3.65 27.4.65 30 28.4.65 Warragul 1954, Amendment No. 7, 1964 ...... 30.6.65 20.7.65 57 21.7.65 40

PLANNING ScHEMES APPROVED-continued.

Date of Government Gazette. Scheme. Board's Approval by Report to Governor in Minister. Council. No. Date.

Prepared by the Board pursuant to Section 14 of the Act. Club Terrace (Shire of Orbost) ...... 6.5.54 24.5.55 330 l. 6.55 Eildon Reservoir (Shire of Mansfield) ...... 31.3.65 10.8.65 66 11.8.65 Eildon Sub-Regional ...... 19.12.52 26.5.53 484 27.5.53 Eildon Sub-Regional, Amendment No. 1, 1955 ...... 16.8.55 6.3.56 264 21.3. 56 Eildon Sub-Regional, Amendment No. 2 ...... 10.4.58 8.5.58 42 21.5.58 Eppalock (part Shires of Metcalfe, Mclvor and Strathfieldsaye) .. 8.4.65 17.1.67 5 18.1.67 French Island ...... 4.12.64 24.2.65 14 3.3.65 Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional 1949 (comprising portions of the Shires of Morwell, Narracan, Rosedale, and Traralgon) ...... 26.2.51 24.7.51 710 25.7.51 Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional 1949, Amendment No. 1, 1953 .. . . 4.1.54 22.6.54 634 30.6.54 Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional 1949, Amendment No. 5 . . .. 26.2.64 10.3.64 17 11.3.64 Ocean Road 1955 (comprising portion of the Shires of Barrabool, Otway, South Barwon, and Winchelsea) ...... 12.7.57 15.4.58 33 30.4.58 Ocean Road 1955 (Shire of South Barwon), Amendment No. 2, 1961 .. 6.7.61 11.7.61 56 12.7.61 Tallangatta 1956 ...... 5.5.58 25.6.58 61 9.7.58 Tallangatta 1956, Amendment No. 1, 1965 ...... 8.11.65 16.11.65 93 17.11.65 Tower Hill (part Shires of Warrnamboo1 and Belfast and part Borough of Koroit) ...... 29.3.67 17.5.67 44 24.5.67 Tyers Township ...... 5.10.53 14.2.56 226 22.2.56 Yallourn North (comprising portions of Shires of Morwell and Narracan) 18.6.53 24.5.55 409 29.6.55

Joint Committees. Geelong 1959 (comprising Cities of Geelong, Geelong West, Newtown and Cbilwell and parts of the Shires of Bannockburn, Barrabool, Bellarine, and South Barwon) ...... 21.12.61 28.8.62 96 29.8.62 Hazelwood (comprising portion of the Shire of Morwell) .. .. 6.8.64 17.11.64 94 25.11.64 Portland 1957 (comprising Town of Portland and part Shire ofPortland} 5.6.59 3.5.60 61 29.6.60

By Authority: A. C. BJtooJCS, Government Printer, Melbourne. CITIES SHIRES Ararat Altona VICTORIA THE TOWN AND COUNTR Y PLANN ING BOAR D OF Benalla (part) Ballarat (part) Broadmeadows (part) Bannr;x:kburn (Joint Scheme) Brunswick Barrabool (Joint Scheme) Camberwell Bellarine (Joint Sche me) PLA NNING IN V ICTO RIA Cobu rg (Bell Street) Bena ll a (part) AT 30TH J UNE 19 67 Frankston (part) Bulla Geelong (Joim Sch ~me) Cobram (Cobram Township) Geelong W est (Joint Scheme) Coria (Jo int Scheme) REfE RENCE Moe Co ria (lara Township) III V oiiCI P...Ufr£ ~ I N W,..fC; .. IIL,.'4"41.. c; SCJ

1'\.A>IN ING SUitl'!:' IIII.(II'Mt'D Ofll al ~ Nunawading (part) TCJI't''l "'"'0 GlUNTWT 1'\.AMNI N~ DOAaO Knox (part) Ringwood (part) Lillydale Sandringham (part) Morninglon Shepparton Morwe ll (Boolarra Tow nshipj Traralgon Morwell (Haze/wood Scheme-Churchill Township) W illia mstow n (pa rt) Morwell (Morwell Townshi p) T OWN Morwell (Yinnar Township) Portland (Joint Scheme) N umurkah (Numurkah Township) Portla nd (Joint Scheme) BOROUGHS Sherbrooke Kya bram (pari) South Sa rwon (Joint Sche me) , LAioiWING IN T HE MEL I!IOU AN[...... ""(.TIIOPOl. ITAN Swan Hill (Castle Oo nnington) Swan Hil l (Robinvale Township) Upper Murray (Corryong Townshtp)

hi[ Wt.liiOult"C il .OCll'O J'Q,It.vl ll(l.o,k0 0' WOI'IKI !1 TN( lt.VO'"Jik( nO'I i"IAO " '"J!.oY(O, (KTAIL.[O L.()C.olll. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BOARD ~WN UU:; SCH[,..U Tl1 [ LOCATION Q( fN(S[ lCI'!.[ M U IS .)t<(M'N li'ol lfl[O (A) Eildon Sub-Regional Shire of Alexandra (B) Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional Shire of Morwell Shire o·r Narracan (C) Tyecs Township Shire of Traralgon (D) Yallourn North Townshi p Shire of Morwell Shire of N arrac.an (E) Club Terrace Township Shire of Orbost (F) Ocean Road Shire of O tway Sh ire of South Barwon Shire of W inchelsea (G) Tallangatta Township Shire o f Tow ong {H) Eildon Reservoir Shire of Manslie ld (L) French Is land (Outlying District-Town a nd Country Pla nning Boa rd Responsible Aulho rity) I N 0 B A s (0) Eppalock N s Shire of Mdvor 0 C [ A Sh ire of Strathfi eldsaye N (P) Towec Hill Shire of Belfast Shire of W arrnambool Borough of Koroit SCHEMES IN COURSE OF PREPARATI ON BY THE PLANNING SCHEM ES PREPARED BY JOINT PLAN N ING COMMITTEES TOVVN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BOARD (J) Eildon Reservoir Shire of Alexandra (M) Phillip Island Shire of Philli p Island (N) Waratah Bay Shir e of Sou th Gippsland (Q) Lake Bellfteld Shire of Stawell (R) Lake Buffa lo Shire of My rtleford Sh ire of Oxley (S) Eildon Sub-Regio nal Exte nsion ' A' Shire of Alexandra (T) Latrobe Vall ey Sub-Regional Extension ' A' Sh ire of Morwell W.A. NGAF~ .A. T TA SUS-REGIONA L ARARAT & DISTRICT BALLAAAT & DISTRICT JOINT PLANNING SCHEME Pl.J\NNING SCHE.ME Shire of Traralgon PORTLAND PL ANNING SCHEME JOINT PLANNING SCHEME GE: ELONG PlANNING SCHEME (U) Lake Tyers to C~ p e How e Coastal Shire of O rbost (V) South Western Coastal Shire of Otway (W) So uth W estern Coastal Shire of Heytesbury (X) South Western Coastal Shire of W arrnambool < .< (Y) South Western Coastal Shire of Belfast (Z) South Western Coastal Shire of Portland (AA) Lake Glenmaggie Sh ire of Maffra (AB) Wonlhaggi Coastal Borough o f Wonthaggi (AC) Simpson Shire of Heytesbury Shire of O tway HAZELWOOD JOINT (AD) Lake Merrimu Shire o f "Bacchus Marsh PLANNI N G SCHEME Shir e of Gisborne (AE) Lake Nillahcoolie Shire of Ma nsfield / /