Golden Plains
New Format Planning Scheme
Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee
July 1998
Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Golden Plains
New Format Planning Scheme
Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee
Gwenda Kullen
Anne Cunningham
Malcolm Lee
July 1998
Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
CONTENTS
1. THE PANEL/ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2
1.1 Establishment of the Panel/Advisory Committee 1.2 Submissions and Hearings 1.3 Site Visits
2. STRATEGIC OVERVIEW 3
2.1 Description of Golden Plains Shire 2.2 Major Planning Issues 2.3 Strategic Planning Response
3 RESPONSE TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE 8
3.1 Consistency 3.2 Municipal Strategic Statement 3.3 Local Planning Policy Framework
3.4 Local Policies 3.4.1 Form and Content 3.4.2 Need for Local Policies 3.4.3 Additional Local Policies
3.5 Zones, Overlays and Schedules 3.5.1 General Application of Zones 3.5.2 General Application of Overlays 3.5.3 Site Specific Provisions/Exclusions
3.6 Incorporated and Reference Documents 3.7 Monitoring and Review 3.8 Other Matters
4. SUBMISSIONS
4.1 Overview 4.2 Consideration of Submissions
5. PANEL/ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Prior to Adoption of the Scheme 5.2 Subsequent Actions 5.3 Other Matters
Appendices
1. Advisory Committee Terms of Reference 2. Written Submissions Received Prior to the Hearing 3. Parties Appearing at the Hearing
2 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
1. THE PANEL/ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1.1 Establishment of the Panel/Advisory Committee
In January 1998, the Minister for Planning and Local Government appointed a Panel and Advisory Committee, pursuant to sections 151 and 153 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to consider the new format Golden Plains Planning Scheme. The Panel and Advisory Committee comprised Ms Gwenda Kullen (Chair), Ms Anne Cunningham and Mr Malcolm Lee.
In its role as an independent Panel, submissions to the Golden Plains Planning Scheme were referred to the Panel and have been considered. Some of these submissions addressed specific sites and issues. Under its terms of reference as an Advisory Committee, the whole planning scheme has also been reviewed, including the extent to which it meets the objectives of the planning reform and its consistency with State policy. The terms of reference for the Advisory Committee are included at Appendix 1.
1.2 Submissions and Hearings
A Directions Hearing was held at the Golden Plains Shire Office at Bannockburn on 11 March 1998. At that time, preliminary matters were discussed and directions given by the Panel/Advisory Committee regarding the conduct of the Hearing. A formal Hearing was held on 6 and 7 April 1998 at the Bannockburn Office of the Golden Plains Shire.
Over 30 written submissions were received prior to the Hearing, as listed in Appendix 2. The grounds of objection and support are considered in section 4 of this report. All submitters were given an opportunity to be heard by the Panel/Advisory Committee. The parties that appeared at the Hearing are listed in Appendix 3.
The Panel/Advisory Committee has equally considered all written submissions, all submissions presented to it during the Hearing, any supplementary submissions and a range of other material referred to it. In addressing the issues raised in submissions, the Panel/Advisory Committee has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its own observations from its inspections of subject sites and their surrounding areas. The Panel/Advisory Committee is satisfied that no party that had made a submission to the Golden Plains Shire has been denied its right to be heard in respect of the new format Planning Scheme, and in having its submission(s) considered.
1.3 Site Visits
The Panel/Advisory Committee undertook visits to the various sites referred to in submissions, and to inspect areas that were mentioned in the Municipal Strategic Statement. The areas visited included the townships in the municipality and the rural areas, particularly in the area in the north-west of the Shire which adjoins the City of Ballarat.
3 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
2. STRATEGIC OVERVIEW
2.1 Description of Golden Plains Shire
The Golden Plains Shire comprises the former municipalities of Bannockburn, Grenville, Leigh, and part of the former Shire of Buninyong. The Shire is located immediately south of the major urban areas of Ballarat, immediately west of Geelong, north-east of Colac and at its closest point is approximately 70km south-west of Melbourne. The Shire covers 2706 square kilometres.
The Golden Plains Shire shares a boundary with the Shires of Colac Otway, Corangamite, Pyrenees, Moorabool and Surf Coast and the Cities of Ballarat and Geelong. These municipalities form a region with many common environmental, economic and cultural linkages. The Shire straddles the Barwon and Central Highlands regions of Victoria and is on the eastern edge of the Western District. The Shire sits within the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority Region.
The Shire is characterised by agricultural land used predominantly for grazing and cropping, a large number of small townships, natural forested areas and riverine gorges. Parts of the north west and east of the Shire act as extended commuter areas for Ballarat and Geelong respectively.
The Shire has a population of 14,790 (1996 census). The Department of Infrastructure projects the Shire’s population will increase by approximately 4,500 persons over the next fifteen years. The Shire has a high proportion of young people (24.1% aged 5 to 17 years) and middle aged people (26.4% aged 35 to 49 years). Growth in the 5-17 and 35-54 age groups reflects the continuing attraction of the Shire for young families. While the Shire is ‘rural’ the increasing numbers of persons in 18-24 indicates the commuter role of parts of the Shire. The Shire has a relatively small but growing proportion of population in older aged groups.
Only about 18% of the population live in urban centres with populations of over 200. All of the urban centres experienced growth during the period 1981 to 1996. Bannockburn is the largest urban centre in the Shire with a population of 873 in 1996 (calculated on a Census Collection District basis) and has more than doubled its population since 1981. Other urban centres, small towns and communities which have grown include Haddon, Inverleigh, Lethbridge, Linton, Meredith, Ross Creek, Scarsdale and Smythesdale.
These settlements perform important living, retail, service and community roles to residents and the rural community. The settlement pattern is based on historic rural service centres and nineteenth century mining towns, however, over time the role of many towns has been changing to one of commuting areas to the regional centres of Ballarat, Colac and Geelong. Future use and development of urban centres and small towns will largely centre on the traditional character and form of these towns.
During the period 1993-1996, 398 dwellings were built in the Shire, with 231 of these dwellings being constructed in the ‘traditional’ towns. The Department of Infrastructure estimates that over the period 1996-2011 there will be an increase of 1819 dwellings.
4 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
The main use of land in the Shire is for primary production including grazing and broadacre cropping. There are areas of native forest in the Enfield State Park and the Brisbane Ranges National Park. Other areas of conservation significance are recognised in other public reserves. There are about 2300 ha of pine plantations and about 280 ha of hardwood plantations in the Shire.
On a State-wide scale the extent of woodlands is limited, fragmented and extremely depleted. Perennial native grassland communities are extremely limited resulting in a major decline in bio-diversity. Many remaining stands of native vegetation exist on roadsides. The dramatic loss of vegetation cover in the area is reflected in the significant number of very rare or threatened species.
Geomorphically, the Shire can be divided into two areas, the Western District Basalt Plains and the Midlands - two very distinct land units. The Shire is drained in a southerly direction by three basins, Moorabool, Barwon and Corangamite. All catchments have headwaters north of the Shire of Golden Plains, therefore quality of the water ways entering the Shire is dependent on other users. Most of the catchments in the Shire have been significantly modified by agriculture and forestry operations. The Mooralbool and Stony Creek proclaimed water supply catchments are located in the Shire of Golden Plains.
The economy of the Golden Plains Shire is primarily built on the agricultural sector. Primary industry is the largest single industry in the Golden Plains Shire. On a Statewide scale the Shire contains only moderate quality agricultural land. Agricultural industries in the Shire generate approximately $44 million worth of product and 14% of the workforce is employed in primary industry. Agriculture and rural employment is gradually declining in common with Statewide trends in the restructuring of these industries. The requirements of traditional agriculture are rapidly changing with practices such as high input farming techniques and improved stock through genetic enhancement.
Employment opportunities are limited within the Shire and many of the residents travel to work outside the Shire, mainly to Ballarat and Geelong.
All of the towns in the Shire have reticulated water supplies provided either by Central Highlands Water or Barwon Water. Both authorities have programs to improve water quality. Central Highlands Water, which has its involvement in the northern part of the Shire, believes it can service most of the anticipated growth within its area. The exception is the higher land southeast of Scarsdale extending to the area south of Ross Creek. Barwon Water believes that the existing supply systems, with minor augmentation works, are adequate to cater for the existing populations and anticipated growth in the immediate future.
The extent of sewerage systems in the Shire is limited to Woodlands Estate (near Enfield) and works currently underway to have Bannockburn sewered by the end of 1998. There are plans to have Scarsdale, Smythesdale and Linton sewered by 1999/2000.
5 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Soil conditions in many parts of the Shire are not conducive to the effective disposal of treated septic tank effluent. In these areas, particular attention will have to be given to this aspect in the planning of any future subdivisions.
2.2 Major Planning Issues
The major issues identified by the Golden Plains Shire and the Panel/Advisory Committee relate to:
• Managing residential growth. • Enhancing economic growth. • Maintaining and encouraging viable agricultural industries. • Protecting and enhancing the natural and built environment.
Residential Growth
The Shire contains a relatively large number of small townships. Council seeks to focus residential development within the boundaries of these townships. There is pressure for subdivision and development outside these townships. Lack of reticulated sewerage systems and, in some places, poor soil conditions for disposal of septic tank effluent, provide constraints to development.
Past decisions have seen a proliferation of subdivisions and subsequent rural residential developments in the northwest corner of the Shire. The pressure for subdivision and hobby farm development is high particularly close to Geelong and Ballarat.
Economic Growth
The Shire currently relies on the strength of its grazing and cropping industries as its economic base. There is currently a limited range of employment opportunities within the Shire. It does not have large economic and service industries, and many of its residents derive their income from employment outside the Shire. The strength of the economy in adjoining municipalities is therefore important for the Shire’s residents.
The Shire has recognised the potential for growth in the intensive agricultural industries and in timber production. The issue for the Shire will be how to accommodate growth in these industries while protecting the other values that are seen as important in the Shire.
Viable Agriculture
The major land use in the Shire is for agriculture, and particularly for extensive grazing and cropping. These industries have been under economic pressure in recent years and there has been a tendency for farm size to increase to counteract economic pressures. This has generally happened away from areas of population growth where there has been less small-lot subdivision.
6 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Compared with some municipalities, the Golden Plains Shire does not have a substantial amount of high quality agricultural land. However, there has been a growth of intensive agriculture, particularly in the wine and specialist livestock industries.
Timber production is an important industry in the Shire. Production at this stage comes mainly from pine plantations, but there is a growing demand for land for hardwood plantations. Any expansion of plantations will be on to land which is already cleared and which is currently used for grazing or cropping.
Natural and Built Environment
Apart from the Brisbane Ranges National Park and the Enfield State Forest, most of the Shire has been cleared of native vegetation. There are, however, areas of remnant native vegetation which occur throughout the Shire and which require protection.
The general management of catchments is an issue which is receiving considerable public attention and the Shire is conscious of the need for the Planning Scheme to contribute to the protection and enhancement of streams and the catchment in general.
Protection of heritage values, both man-made and natural has been recognised as an issue to be dealt with by the Planning Scheme
Salinity has been identified as an increasing problem and one which has implications for both agriculture and development for residential purposes.
The challenge for Council in developing and managing its Planning Scheme is to balance the requirement to protect the natural and built heritage with the desire to achieve economic growth.
2.3 Strategic Planning Response
The strategic direction the Golden Plains Shire proposes to take is outlined in the Council’s Vision Statement in the MSS. This was derived from the Golden Plains Shire Land Use Strategy Plan.
“The Golden Plains Shire, in partnership with the community, and through its decisions and actions, will work for the sustainable development of the Shire based on: • planning for the strategic growth of towns and focusing urban development into existing townships; • sustainable management and protection of natural resources of soil, water, flora, fauna and eco-systems; • facilitating productive agricultural, forestry and mining activities and protecting rural areas; • protection and enhancement of items, places and areas of natural and cultural heritage; • supporting sustainable economic development;
7 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
• supporting quality tourist development; and • efficient and environmentally sensitive provision of essential infrastructure.”
The structure used in the MSS to outline Council’s specific strategies was based on the format of the State Planning Policy Framework using five key themes with various sub-themes. These five themes were: • Settlement • Environment • Housing • Economic Development • Infrastructure.
In its submission to the Panel/Advisory Committee presented at the Hearing, Council stated:
“The MSS exhibited format presented detailed strategies using the headings of the SPPF. This format was endorsed by the Department of Infrastructure at the time of the preparation of the scheme. However, with the “evolution” of schemes and further reflection this may not be the most appropriate format.”
Council now proposes to revise the structure of the Golden Plains MSS, more clearly linking its vision and objectives with the strategies and tools to assist with implementation. This was suggested by Council to the Panel/Advisory Committee as a sharper and more focussed way of presenting the MSS.
Council presented to the Panel Hearing its summary of the Shire’s “Strategic Directions” as follows:
1. Supporting Agricultural Production and Further Diversity of Production. 2. Enhancing the Quality and Sustainability of the Natural Resource base. 3. Protecting the Shire’s Natural and Built environmental Assets and Features. 4. Focus Development in and around Towns and Settlements with Facilities and Infrastructure.
Council stated how these four strategies were to be implemented through the various zones, local policies and overlays proposed in the Planning Scheme (in the table on p36 of the Council’s submission). The revision of the MSS will make these links more explicit.
The Panel/Advisory Committee supports the approach now taken by Council. The format of the MSS as exhibited was comprehensive, but would have provided difficulty for the Council, Council staff and the community when seeking to use the MSS for guidance in determining the strategic approach that had been used by Council in developing the Scheme. The revised format will be more useful to Council and its staff in applying the discretion in decision making which underlies the new format planning schemes. (See Section 3.2 for further comments relating to the MSS.)
In the revised MSS format suggested by Council, specific objectives for each of the four elements, and then the zones, overlays and policies that will be applied to achieve those objectives have been listed. The revised format, if adopted by Council, will clearly indicate the strategic direction Council is taking.
8 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
9 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
The Panel/Advisory Committee believes that the revised version as presented at the Panel Hearing retains the strategic direction of the exhibited version while more clearly demonstrating the links between the MSS, Local Policies, overlays and zones.
The Panel/Advisory Committee is satisfied that, generally, the Council’s LPPF responds to the issues that are important in the Golden Plains Shire. The Scheme: -
• as far as is possible, confines residential growth to the nominated townships • controls subdivision of farming land • provides protection for the natural and built environment
However, the Panel/Advisory Committee does have a major concern with the approach taken by Council in dealing with the intensively subdivided area in the north west part of the Shire. It is not satisfied that the treatment given to this area in the proposed scheme will assist in meeting the relevant objectives in the LPPF and the SPPF. This matter will be dealt with in more detail later in this report (See Section 3).
Local policies are considered in detail in Section 3 of this report. Some 34 policies have been proposed. The Panel/Advisory Committee does have a concern that some of these do not really add to the decision-making process. Zones and overlays are also discussed in Section 3.
Overall, the Panel/Advisory Committee considers that the Golden Plains Council has produced a planning scheme that meets the needs of the Shire and the requirements of the planning reform process in Victoria. The suggestions that the Panel/Advisory Committee have made in this report are aimed to clarify and simplify the scheme so that it is easier to use.
Planning is a dynamic process. Council is aware that further work is involved. Some of the suggested changes can be made prior to the adoption of the new Planning Scheme. Other changes may have to be exhibited, and some may require further investigation by Council before being implemented.
3. Response to the Terms of Reference
The Terms of Reference for the Panel/Advisory Committee require it to respond to specific questions (Refer to Terms of Reference at Appendix 1). These questions and the Panel’s response are dealt with in this section of the Report.
3.1 Consistency
3.1.1 Is the planning scheme consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under Section 7[5] of the Planning and Environment Act 1987?
10 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
The Golden Plains Planning Scheme was exhibited prior to Amendment V3 to the Planning and Environment Act. This Amendment made some changes to the form and content of planning schemes. Council is aware of these changes and indicated at the hearing that the Scheme as exhibited would be changed to bring it into line with the new requirements prior to the adoption of the Scheme. The Panel/Advisory Committee does not proposed to list the necessary changes as it is satisfied that Council is fully aware of what has to be done to bring the Scheme into line.
Various minor omissions and errors have been brought to light by Council and submitters, and at the Panel Hearing. Some of these are mentioned at the appropriate place in the body of this Report and in the Panel’s comments on individual submissions.
The Panel recommends that, prior to adoption, the Council and Department of Infrastructure ensure that the format of the Golden Plains Planning Scheme is reviewed and corrected in accordance with the revised Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes, and that any errors and omissions that have been identified are corrected.
3.1.2 Is the planning scheme consistent with Ministerial Directions under Section 12 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987?
The relevant Ministerial Directions are Direction No.1 “Potentially Contaminated Land” and No.6/6A “Rural Residential Development”.
In regard to No.1, no sites in the municipality have been identified as potentially contaminated by the Environment Protection Authority. However, it is possible, with further investigation, that sites which have been used for landfill, petrol stations, or works depots and the like may be candidates for inclusion in an Environmental Audit Overlay.
Ministerial Direction 6/6A deals with Rural Residential Development and requires compliance with Guidelines for Rural Residential Development, October 1997 prepared by the Department of Infrastructure. The Direction allows an exemption where an amendment proposes simply to recognise existing rural residential development.
Council addressed this matter in its submission particularly in relation to the area in the northwest corner of the Shire. It is Council’s view that...”the application of the Low Density Residential Zone in Golden Plains Shire, does not represent a major change in planning policy or zoning by Council, and consequently does not require application of Ministerial Directive No.6.”
The Department of Infrastructure supported this view, subsequent to the Panel Hearing. The Panel/Advisory Committee has serious concerns with the proposed use of the Low Density Residential Zone and Rural Living Zone over this extensive area. It is not satisfied, from the evidence made available to it, that this area meets the requirements for exemption from the application of Ministerial Direction No.6/6A. The manner in which the zoning of land in the northwest corner of the Shire should be handled is dealt with in a Section 3.3 of this Report.
11 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
3.1.3 Is the planning scheme consistent with the Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions?
The Golden Plains Planning Scheme is generally consistent the Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions. As discussed earlier in this Report, changes will be necessary to bring the Scheme into line with the changes made in Amendment V3 (17 October 1997), and Council has acknowledged this. (The updated direction included new instructions for formatting local provisions and some schedules, as well new schedules for a number of clauses.) The Panel has also recommended changes, primarily to Local Policies in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme, where local policies are not consistent with the Manual.
The Panel/Advisory Committee recommends that the Council and the Department of Infrastructure ensure that the format of the Golden Plains Planning Scheme is consistent with the revised Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions, including comments made by the Panel/Advisory Committee. Any typing and spelling errors should also be corrected.
3.2 Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)
3.2.1 Does the MSS further the objectives of planning in Victoria to the extent that they are applicable to the municipal district?
Each of the objectives for planning in Victoria (as set out in the Planning and Environment Act 1987) is relevant in the Golden Plains Shire. The Panel considers that the Golden Plains MSS, with the changes arising from the proposals by Council and suggested in this Report, will meet the objectives of planning contained in the Act, particularly in the terms of the Council’s strategies to consolidate development around townships; maintain and encourage sustainable agricultural activities; and protect natural and heritage attributes of the Shire.
3.2.2 Are the strategic planning, land use and development objectives of the planning authority a reasonable response to the characteristics, regional context, development constraints and opportunities of the municipal district?
The Panel generally considers that the Golden Plains Municipal Strategic Statement represents a measured and comprehensive response by Council to the identified strategic issues in the Shire. In particular, given the virtual absence of any strategic basis for the existing Golden Plains Planning Scheme, the Council has clearly advanced the objectives of planning in Victoria as set out in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 through its formulation and specification of objectives and strategies in the MSS.
However, the major exception to this statement is the Council’s proposed treatment of land in the north west of the Shire, where the Panel considers that Council’s approach to zoning large areas of land Rural Residential and Low Density Residential is not an appropriate strategic response. This issue is discussed in detail in Section 3.5.
12 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
3.2.3 Considering the objectives of planning and the planning authority’s objectives, are there any important omissions or inconsistencies?
The Council sees the expansion of timber production as an economic development initiative for the Shire and sees forestry and timber production as increasingly significant local industries. This is consistent with the State Planning Policy Framework. However, Council in its MSS and in its relevant local policy seeks to apply stringent conditions relating to applications for permits. It is proposed in the Rural Use Zone that all plantations 40 ha and over will require a permit. The justification for setting 40 ha requirement is not clear in the MSS although it appears to relate to Council’s concern to protect its road and bridge infrastructure. Council is aware that negotiations have taken place to achieve a state-wide consistency in the approach to the use and development of land for plantations. This is an area to which Council should give consideration when revising its MSS.
The Panel recommends that Council:
• Strengthen Council’s position in the MSS in relation to timber production and processing to ensure that the MSS and the Local Policy is in accordance with the SPPF and any amendments to the VPP’s introduced prior to the adoption of the Planning Scheme.
• Delete the requirement for a planning permit in the Rural Zone for timber production on areas greater than 40 hectares, unless this requirement can be fully justified in discrete areas on landscape or environmental grounds.
• Review the Local Policy on Timber Production and Timber Processing Industries (Clause 22.04-4) to encourage and facilitate timber production in the Shire in accordance with the MSS (Submissions No.s 3 and 10 refer). The Local Policy should be deleted unless some situations are retained in the Planning Scheme where a planning permit is required for timber production and processing.
In its presentation at the hearing, Council indicated that the poultry industry had a production of $7m annually, and that further growth in this industry was likely. While no specific conflicts involving this form of land use were cited, experience in other municipalities indicates that the siting of poultry farms and the conditions under which they operate are matters that should be dealt with by Council’s in their planning schemes. Lack of strategic attention to the poultry industry is an omission from the Golden Plains Scheme that should be addressed.
The Panel recommends that Council prepare a Local Policy dealing with the siting and operation of poultry farms taking into account any efforts by the Department of Infrastructure and others to achieve State-wide consistency on this matter.
3.2.4 Does the MSS contain realistic and reasonable strategies for achieving the objectives?
13 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
As discussed in Section 2.3 of this report, Council has proposed a revised format for the Golden Plains MSS arranged under the headings of four key elements. The Panel/Advisory Committee supports this format on the basis that it provides a clearer explanation of the objectives and strategies that Council had adopted. However, there is the potential for the MSS to lose the clarity of the linkages to the SPPF if Council uses the proposed four “themes” rather than continuing with the headings as contained in the SPPF. The Panel/Advisory Committee is not opposed to the use of the four themes provided that the links to the SPPF are clear and easily understood.
The Panel/Advisory Committee agrees that the exhibited MSS does require substantial changes to make the document clearer and more concise. Taking the example quoted from the exhibited MSS relating to “Settlement”, it can be seen that under the “Objectives” heading there is a description of the planning issue and listing of some of the strategies. In the criteria under the “General Implementation” heading there is a mixture of objectives and outcomes. There is little direct linkage demonstrated to the local policies, zones and overlays relating to the Settlement objectives and strategies.
At the Panel Hearing, the Council demonstrated in outline form how it now proposes to use the various zones and overlays, and its local policies to implement the strategies in the MSS. This method more clearly articulates the links between the objectives and strategies, and the techniques that would be use to achieve implementation.
The Council provided the following example of one of the four key strategies, which indicates the links to the zones, overlays and Local Policies in the Planning Scheme:
Strategy Zones Overlays Local Policies Focussing Low density Residential Design and Development Urban Growth Boundaries Development in and Township Development Plan Industrial Development around Towns Industrial Infrastructure Provision Business Residential Rural Living Infrastructure Water Infrastructure Townscape
In Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of this Report, the Panel questions the need for the large number of overlays and local policies that Council has used, given the relatively uncomplicated nature of the Golden Plains Shire. However, that does not detract from the suggested way that Council now proposes to clearly link its objectives, strategies, and techniques for implementation.
The Panel/Advisory Committee recommends that the MSS should be reviewed to succinctly state the objective being sought, the strategies to achieve the objectives and the key actions. A section which clearly shows the linkages between objectives, strategies, and implementation techniques should be included in the MSS. Reference to “strategic directions” should be deleted. Corresponding references to zones and overlays to assist in explaining the basis of the Planning Scheme as a whole should be included in the MSS.
14 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
The Panel/Advisory Committee recommends that further changes also be made to the MSS to accommodate its recommended changes to the local policies and overlays (refer to Section 3.4 and 3.5 below). In particular, where the Panel/Advisory Committee has recommended deletion of local policies or overlays, there will be a need to include some of the content of these local policies and overlays in the MSS, where it is more appropriately located within the Planning Scheme.
The recommended changes to the MSS are not intended to alter the strategic direction being pursued by the Shire of Golden Plains, which the Panel/Advisory Committee believes is well-founded and tested with the community. Changes are recommended to simplify the MSS, provide clarity and improve understanding of the Council’s position. The changes should be made prior to the approval of the Planning Scheme.
3.2.5 What were the processes used in arriving at the MSS?
Council provided the Panel with an overview of the process used in developing the new planning scheme.
The review of the existing planning scheme and the preparation of a new format planning scheme commenced in early 1996. An extensive background analysis of the existing planning scheme and the future use and development issues and prospects for the Shire was undertaken. The process was driven by a series of community consultation meetings based in each of the Shire’s towns as well as meetings with specific interest groups. In total approximately thirty organised community meetings were conducted. As part of this process a series of questionnaires were distributed to the community to gain an understanding of the major land use and development issues affecting the municipality. Throughout the process information papers and draft documents were released for comment.
Key documents produced by Council were:
· Background and Issues Paper - circulated in February 1996 which included a demographic and economic profile, summary of existing planning scheme provisions, a synopsis of ‘issue identification’ meetings and environmental profile; · Draft Land Use Strategy - circulated in July 1996 for public discussion and comment; · Draft Town Structure Plans - circulated in July 1996 for public discussion and comment; · As part of the planning scheme process structure plans were prepared for the following towns:
· Bannockburn · Meredith · Rokewood · Inverleigh · Teesdale · Ross Creek · Lethbridge · Smythesdale · Scarsdale and Newtown · Linton · Haddon · Shelford · Dereel · Napoleons
15 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
· Draft Planning Scheme - circulated in November 1996 including draft MSS, Local Policies, provisions and zoning maps.
Submissions were invited at each major stage. Public and private meetings were also held to explain and discuss the proposals made.
Following the exhibition of the planning scheme submissions were reviewed and further discussions undertaken with various groups and organisations. Councillors met in a workshop environment to review all submissions. A detailed report concerning all submissions was placed before Council in December 1997.
The preparation by Council of the Land Use Strategy and the Town Structure Plans has provided a sound base for the development of the new Golden Plains Planning Scheme. The level of community consultation during the preparation of the Plan is to be commended. The Panel is satisfied that there has been adequate opportunity, during the preparation of the scheme and following its exhibition, for those who wished to contribute to be heard.
3.2.6 Are there satisfactory links with the corporate plan?
The MSS as exhibited demonstrated that there were clear links between the Corporate Plan in existence at the time and the MSS. In the corporate plan there were specific objectives relating to conservation, agriculture, and rural and urban development. These objectives were have been incorporated into the planning scheme.
Since the new planning scheme went on exhibition, a new Council has been elected. A new corporate plan was adopted by Council in December 1997. While quite different in format, the new corporate plan retains much of the strategic thrust of the former plan. It is quite clear that the vision and objectives in the new plan are reflected in the MSS as exhibited by the Council.
The Panel recommends that the Council incorporate actions from its Corporate Plan (as adopted by Council in December 1997) in the redrafted MSS, in summary form, detailing the links to the particular objectives and strategies contained in the MSS.
3.2.7 Are local provisions clearly expressed and written following plain English principles?
In general, the local provisions in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme are in line with plain English principles and are easy to understand. In other sections of this report, the Panel has made suggestion about the need to restructure the MSS and some local policies. When this done, care should be taken to see that the new version is concise and clear.
16 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
3.3 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)
3.3.1 Is the LPPF and other local provisions consistent with the SPPF?
The Council in its MSS has effectively linked its LPPF and other local provisions with the State Planning Policy Framework. Council has used the key headings used in the SPPF [Settlement, Environment, Housing, Economic development, Infrastructure] to explain how the objectives listed in the State Section have been incorporated into the LPPF. Under each heading, it has provided comment on • Strategic Considerations • Objectives • General Implementation.
In the General Implementation sections, “sub themes” have been used to further describe the “overall strategy and the guiding principles which provide the basis for local policies and zoning provisions in the planning scheme. This is a useful way to explain the links between the SPPF and the LPPF. The links have been clearly established.
Council has explained to the Panel that it wishes to use a revised structure for the MSS. If Council is to adopt the revised structure, using four themes in place of the five headings as used in the SPPF, then it will be important for Council to ensure that the useful and necessary section dealing with the linkages between the SPPF and the LPPF is not lost or diluted.
Area of Conflict between the SPPF and LPPF The Panel considers that there is a contradiction in the Golden Plains MSS relating to the implementation of the objectives of the Settlement theme (Clause 21.10). These objectives state:
“The strategy for urban centres and townships is based on the consolidation of development in order to maximise existing infrastructure capacity and reinforce community and commercial facilities.
“Growth areas for the next ten years are based around existing urban centres and townships where services can be provided and areas of environmental significance or agricultural production are not compromised.
Future development should offer a wide range of living environments. Each of the Shire’s towns present different capacities and characteristics.” (Clause 21.10-2)
Under the General Implementation of these objectives, for Residential Use and Development, the MSS states:
“Ensure locations for new residential areas and development in the Shire’s urban centres are determined by consideration of the following criteria:
• the need to protect agricultural land and areas of significance; • the efficiency of utilising existing infrastructure; • environmental constraints to the development of land;
17 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
• access to commercial and community services; and • maintaining growth options for future town use and development.” (Clause 21.10-3)
This last dot point in Clause 21.10-3 could be interpreted as weakening the position strongly established by Council in its Land Use Strategy and in the MSS, on the consolidation of the Shire’s townships and the clear delineation of their urban growth boundaries. It could be seen to be in conflict with the Settlement Objective in Clause 14 of the SPPF. While it may not be Council’s intent to leave the way open for further subdivision beyond the township boundary, rewording of the dot point (or its deletion) would remove the doubt.
The Panel recommends that the dot point “maintaining growth options for future town use and development” in Clause 21.10-3 of the Golden Plains MSS (and any subsequent revised versions of the MSS) be reworded to ensure that the intent of the statement could not be interpreted as weakening Council’s strong position in relation to the definition and maintenance of township boundaries.
3.4 Local Policies
The Golden Plains Planning Scheme contains 34 local policies, defined under the headings of Settlement, Environment, Housing, Economic Development, Infrastructure, and Use and Development.
The Panel’s Terms of Reference requires that the Local Policies be assessed against the following questions:
Are local policies directed towards implementation of the MSS?
Are local policies soundly based and reasonably justified?
Will local policies be of practical assistance in the day-to-day decision-making about permit applications?
To what extent have local policies been created as part of the new planning scheme and to what extent are they a replication of previous local policies?
In the following sections, the Panel/Advisory Committee has examined the form and content of the local policies and their justification in these terms. The need for additional local policies to assist in the implementation of the MSS has also been examined by the Panel/Advisory Committee.
3.4.1 Form and Content
The form of the Local Policies in the exhibited Golden Plains Planning Scheme generally follows that required under the new format Planning Schemes.
18 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
However, the Panel noted that the content of some of the local policies is doubtful on a number of grounds. These include the following:
• Many of the Local Policies under the headings of Settlement, Environment, Housing, Economic Development, Infrastructure (Clauses 22.01 – 22.05) duplicate a number of the statements, objectives and strategies already in either the SPPF or the MSS (in its exhibited form and as proposed to be revised by Council), or matters covered by other legislation. In some instances, the Local Policy provides only a marginal addition to the SPPF or MSS.
• While a number of the 34 Local Policies do add to the Council’s ability to determine planning permit applications in accordance with the objectives and strategies contained in the MSS, some of the local policies read more like a set of conditions to be placed on a planning permit than a policy to guide Council’s decision-making. This is particularly the case with the suite of Local Policies included under the general heading “Use and Development” (Clause 22.06).
• A prescriptive approach to development, rather than a performance based approach, is evident in a number of policies, for example in the “Use and Development” Local Policies and in other Local Policies such as “Road Construction and Access in The Rural Zones” (Clause 22.05-3) or “Industrial Development” (Clause 22.04-3).
• Following the proposed revision of the MSS by the Council, and the implementation of recommendations of the Panel with respect to the revision of the MSS, local policies on many of specific matters addressed by the Council in the exhibited scheme will not be required or be justified. (Refer to Section 3.4.2 below).
The Panel recommends the following general changes be made to the content of the Golden Plains Local Policies:
• All “permit conditions” and development controls be removed from those Local Policies to be retained in the Planning Scheme.
• In revising the MSS Council should ensure that the Local Policies clearly articulate Council’s position. Duplication or repetition of objectives also found in the SPPF or the MSS should be removed.
• All Local Policies to be retained in the Planning Scheme should be revised to be consistent with the principles for writing local policy contained in the Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions.
3.4.2 Need for Local Policies
The Panel has commented on the complexity of the Golden Plains Planning Scheme in terms of the large number of Local Policies and Overlays contained in the exhibited Planning Scheme.
19 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
The Panel considers that the Golden Plains Planning Scheme can be greatly simplified by reducing the number of local policies, particularly as the majority of the proposed Local Policies complicate what should be a relatively straightforward Planning Scheme without adding value to Council’s decision-making.
Local Policies on some matters will not be required following the revision of the MSS, as these matters can be effectively included in the objectives and strategies of the MSS. For example, Local Policies such as those on Agriculture (Clause 22.04-1), Horticulture (Clause 22.04-2), and Lot Sizes and Medium Density Housing (Clause 22.03-2) would be more appropriately addressed in the new version of the Golden Plains MSS.
The Panel considers that “Development Guidelines” or “Guidelines for Applicants”, adopted by Council but not included in the Planning Scheme, could be used to address the specific development controls and proposed permit conditions currently contained in a number of the Local Policies. It is apparent that the origin of a number of these Local Policies is in a number of existing non-statutory policies, which Council has included in the LPPF.
Requirements have also been made in a number of Local Policies for compliance with other legislation which imposes controls or regulations on development.
However, the Panel does consider that some of the Local Policies should be retained where they do add to Council’s decision-making, for example the Local Policy on Excision of Lots and Dwellings in the Rural Zones (Clause 22.03-1). This policy has already been revised by Council to take into account Amendment V3 to the VPP’s.
However, the Local Policy on Excision of Lots and Dwellings in the Rural Zones requires further revision to remove the development control aspects of the Local Policy and reference to compliance with other legislation (in this example, the Building Code of Australia). This Local Policy also suffers from a lack of geographic focus, which will be required if the north-west area of the Shire is zoned Rural as a holding zone (Section 3.5.1.4 refers).
In terms of the use of Local Policies in place of overlays, further work is required to determine if additional local policies are necessary to deal with specific issues. For example, Council has already agreed to remove the ESO 10 and replace it with a local policy, at the request of DNRE. In this case the use of a Local Policy is preferable approach, due to the status of the mapping of the stone resources. Other proposed Overlay controls may be similarly treated.
In making recommendations which require substantial revision of the Local Policies in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme, the Panel is not questioning the Council’s strategic underpinning of the Local Policies, but rather is aiming at a simplified Planning Scheme in which the Local Policies do genuinely add to the policy base of the Planning Scheme. The Panel’s role is not to write the revised Local Policies for Council, but to provide recommendations to guide Council in the review of this part of the LPPF.
20 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
The Panel recommends that Council delete the following Local Policies, which could be addressed through the MSS and SPPF and through the use of non- statutory Development Guidelines, from Golden Plains Planning Scheme:
22.02-1 Agricultural Land 22.02-3 Effluent Disposal and Water Quality 22.02-4 Erosion Risk 22.02-7 Wetland Areas 22.04-1 Agriculture 22.04-2 Horticulture 22.04-3 Industrial Development 22.04-5 Tourist Use and Development 22.05 Infrastructure Local Policies (22.05-1 to 22.05-4 inclusive) 22.06-1 Animal Keeping 22.06-3 Dams 22.06-4 Highway Development 22.06-5 Industrial Development Landscaping 22.06-6 Intensive Animal Husbandry 22.06-8 Sheds and Outbuildings
3.4.3 Additional Local Policies
The Panel has identified a number of new Local Policies which it believes should be included in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme LPPF:
• Protection of Stone Resources (to replace ESO 10 – as discussed at Submissions Nos 9 and 28). Council has agreed with the request made by DNRE to delete ESO 10 and include a new Local Policy on Protection of Stone Resources. The Panel agrees with this proposal, however notes that a consistent state-wide approach to this issue should be developed by the Department of Infrastructure.
• Arising from any other deletion of overlays or changes to zoning (as discussed in Section 3.5) or changes to incorporation of documents (as discussed in Section 3.6). For example, the Panel has recommended that Township Structure Plans should not be incorporated in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme – these could be referenced through Local Policies on Townships within Golden Plains Shire, with the Local Policies providing a stronger geographic focus for the Council’s Township strategies and implementation.
• Rural Residential development in north west area of Shire. The Panel recommends that Council prepare a specific Local Policy for the north west area of the Shire in the locality of Scarsdale, Haddon and Ross Creek currently proposed to be zoned Low Density Residential and Rural Living. This Local Policy would be a holding measure to guide decision-making until further investigation in this area had been carried out. (Section 3.5.1.4 below refers.)
21 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
The Panel recommends that Council include Local Policies on these matters in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme:
3.5 Zones, Overlays and Schedules
3.5.1 General Application of Zones
The application of zones is summarised in the following table. In most cases, the Panel considers that Council’s approach to the application of zones is appropriate, subject to the comments outlined below. The schedules to all zones appear to be appropriately applied (noting that changes are required arising from Amendment V3).
Exhibited Zone Application of Zone
Rural • Applied across most areas of Shire Environmental Rural • Limited Rural Living • Extensive in north-west area Low Density Residential • Extensive in north-west area Township • Defines township areas in accordance with structure plans Industrial • Limited (translation of existing zones) Business • Limited (translation of existing zones) Special Use • Refuse Disposal (two sites) Special Use Zone 2 (Conservation • Dog Rocks Batesford Protection)
The Panel’s Terms of Reference requires that the zones be assessed against the following questions:
3.5.1.1 Are there clearly defined linkages between the MSS and application of zones and schedules?
The zoning of Golden Plains Shire is relatively straight-forward. Large tracts of the Shire are zoned Rural, with only limited rural areas identified with an Environmental Rural Zoning. The urban areas of the Shire are limited to the various small townships, where the Township Zone identifies the limits to further urban development in and around the Townships.
The Panel has previously commented that the linkages between the MSS and the zones and schedules has been articulated in the exhibited MSS, and this will need to be more clearly defined in the revised MSS now proposed by Council. The Panel is satisfied that in overall terms the zoning proposed by Council draws its strategic basis from the MSS.
22 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
The zoning which cannot be clearly linked to the MSS is the proposed zoning of land in the north-west area of the Shire (the former Shire of Grenville IDO area), and this is because the Panel believes that the strategies in the MSS cannot support the Council’s proposed Rural Living and Low Density Residential zoning of this area (See Section 3.5.1.4).
3.5.1.2 Is the application of zones and schedules the most appropriate of the VPP techniques to achieve the stated outcomes?
At the Panel Hearing, the following two issues in the application of zones were identified by the Panel/Advisory Committee:
• Inappropriate extensive zoning of Rural Living and Low density Residential in north-west area of Shire (This issue is discussed below in Section 3.5.1.4.)
• Dogs Rocks Batesford - Inappropriate application of Special Use Zone to provide for low density residential use and development of land consistent with the conservation and protection of the Dogs Rocks outcrop.
The Panel considers that the use of a Special Use zone for the Dogs Rocks area is not appropriate or consistent with the application of Special Use zones across Victoria. It is noted that development of the Dogs Rocks area is to be guided by the Dogs Rock Concept Plan, which Council proposes to incorporate in the Planning Scheme.
The Panel considers that the Dogs Rocks Concept Plan documents should form the basis of an Incorporated Plan Overlay or Development Play Overlay for the Dogs Rocks area, and be deleted from the schedule of incorporated documents. The Panel recommends that Council zone the Dogs Rocks area (currently proposed to be zoned Special Use 2) to be consistent with the development permitted under the Dogs Rock Concept Plan, using an Incorporated Plan Overlay or Development Play Overlay to bring into effect the Dogs Rocks Concept Plan.
3.5.1.3 If there are situations where the application of zones and schedules are not clearly linked to the MSS, is reasonable justification provided and is it considered acceptable? As stated above, the zoning which cannot be clearly linked to the MSS is the proposed zoning of land in the north-west area of the Shire (the former Shire of Grenville IDO area). The Panel does not consider that adequate justification for the proposed Rural Living and Low Density Residential Zoning has been provided by Council (refer to Section 3.5.1.4).
3.5.1.4 Are the zones and schedules reasonably compatible at the interface with adjoining schemes?
23 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
The Department of Infrastructure presented an overview of the boundary issues arising between Golden Plains Shire and its neighbours. Although Golden Plains shares boundaries with seven other rural shires and cities, the Department of Infrastructure’s analysis of the adjoining zones across the local government boundaries indicated general compatibility with the exception of the boundaries with the City of Ballarat.
The Panel agrees that the key strategic boundary issue which requires resolution in terms of zoning, is at the boundary between the Shire of Golden Plains and the City of Ballarat.
View of Ballarat Planning Scheme Panel/Advisory Committee: Of direct relevance is the Panel/Advisory Committee’s Report on the Ballarat Planning Scheme, which stated that:
“In this general context [of strategic directions], the Ballarat’s municipal strategic statement (MSS) proposes to:- · reduce rural/residential subdivision expectations in the south west by introducing a rural zone with a minimum 40ha. lot size; this area is earmarked for long term urban growth which should not be compromised by small scale subdivision in the meantime”. (City of Ballarat Planning Scheme - Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee p8) and
“To the south east of Ballarat in Golden Plains there are extensive areas of rural living and low density residential zones reflecting past planning decisions. It is not known how the rural municipality of Golden Plains explains this in strategic terms but the rural zone on the Ballarat side of the boundary reflects a clear strategy to prevent further rural/residential subdivision in this area so as not to compromise long term urban expansion of Ballarat city into this area. Delacombe and Sebastopol are already designated for future growth within the planning period and the long term extension of urban development in this direction - which is not good quality agricultural land - makes sound strategic sense. The Panel supports Ballarat’s strategy in this respect; if the cross-boundary zoning anomaly is to be rationalised it should be on the basis of changes on the Golden Plains side of the boundary”. (City of Ballarat Planning Scheme - Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee p19.)
The proposed zoning of this area in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme is either Low Density Residential or Rural Living. The need for Council to justify this proposed zoning in terms of Ministerial Direction No. 6 has been discussed in Section 3.1.
Council devoted a considerable portion of its submission to the Panel/Advisory Committee addressing this issue, recognising it as one of the key strategic matters to be resolved in the new Planning Scheme. At the time of the Panel Hearing, Council had not seen the Ballarat Planning Scheme Panel Report, and provided a supplementary submission to the Panel/Advisory Committee specifically addressing the recommendations of the Ballarat Planning Scheme Panel.
24 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
View of Golden Plains Shire Council: Council submitted Golden Plains Shire has inherited a legacy of “ad hoc planning” particularly on the periphery of the Ballarat urban area. Decisions by former Councils to approve extensive rural residential subdivisions have been overlaid on areas that were settled in gold mining days.
Council stated that it has a major dilemma given the choices provided in the VPP zones. Council’s strategy has been to: · Apply the Low Density Residential Zone where land has already been extensively subdivided through historical surveys or subdivisions approval by former Councils. · Apply the Rural Living Zone to those areas where land has been extensively subdivided into lots where some forms of primary production are feasible.
Council in its subsequent submission to the Panel/Advisory Committee (in response to the Ballarat Planning Scheme Panel Report), argued that the RLZ would effectively mean no further subdivision in this zone because of the minimum lot size for subdivision of 8ha, which was well in excess of the general lot size in this zone.
In contrast the LDRZ provides for lot sizes as small as 0.4ha. Given the typical lot sizes in this zone further subdivision would be possible in the north west area of Golden Plains Shire. Council proposed to the Panel/Advisory Committee that an additional Local Policy applying to the LDRZ would be prepared, requiring that any further subdivision of land in the LDRZ would need to meet three requirements. 1. Any lot created would need to be in excess of 1ha in area. 2. Any lot created less than 2ha in area would need to be: · served by a sealed road, and · served by a reticulated domestic water supply 3. Any proposal for subdivision would need to demonstrate how effluent can be treated on site or retained on each lot following full residential development of the subdivision.
Panel/Advisory Committee’s View: The concern of the Panel/Advisory Committee is that the approach advocated by Golden Plains Shire is essentially a passive one, accepting the inevitability of further residential development across a wide area in the north west of the Shire.
The Low Density Residential Zone and Rural Living Zone are proposed by Council to be used as a “best fit”, even though the zones’ objectives will be largely in conflict with the Golden Plains MSS and Local Policies which seek to restrict such development. Once the north west area is zoned for Low Density Residential or Rural Living, it will be difficult for Council to refuse applications in this area for residential development.
The Panel considers that justification of the proposed zoning in terms of Ministerial Direction No 6 (discussed in Section 3.1.2) is necessary, notwithstanding the Council’s assertion that the proposed Rural Living and Low Density Residential zoning simply recognises the existing situation. Despite the subdivision pattern and fragmented ownership in the north west of the Shire, many of the existing lots are vacant.
25 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
The Panel’s view is that much of the north west area presents as rural and care should be taken to maintain a rural zoning wherever possible.
The Panel/Advisory Committee considers that the Council needs to reassess the zoning options in the framework of its own MSS, and suggests that Council examine the use of the Environmental Rural Zone as an alternative for the major part of the affected land in the north west area, as a holding measure, pending further investigation by Council.
The Panel/Advisory Committee recommends that Golden Plains Shire examine alternative rural zones (such as the Environmental Rural Zone) to be applied as a holding measure to the north west area of the Shire in the locality of Scarsdale, Haddon and Ross Creek currently proposed to be zoned Low Density Residential and Rural Living. Further work on refining the zoning of this area should be undertaken in conjunction with the City of Ballarat and the Department of Infrastructure after the Golden Plains Planning Scheme is adopted.
The Panel further recommends that Council prepare a specific Local Policy for the north west area of the Shire in the locality of Scarsdale, Haddon and Ross Creek currently proposed to be zoned Low Density Residential and Rural Living (Section 3.4.3 refers).
3.5.2 General Application of Overlays
The Golden Plains Planning Scheme makes extensive use of overlays – both in the numbers of overlays and the area proposed to be covered by the overlays. The Panel is concerned at the level of complexity through overlay controls proposed by Council for a Shire which should be able to make use of a relatively simple planning scheme to implement its strategies contained in the MSS.
The table following provides an overview of the exhibited overlays. It should be noted that in some cases more than one overlay applies to land, even to the extent in limited areas that two ESO’s apply to the same land.
Exhibited Overlay Application of Overlay
ESO1 General Environmental Protection ESO2 Protect Water Quality in Catchment Areas ESO3 Watercourse Protection ESO4 Enfield State Park ESO5 Mt Misery Creek ESO6 Area at Dereel ESO7 Area at Dereel ESO8 Hill at Smythesdale ESO9 Yarrowee Creek ESO10 Extractive Industry Interest Area VPO1 Western Plains Grasslands VPO2 Significant Vegetation - Happy Valley VPO3 Bushland Reserve - Golden Reef
26 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
VPO4 Roadside Vegetation VPO5 Flora Reserve Linton VPO6 Enfield State Park Reference Area SLO1 Devils Kitchen - Geological Feature HO Heritage Overlay – Schedule of 71 heritage places DDO1 Implement the Bannockburn, Meredith and Smythesdale Town Place Studies. DDO2 Addresses Limited Capacity of Sewerage System at Enfield Estate DDO3 Water Pressure Limitation at Ross Creek DDO4 Waste Water Constraint at Napoleons DPO1 Bannockburn DPO2 Low Density Residential DPO3 Industrial Development LSI Land Subject to Inundation SBO Areas susceptible to bushfire SMO Salinity Management
The Panel’s Terms of Reference requires that the overlays and schedules be assessed against the following questions:
3.5.1.1 Are there clearly defined linkages between the MSS and application of overlays and schedules? The Panel has previously commented that the linkages between the MSS and the overlays and schedules has been articulated in the exhibited MSS, and needs to be more clearly defined in the revised MSS now proposed by Council. The issue to be addressed is whether the large number of overlays are necessary to implement the strategies in the MSS, and whether they can be justified in the details of their application.
3.5.2.2 Is the application of overlays and schedules the most appropriate of the VPP techniques to achieve the stated outcomes? When queried by the Panel/Advisory Committee on the extensive use of overlays, Council responded that it was not convinced that policy and strategy statements (either in the MSS or in Local Policies) would carry the same weight as overlay controls in either Council’s or the AAT’s decision-making.
This concern appears to have led Council to create an extensive system of overlay controls in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme. While the Panel is essentially not questioning the strategies behind the overlays, it believes that Council could make much more use of its MSS coupled with a set of more focussed Local Policies to achieve the strategic outcomes sought. The Panel considers that Council should review the necessity for a number of the proposed overlays.
In particular, the Panel notes that tracts of public lands such as parks and reserves under either the control of DNRE or Council (through Committees of Management) were to be covered by ESO’s or VPO’s aimed at conservation and protection of the land and its vegetation. The Panel would question this approach where the aims of
27 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998 the managing authority are similar to those contained in the proposed overlay, and agrees with the objections raised by DNRE to the Council’s approach. This issue also requires a consistent state-wide approach which should be co-ordinated through the Department of Infrastructure.
3.5.2.3 Are overlays and schedules being used when it may be more appropriate to use local policies?
Extending this theme, the Panel considers that Local Policies could be used to replace a number of overlays, including for example the various DDO’s and DPO’s proposed. Many of the matters dealt with in these overlays could be better addressed in the MSS or included in non-statutory Development Guidelines.
3.5.2.4 If there are situations where the application of overlays and schedules are not clearly linked to the MSS, is reasonable justification provided and is it considered acceptable? The justification for a number of the overlays was not made particularly evident to the Panel/Advisory Committee. There was a tendency for Council to use overlay controls when in doubt, and accept submissions for further inclusions in overlay areas (from private submitters and Government Agencies) without necessarily being able to fully justify extensions to the exhibited overlays.
While there are clearly a number of situations in Golden Plains Shire where overlay controls are justified – for example, use of a VPO to protect significant roadside vegetation and remnant vegetation; the use of the Heritage Overlay for identified heritage places; or the use of a Salinity Management Overlay (SMO) for areas where salinity problems have been identified – the Panel considers that the justification for the extent of the overlays needs to be further investigated and documented by Council. The Panel notes that Council intends to review the area covered by the SMO in the light of more detailed information and mapping.
3.5.2.5 Are the overlays and schedules reasonably compatible at the interface with adjoining schemes? At the boundary with the City of Greater Geelong, it was evident that Golden Plains Shire had made much more extensive use of overlay controls. The Panel/Advisory Committee’s recommendations with respect to reducing the number of overlays and simplifying the Planning Scheme will address this discontinuity.
In the case of ESO 2, Council indicated that in response to the submission by Barwon Water it would revise the overlay to ensure a consistent approach to the Barwon Water Catchment areas with Mooroobool Shire. The Department of Infrastructure should be involved in ensuring that this occurs in a matter consistent with other schemes across the State.
28 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
3.5.2.6 Have overlays introduced referral requirements additional to those in the VPP?
The ESO 10 (Extractive Industry Interest Area) introduced a mandatory referral to DNRE. As this overlay is to be deleted (at the request of DNRE and the agreement of the Council), this issue does not arise.
Council advised that other referrals in schedules to overlays are at the discretion of Council – and most are to DNRE. As the Panel has recommended a significant reduction in the use of overlay controls, such discretionary referrals will also be greatly reduced.
Conclusion: The Panel recommends that Council review the application of Overlays proposed in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme with a view to:
• Simplifying the Planning Scheme through reducing the number of Overlays and replacing them with statements in the MSS or Local Policies. • Deleting Overlays from public lands under the control of DNRE or Council where the managing authority’s objectives are similar to those contained in the proposed Overlay. • Justifying the extent of the areas to be covered by Overlays where the Overlay control is to be retained.
3.5.3 Site Specific Provisions/Exclusions Development at Barunah Plains (the subject of Amendment L6 to the existing Golden Plains Planning Scheme) falls into the category of a site-specific amendment.
The owner of Barunah Plains made a comprehensive submission to the Panel (Submission No 6 refers). A discussion of this issue and the Panel’s recommendation are contained in Section 4 (which deals with individual submissions).
No other sites were raised by Council with the Panel.
3.6 Incorporated and Reference Documents
The Panel’s Terms of Reference requires that the Incorporated documents be assessed against the following questions:
Does the planning scheme include incorporated documents apart from those in the VPP?
What is the basis for incorporating any such documents?
Can the intentions of the planning authority in using incorporated documents be better achieved by other techniques in the VPP such as local policies?
29 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Key planning documents incorporated by Golden Plains Shire in the Planning Scheme are:
• Golden Plains Shire Land Use Strategy Plan (Feb 1997) • Golden Plains Shire Town Structure Plans (Feb 1997)
Other incorporated documents include the Dogs Rocks Concept Layout and the Barwon Regional Water Authority Proclaimed Water Supply Catchments Map.
The Panel/Advisory Committee considers that the Land Use Strategy and Town Structure Plans do not meet the criteria for incorporation, particularly in terms of being necessary for the exercise of discretion under the Planning Scheme. The strategies in the Planning Scheme are essentially built on the outcomes of these two planning studies. If Council incorporates appropriate parts of the Land Use Strategy and Town Structure Plans in the MSS, Local Policies and Overlays then the documents do not need to be formally incorporated in the Planning Scheme.
The Panel recommends that the Golden Plains Land Use Strategy and the Township Structure Plans be deleted from the schedule of incorporated documents and be retained as reference documents.
With respect to the documents relating to the Dogs Rock Concept Layout, the Panel recommends that these documents should form the basis of a Incorporated Plan Overlay or Development Plan Overlay for the Dogs Rock site, and be deleted from the schedule of incorporated documents.
The Barwon Region Water Authority Proclaimed Water Supply Catchments Map may be more appropriately maintained as a reference document, as the ESO 2 also addresses the areas affected. The Panel/Advisory Committee recommends that the inclusion of the Barwon Region Water Authority Proclaimed Water Supply Catchments Map as either a reference or incorporated document in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme should be reviewed with the Department of Infrastructure to ensure a consistent approach State-wide to this issue.
The Panel also recommends that incorporation of any other documents due to their referencing in the various proposed overlay controls will need to be reviewed by Council as part of the general review of the application of overlays in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme (Section 3.5.2 refers).
3.7 Monitoring and Review
There is a legal requirement for Council to review the MSS and, as a consequence, other parts of the Planning Scheme, once every three years.
Has the planning authority established appropriate mechanisms for: • Monitoring decisions made under the planning scheme; • Evaluating decisions against the intentions of the LPPF; • Reviewing the LPPF and other local provisions and the planning scheme generally?
30 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council pointed out to the Panel/Advisory Committee that the Municipal Strategic Statement does not outline specific mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of the scheme. Council has not as yet established any mechanism for monitoring decisions made under the new scheme.
Council acknowledges the requirement for a three year review of the scheme. Council believes that it will need to put into place a systematic program for monitoring so as to inform itself for the review, establish the basis for the refinement and development of provisions and provide a basis for community input. The most appropriate process is to establish a continuous program which encapsulates data on:
· number and type of applications; · processing time; · relevant provisions applying; · basis of decision (use of local provisions to assist decision); · compliance level with LPPF; and · adequacy of zones, overlays, LPPF and local schedules to address issues raised by permits.
The Panel/Advisory Committee is aware that the Department of Infrastructure is undertaking generic work on appropriate review mechanisms to be put in place by Councils.
The Panel/Advisory Committee therefore recommends that the Council should develop processes and systems for monitoring and reviewing the Planning Scheme, in conjunction with the Department of Infrastructure. This should include a system for monitoring decisions made under the Planning Scheme and evaluating them against the intentions of the LPPF. Recognition of monitoring/review processes should be included in the MSS.
3.8 Other Matters
During the course of the Panel Hearing, several matters were raised in relation to the VPP’s as a whole, including the provisions of some overlays and zones. These are noted in response to submissions and the Panel/Advisory Committee has recommended that several be considered in subsequent reviews of the VPP’s.
31 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
4. SUBMISSIONS
4.1 OVERVIEW
This section sets out the Panel/Advisory Committee’s recommendations in relation to each submission to the Golden Plains Planning Scheme. The Council provided an outline of each submission, a strategic assessment of that submission and the Council position on the submission. The Panel/Advisory Committee has replicated this material and appended its own commentary at the end of each submission (shown in italics). Where like matters were raised, the Panel/Advisory Committee has provided its comments and recommendations for one submission and then referred to that submission in addressing other similar issues.
The Panel appreciates the quality of submissions, both in writing and made verbally, and all material has been thoroughly reviewed and considered. Each submission has been individually considered by the Panel/Advisory Committee.
In summary, the submissions received fell into several categories:
• Advice and input from Government agencies, and community groups and several individuals relating to the strategies and wording of the MSS and application of overlays in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme. • Requests to rezone rural and rural residential land for more intense residential development, particularly in the north west of Golden Plains Shire in the former Grenville Shire area. • Advice from Government agencies and individuals on errors contained in the Planning Scheme maps. • Requests from Government agencies to be exempted from overlay controls.
The key strategic issue raised in submissions concerns the future development of the rural area in the north west of the Shire. The Panel/Advisory Committee has dealt with this issue in Section 3.3.3 above, and has examined the submissions for land in this area in accordance with the position taken by the Panel/Advisory Committee.
4.2 Consideration of Submissions
The following pages set out the Panel/Advisory Committee’s consideration of each submission to the new format Golden Plains Planning Scheme. The numbering system is that provided by Council.
32 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 1 Submitter Name: Robert Flett Risk Manager Barwon Corangamite Area Country Fire Authority PO Box 586 NORTH GEELONG VIC 3215 Location and Map N/A Reference No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested Planning scheme provisions in general: Changes/Issues Raised: · Suggests eleven (11) statements regarding fire
and emergency management to be included in the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), these are attached. · Recommends that a fire hazard policy be included as a Local Policy.
Council Comment: The 11 additional statements for inclusion in the MSS generally clarify policy statements made in the MSS or list additional matters for consideration in the assessment of amendments or permits.
In an earlier draft of the planning scheme (before exhibition) a fire hazard policy was included. The policy did contain some recommended development standards. The policy was removed following general comments by the Department of Infrastructure. Since this time the policy has been redrafted to be less detailed and recent versions used in other planning schemes have been accepted. Strategic Considerations General improvements to the overall strategy. and Implications: Council Recommendation: Council supports the submission, by: · the inclusion of additional statements in the MSS; and · a fire hazard policy be included as a Local Policy.
However, Council is aware that the Department of Infrastructure/ Panels are addressing a number of issues in relation to the CFA’s position on the VPP.
33 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Panel Comment and The Panel notes the support by Council for the CFA’s Recommendations: proposed amendments to the MSS and the inclusion of a fire hazard policy as a Local Policy in the LPPF.
The issue is one which clearly requires a state-wide approach. The Panel recommends that the Department of Infrastructure co-ordinate the drafting of appropriate statements in the Golden Plains MSS, local policy or overlay controls to address the general concerns raised by the CFA using a consistent approach across both the region and the State.
34 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 2
Submitter Name: B O’Shannassy ‘Rosedale’ BANNOCKBURN VIC 3331
Location and Map Map 1 Reference No: Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Low Density Residential Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested · Request for zoning of land (approx 15ha) as Low Changes/Issues Raised: Density Residential. · Relates to August 1995 application for rezoning. · Development is adjacent to town and would be a natural extension. · Demand for 0.4ha lots in this area. · Submission includes a copy of the earlier submission.
Council Comment: · The land is proposed to be zoned Rural under
the new planning scheme. · A structure plan for Lethbridge was developed as part of the new planning scheme. · The structure plan identified that there was existing capacity in the areas proposed to be zoned Low Density Residential.
35 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Strategic Considerations · Three (3) preferred areas for township and Implications: development were identified: south of Russell Street; extension of Ackland Road south; and north of Noy Road. · The structure plan included the strategies to: - Develop Lethbridge around the existing town centre and in areas west of the Midland Highway; and - Use existing vacant land within the town before additional land is made available for residential development. · To support the submission would be inconsistent with the structure plan developed for the town. · An option is to indicate the area as ‘Future Low Density Residential’ on the structure plan, however, this would need to occur with a review of other suitable areas. Council Recommendation: 1. That Council not support the submission. 2. That Council refer the submission to an independent panel.
Panel Comment and Council has developed a strategic approach to township Recommendations: development based on limiting expansion to existing vacant land and infill development in accordance with township structure plans prepared as part of the new format Planning Scheme.
This strategic approach has been consistently applied by Council and the Panel agrees with Council that this proposal for rezoning land adjacent to the Lethbridge Township to Rural Residential cannot be justified at this stage. The Panel recommends that the land be zoned Rural as exhibited.
36 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 3
Submitter Name: Steve Roffey Resources Manager Midway Wood Products Pty Ltd PO Box 191 NORTH SHORE VIC 3214 Location and Map N/A Reference No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested · Timber production in plantations. Changes/Issues Raised: · Refers to the Code of Practice for Timber Production. · All plantations, irrespective of size, are required to provide a Plantation Development Notice (PDN). · No longer necessary for the 40 hectare requirement for planning permits. · Salinity Management Overlay requirement on a permit is an inappropriate restriction on the establishment of plantations. · Management plan requirement (22.04-4) is inequitable when there is no similar requirement on agriculture. · Agriculture policy (22.04-1) infers discouragement of plantations. The scope of protection should be broadened to protect all soil-based industries.
37 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Comment: · The schedule to the Rural zones provides for the Council to stipulate the minimum size of plantation that will require application for a planning permit. The VPPs require that this size cannot be less than 40ha. · The issue of timber plantations, and how the VPPs deal with this type of use and development, has been subject to further clarification since the exhibition of the planning scheme. · The earlier understanding was that Council, if it wished, could facilitate timber production by setting a requirement higher than 40ha, that is, larger timber plantations would not require a permit. The advice from the Department of Infrastructure now is that Council needs to justify why any area requirement, particularly down to 40ha, is appropriate. · The Salinity Management Overlay was based on general mapping of a fairly large scale. More detailed mapping is now available from the Centre for Land Protection Research which would allow more accurate mapping. The overlay was included in the exhibited planning scheme on the understanding that changes would be made to the VPPs to allow for a schedule which, as a local provision, the Council could exempt certain forms of development. This change has been made to the VPPs as part of V3. It is noted that several Councils which originally included the Salinity Management Overlay have since sought to remove it from their planning scheme (e.g. Campaspe). · It is not considered that the wording of the agriculture policy (22.04-1) is prejudicial to timber plantations. · Timber production and timber processing policy (22.04-4) could be reviewed in line with recent changes to VPP provisions. This could include only requiring information with plantations at specific locations. It is unlikely that the use of section 173 agreements will be possible.
38 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Strategic Considerations Timber plantations have the capacity to strengthen and Implications: employment particularly in processing. Well sited plantations could have a major environmental impact in terms of arresting dryland salinity, limiting soil erosion and improving water quality in rivers and streams. The Municipal Strategic Statement promotes the use of land within the municipality for higher value rural uses including timber plantations and agro-forestry, as well as encouraging the establishment of processing facilities for primary products including timber. The Timber Production Policy and provision for timber plantations in the Schedule to the Rural Zone has received criticism from industry sources. However, Council has determined that the Schedule to the Rural Zone should be retained as exhibited to ensure that all plantation areas greater than 40 hectares require the issue of a permit and can be subject to various conditions. Council is aware that the Department of Infrastructure is preparing a Discussion Paper concerning timber issues including the maintenance and funding of haulage routes. The potential implications on road infrastructure from adhoc dispersed timber plantations is a major concern and potential cost to Council. Without the potential to impose conditions relating to road use Council would appear to have no means of input to preferred haulage routes. It is the Golden Plains Shire Council’s strong position that while the VPP provides a Council with the capacity to require a permit for plantations over 40ha, it will apply the provision throughout the Shire as the only effective means currently available to manage the potential impact on the Shire’s road network. The MSS and Local Policies place high regard upon the visual and physical environment of the municipality, and there is some potential for these values to conflict with timber production. It is proposed that an additional point be included in the Timber policy to take these issues into consideration when determining applications. In particular, those areas identified by a Significant Landscape, Vegetation Protection and Environmental Significance Overlays should be given careful consideration in relation to timber production applications. This may involve considering the boundary of the proposed plantations, location of haulage routes, or limiting plantations in certain areas to ensure local environmental values are not degraded.
39 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Recommendation: Council supports the submission in part, by:
· the retention of the 40ha permit requirement for timber production; · the Salinity Management Overlay be retained with the schedule to the overlay exempting most forms of use and development. A permit should only be required for use and development that will affect recharge and discharge areas. The application of the overlay be modified to be more specific, in accordance with the more detailed mapping of areas subject to or susceptible to salinity provided by the Centre for Land Protection Research. · The VPP3 changes to the Rural Zone schedule have some application. · the provisions of the local policy 22.04-4 be amended to: be clear in preference for sustainable forestry; focus on the protection of township and low density residential areas; and delete the second dot point of the policy referring to a management plan.
40 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Panel Comment and Many of the issues raised by Midway Wood Products Pty Ltd Recommendations: in relation to controls on timber plantations (specifically the requirement in various overlay controls to obtain a planning permit for areas over 40 hectares) are being addressed at a State level. In particular, after the submission was made and considered by Council, a discussion paper prepared by Ms Helen Gibson (Chief Panel Member) has been circulated by the Department of Infrastructure providing guidance on this issue.
The Panel is aware that a resolution is being sought that can be applied across the State. This needs to be developed for application in Golden Plains Shire by the Department of Infrastructure working with the Council and the industry.
However, in general terms the Panel notes that the Council has widely applied the requirement for a planning permit for plantations larger than 40 hectares across the rural areas of the Shire. Council needs to demonstrate particular areas and instances where the requirement for a planning permit is necessary (ie based on landscape or environmental considerations) and justify it fully, given that the State-wide approach does not sanction a broad-brush control.
The Panel recommends that Council delete the requirement for a planning permit for timber plantations on areas greater than 40 hectares in the Rural Zone, unless this requirement can be fully justified in discrete areas on landscape or environmental grounds. The Panel further recommends that there is a strengthening of the MSS in relation to timber production and processing, ensuring that the MSS is in accordance with the SPPF; and that the Local Policy on Timber Production and Timber Processing Industries (Clause 22.04-4) be reviewed and deleted unless some situations are retained in the Planning Scheme where a planning permit is required for timber production and processing.
41 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 4
Submitter Name: I and R Gvildys C/- R Gvildys 1/6 Young Street KEW VIC 3101
Location and Map Lot 4, Ryans Road Reference No: GHERINGHAP VIC 3111 Map 4 Current Zone: Rural General Farming Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested · The land is considered unsuitable for crop raising Changes/Issues Raised: and animal husbandry. · The submitter wishes to subdivide the land. · Inquires as the possibility of subdivision into two lots with an agreement pursuant to section 173 of the Act being entered into that no further subdivision be allowed.
Council Comment: · The ability to excise a lot has been removed from
the rural zone in the VPPs with V3. The ability to apply for a permit for subdivision no longer applies. · It should be noted that the local policy on the excision of dwellings in the Rural zones (22.03-1) discourages this form of development. · Generally, the planning scheme seeks to discourage this type of development.
Strategic Considerations This form of development is inconsistent with the overall and Implications: strategy pursued by Council. There is a substantial supply of such lots. Council Recommendation: 1. That Council not support the submission. 2. That the submission be referred to an independent panel.
42 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Panel Comment and The Panel has carefully considered the submission made, Recommendations: particularly given the strong desire expressed by the submitters to retain the subdivided property in family ownership and pursue separate agricultural pursuits on each of the two lots proposed.
In terms of the Council’s overall strategy strongly expressed in the MSS and LPPF discouraging further subdivision of rural land below the minimum lot size, the Panel agrees with Council that the zoning change proposed by the submitter (from Rural to Rural Living) cannot be justified. The rezoning of this land could set a precedent for a large number of similar sized lots in the vicinity. The Panel recommends that the land remain zoned Rural as exhibited.
However, the Panel also notes that the excision provisions under Amendment V3 to the VPP’s would allow for Council’s consideration of the excision of a lot once a house is constructed on the land.
When an intensive agricultural use is established on the land, this may provide a way of achieving the separate family ownership sought by the submitter. This would then be considered in the light of the zoning and the Council’s policy relating to excision.
43 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 5
Submitter Name: Carolyn Jones South West Region Environment Protection Authority State Offices Cnr Lt Malop and Fenwick Streets GEELONG VIC 3220 Location and Map N/A Reference No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested · The planning scheme in general. Changes/Issues Raised: · Suggests eight (8) statements and references to environmental management be included in the MSS (attached). · Suggests that all applications for new development should be required to provide a statement of compliance with the relevant clauses of the planning scheme. · Effluent Disposal and Water Quality Policy (22.02-3) should require compliance with the Code of Practice - Septic Tanks, March 1996. · Intensive Animal Husbandry Policy (22.06-6) does not refer to cattle feedlots or piggeries. · Council should consider local policies for abrasive blasting and composting. · No specific mention is made of State Environment Protection Policies in the MSS. · Ensure compatibility of zones in adjoining Shires. · Adequacy of air emission buffers in the Industrial zone.
44 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Comment: · The 8 additional statements for inclusion in the MSS generally clarify policy statements made in the MSS or list additional matters for consideration in the assessment of amendments or permits. · The requirement that all applications for new development be required to provide a statement of compliance with the relevant clauses of the planning scheme can be achieved by information (brochures, advice, notices) provided outside the planning scheme. It is more an education issue than one to be addressed by the planning scheme. Provision always exists under Section 54 of Act to request additional information for a permit. · Regarding changes to the Effluent Disposal and Water Quality Policy (22.02-3) to require compliance with the Code of Practice - Septic Tanks, March 1996, this is already covered by specific provisions for dwellings which appear in each zone and therefore not necessary. · Intensive Animal Husbandry Policy (22.06-6) does not refer to cattle feedlots or piggeries because these are specifically dealt with by codes of practice. The policy was designed to apply to those others intensive animal husbandry uses for which there are no existing codes of practice. Some wording in the policy to this effect in the policy would help clarify this. In regard to the Piggeries Code of Practice (which is being reviewed) Council is only required to have regard to the code. · Regarding local policies for abrasive blasting and composting, these are quite specific issues and Council does not consider them to be on-going or problematic issues and they do need to be specifically addressed and could just be dealt with on a case by case basis. While the planning scheme would not have a specific policy, there are general powers and guidelines which mean that these issues could be dealt with adequately. · State Environment Protection Policies were not specifically mentioned because these are included in the State Planning Policy Framework (15.01-2). · The adequacy of the air emission buffers in the Industrial zone relates to a VPP provision and is an issue for the State Government to resolve. Reference to ‘air emission buffer’ has been replaced in the VPPs by V3 with ‘threshold distance’ to avoid confusion with EPA guidelines.
45 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Strategic Considerations Specific issues generally, agreed changes will strengthen and Implications: the overall strategy. Council Recommendation: Council supports the submission in part, by:
· the additional 8 statements be included in the MSS; · the Effluent Disposal and Water Quality Policy (22.02-3) being amended to require compliance with the Code of Practice - Septic Tanks, March 1996; · the Intensive Animal Husbandry Policy (22.06-6) be amended to note that cattle feedlots or piggeries are specifically dealt with by codes of practice; · not including an abrasive blasting or composting policy because these are not on-going or problematic issues and can be adequately managed using general provisions of the planning scheme; · including a brief reference to State Environment Protection Policies in the environment section of the MSS; · advising the EPA that the air emission buffer areas set in the Industrial zone are VPP provisions and suggest the EPA pursue the matter with the Department of Infrastructure.
46 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Panel Comment and The Panel agrees generally with Council’s assessment of Recommendations: the comments of the EPA that many of the issues raised are either dealt with in Codes of Practice or in the SPPF. It would be contrary to the intent and structure of the LPPF to repeat these matters in the LPPF.
Council has indicated that it is prepared to include the eight statements relating to environmental management suggested by the EPA in its MSS. The Panel will support this action provided that the statements do genuinely add to the MSS, and are not merely a repetition of the SPPF (or matters that would be more appropriately dealt with in the SPPF).
The Panel recommends that the Department of Infrastructure and Council assess the inclusion of the EPA’s suggested environmental management statements in the MSS in the review of the MSS, ensuring that a consistent state-wide approach is made to the matters raised by the EPA.
47 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 6
Submitter Name: Owners Barunah Plains C/- Colin Barlow Coltmans Price Brent 500 Bourke Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Location and Map Map 3 Reference No: Current Zone: Rural Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested Inclusion of provisions contained in amendment L6 in the Changes/Issues Raised: new planning scheme. Amendment L6 provides for a site specific development of an integrated tourist village, road access, landscaping works, conference centre, restaurant, licensed premises, 18 hole golf course and clubhouse, subdivision of 39 lots for tourist and rural retreat accommodation purposes including multi-dwelling units on up to 4 lots (subject to permit), single dwellings and a motel, tennis courts, swimming pool, oval, equestrian trail, lake and consolidation of broad-acre farming allotments in accordance with a section 173 agreement, an incorporated plan and an approved subdivision plan. Council Comment: Amendment L6 was left out of the new planning scheme to prevent a dual process of assessment occurring. Once the amendment to the existing planning scheme is finally approved it is expected that the provisions of amendment L6 can be incorporated as part of the new planning scheme, through a specific planning permit in accordance with the procedures set out with the introduction of the VPPs. It may be necessary to make specific reference in the Rural Zone Schedule to the permit to provide for the variation in lot size. Strategic Considerations The strategic issues have been dealt with in the approval of and Implications: AmL6. Council Recommendation: That Council supports the submission.
48 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Panel Comment and The issues presented to the Panel by the submitter and the Recommendations: Council relate to the appropriate process for incorporating the provisons of Amendment L6 in the new format Planning Scheme, and the approriate zoning and translation chosen.
The key concern of the submitter is to ensure that the approval given under Amendment L6 (which was finalised during the preparation and exhibition of the Planning Scheme), is translated into the new scheme without requiring further public exhibition.
The Panel notes that the most direct translation would be through the issue of a planning permit, however the use of the Development Plan Overlay or Incorporated Plan Overlay was also canvassed by Council as an option. Council indicated that it proposes to retain the rural zoning of the land and use either an overlay or a planning permit to retain the provisions of Amendment L6. A specific schedule in the Rural Zone Schedule would be required to permit the approved variation in lot sizes.
It is the Panel’s view that the appropriate way to handle this matter is for the Council to issue a planning permit with the same conditions as apply in the provisions of Amendment L6 to the Golden Plains Planning Scheme, and drawn as appropriate from the existing Section 173 Agreement. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate that the permit issue for a longer period than normal to allow for staged development.
As the proposal has already been considered in the public arena, the Council is only required to notify the owner and occupier of the land that it intends to issue a planning permit. When Council has adopted the new Planning Scheme, it can recommend to the Minister for Planning that the permit be granted.
49 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 7
Submitter Name: VicRoads
Location and Map Reference No: Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Requested Zone: Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested · Endorses the planning scheme. Changes/Issues Raised: · Requests inclusion of clause requiring referral of use and development applications likely to
impact on traffic conditions. · Details 9 areas where road zone details on the planning scheme maps needs to be corrected.
Council Comment: · The request for a clause requiring referrals is
unnecessary as a similar provision already exists in the planning scheme at clause 66.01. · Many of the road zone details on the planning scheme maps have been corrected in the digitising of the original draft maps.
Strategic Considerations No strategic issues are raised. and Implications:
Council Recommendation: That Council supports the submission in part, by:
· Advising VicRoads that the provisions of clause 66.01 of the planning scheme adequately cover referrals. · Changing the maps and forwarding a copy of the digitised maps to VicRoads for checking.
50 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Panel Comment and The changes to road zone details of the planning scheme Recommendations: maps are essentially corrections with which the Panel takes no issue.
The Panel notes that the provisions of Clause 66 of the Planning Scheme (part of the general provisions under the VPP’s) cover referrals. If VicRoads request for the inclusion of an additional clause requiring referrals is to be included, it should be on a state-wide basis. The Panel recommends that the Department of Infrastructure resolve with VicRoads whether further referral clauses are required and if so, that this issue be addressed on a state-wide basis.
51 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 8
Submitter Name: Geelong Field Naturalists Valda Dedman C/- Hon. Secretary PO Box 1047 GEELONG VIC 3220 Location and Map Map 5 Reference No: Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Requested Zone: Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested Changes/Issues Raised: Sites of environmental significance.
Identifies seven (7) sites of environmental/cultural significance which should be protected by overlay provisions: · Wetland area north and east of Murgheboluc - Environmental Significance Overlay Heritage Overlay. · Dog Rocks Batesford - Environmental Significance Overlay. · Cemeteries at Bannockburn, Inverleigh, Meredith and Teesdale - Vegetation Protection Overlay. · Bannockburn Bushland Reserve - Environmental Significance Overlay and Vegetation Protection Overlay. · Bannockburn Sewage Treatment Area - Environmental Significance Overlay, Heritage Overlay. · Inverleigh Common - Environmental Significance Overlay and Vegetation Protection Overlay. · Reserves - Meredith Road Timber Reserve, Shelford Timber Reserve, Teesdale Sheoak Reserve, Pollocksford Reserve and Flora and Fauna Reserve Batesford - Environmental Significance Overlay and Vegetation Protection Overlay.
52 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Comment: · The additional areas for protection through either
the Environmental Significance, Vegetation Protection or Heritage Overlays are appropriate. Most of the areas identified are in public ownership for these purposes and not subject to direct management control by the planning scheme, the overlays will, however, give additional weight to the significance of the sites. · The wetland area north and east of Murgheboluc were not included in overlays in the exhibited planning scheme. It may not be appropriate to apply overlays unless with the agreement of the land owner. It may be more appropriate to investigate a general amendment at a later stage for all significant wetlands in the municipality. · The Dog Rocks site was dealt with in the planning scheme through a Special Use Zone to account for the environmental significance and future use and development of the site. No additional provisions are required. · The Bannockburn Sewage Treatment Plant has been subject to a separate amendment under the existing planning scheme. These provisions should be carried over into the new planning scheme.
Strategic Considerations The Council position is consistent with the overall strategic and Implications: direction to recognise and protect significant environmental features. Council Recommendation: Council supports the submission in part, by: · application of overlays to identified sites on public land; · maintaining existing provisions for areas north and east of Murgheboluc, Dog Rocks Batesford and Sewage Treatment Site Bannockburn.
53 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Panel Comment and The major thrust of this submission is to ensure that sites of Recommendations: environmental significance are identified and protected in the new format Planning Scheme.
The Council advised the Panel that special controls on all of the sites listed by the submitter could be justified. Most of the sites listed are in public ownership, although several are privately owned.
The general issue of the use of environmental significance overlays in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme has been dealt with by the Panel in Section 3.5.2 above. The Panel has recommended that Council review the application of ESO’s, to determine if the overlay is required or if the issues can be addressed in the MSS and through Local Policies.
The Panel recommends that the review of the ESO’s incorporate an examination of the additional areas raised in the submission, noting that in particular the justification for including land in an ESO be addressed. If this review determines that overlays be extended to apply to additional private land of environmental significance, a specific amendment would be required unless all parties likely to be affected by the proposed overlay were in agreement with its application.
The Panel also notes that the Dog Rocks site and the Bannockburn Sewage Treatment Plant have been dealt with using other methods to carry over the provisions of the existing scheme, and has commented on those methods elsewhere (Refer to Section 3).
54 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 9
Submitter Name: Department of Natural Resources and Environment C/- Roger Macaulay Function Manager Crown Land and Assets South West Region State Government Offices Cnr Mair and Doveton Streets BALLARAT VIC 3350 Location and Map Map 6 Reference No: Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Requested Zone: Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested · Environmental provisions of the planning Changes/Issues Raised: Scheme in general. · Extensive submission comprising: · Request for the inclusion of a local policy on stone resources (text provided) · Additional sites to be protected through - Environmental Significance Overlay (7 sites) - Vegetation Protection Overlay (20 sites), mainly roadsides. - Heritage Overlays (2 sites). · Requests inclusion of a Potentially Contaminated Land Overlay - Haddon Rifle Range and at Council waste disposal sites. · Several corrections to zone types on the maps, primarily public use zones. · Remove Special Building area over Enfield State Park.
55 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Comment: · Stone resource issue was addressed by ESO10
extractive industry interest area. DNRE has advised that this map is a draft and should not be used. The replacement map with a local policy which refers to the resource area is therefore supported. · The additional ESO, VPO and HO sites are new information provided by DNRE. Most relate to public land and are supported. · A request was made during the development of the planning scheme to the EPA regarding potentially contaminated sites and none were identified. · Removal of SBO over Enfield State Park is supported as DNRE are responsible for fire management.
Strategic Considerations The Council position is considered consistent with the and Implications: overall strategy. Council Recommendation: That Council support the submission provided overlays are restricted to public land.
56 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Panel Comment and The extensive submission from DNRE encompasses both Recommendations: comments on environmental issues and on the appropriate treatment in the Planning Scheme of stone resources in Golden Plains Shire. The Department is to be commended for its thorough review of the Planning Scheme and the detail provided in its submission.
Council has indicated its support of the DNRE position on environmental provisions of the scheme generally and the extension of the ESO, VPO and use of a Heritage Overlay to cover only public lands nominated by DNRE.
The Panel’s position in relation to the use and justification of overlays in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme is relevant to this part of the submission. The Panel recommends that the additional sites nominated by DNRE should be further investigated by Council, DNRE and the Department of Infrastructure to determine if overlay controls can be justified for these sites. The Panel’s views on the inclusion of public land in areas of overlay control is also relevant (see Section 3.5.2).
With regard to stone resources, DNRE has indicated that these resources have not yet been mapped to a standard to warrant an overlay control (ESO 10). DNRE has requested that Council make use of a Local Policy (with a map based on the most recent mapping undertaken by DNRE). The Panel supports this approach and recommends deletion of ESO 10 and its replacement with a Local Policy on Protection of Stone Resources, to be finalised in consultation with DNRE and the Department of Infrastructure.
57 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 10
Submitter Name: Victorian Plantations Corporation Western Zones C/- Malcolm Tonkin Zone Manager Ballarat Office PO Box 40, WENDOUREE VIC 3355 Location and Map N/A Reference No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested · Planning scheme provisions relating to plantation Changes/Issues Raised: forestry. · Considers provisions (40ha planning permit requirement and local policy for timber production and timber processing). Council could be proactive in promoting plantation forestry. The requirement to obtain a permit for timber production for plantations of more than 40 hectares should be removed, and that timber production should be an ‘as of right’ land use in the Rural Zone. · That timber production be exempted from the controls imposed by Environmental Significance Overlays considering that the Code of Forest Practice requires the protection of environmental values. · That the boundaries of the Special Building Overlay and Salinity Management Overlay be reviewed and be more targeted.
58 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Comment: · The schedule to the Rural zones provides for the
Council to stipulate the minimum size of plantation that will require application for a planning permit. The VPPs require that this size cannot be less than 40ha. · The issue of timber plantations, and how the VPPs deal with this type of use and development, has been subject to further clarification since the exhibition of the planning scheme. · The earlier understanding was that Council, if it wished, could facilitate timber production by setting a requirement higher than 40ha, that is, larger timber plantations would not require a permit. The advice from the Department of Infrastructure now is that Council needs to justify why any area requirement, particularly down to 40ha, is appropriate. Generally, requirements for permits should only apply to areas near towns, of particular landscape significance and on land of high agricultural quality. · The Environmental Significance Overlays apply to specific sites identified for their environmental values. These provisions should be maintained. · The Salinity Management Overlay was based on general mapping of a fairly large scale. More detailed mapping is now available from the Centre for Land Protection Research which would allow more accurate mapping. The overlay was included in the exhibited planning scheme on the understanding that changes would be made to the VPPs to allow for a schedule which, as a local provision, the Council could exempt certain forms of development. This change has been made to the VPPs as part of V3. It is noted that several Councils which originally included the Salinity Management Overlay have since sought to remove it from their planning scheme (e.g. Campaspe). · The Special Building Overlay which identifies areas of fire hazard was developed from Council’s fire management plan, these provisions should be retained.
59 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Strategic Considerations Council is aware that a Discussion Paper on Timber and Implications: Production has been prepared by the Chair of the Panels. Council Recommendation: That Council supports the submission in part, by:
· the Salinity Management Overlay be retained with the schedule to the overlay exempting most forms of use and development. A permit should only be required for use and development that will affect recharge and discharge areas. The application of the overlay be modified to be more specific, in accordance with the more detailed mapping of areas subject to or susceptible to salinity provided by the Centre for Land Protection Research. · The VPP3 changes to the Rural Zone Schedule have some application. · the provisions of the local policy 22.04-4 be amended to: be clear in preference for sustainable forestry; focus on the protection of township and low density residential areas; and delete the second dot point of the policy referring to a management plan.
60 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Panel Comment and The issues raised here have been substantially addressed Recommendations: by the Panel in its comments on Submission No. 3 from Midway Wood Products Pty Ltd.
The comments made by the submitter in relation to reviewing the boundaries of the Salinity Management Overlay and the former Special Building Overlay have been supported by the Panel (in Section 3.5.2) in its recommendation that Council review a number of the proposed overlay controls to ensure that they are fully justified.
In relation to the boundaries of the Salinity Management Overlay (SMO), the Panel agrees with the submitter and Council and recommends that the application of the overlay be modified to be more specific, in accordance with the more detailed mapping of areas subject to or susceptible to salinity provided by the Centre for Land Protection Research.
61 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 11
Submitter Name: G R Roach RMB C42 ROSS CREEK VIC 3352 Location and Map Lot 10 LP 119122, Tom Jones Road, Ross Creek. Reference No: Map 7 Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Rural Living Requested Zone: Low Density Residential Proposed Zone: Rural Living Submission: Requested · Proposed scheme does not allow subdivision as Changes/Issues Raised: the applicant requests. · Requests zoning the land Low Density Residential.
Council Comment: The land is zoned Rural Living under the new planning scheme. Adequate land is provided for in the new planning scheme in the general area of Ross Creek for Low Density Residential development. Additional land would represent excessive supply.
Strategic Considerations Due to past subdivisions and the historical supply of lots and Implications: there is ample land zoned for this form of development. Council Recommendation: That Council not support the submission.
Panel Comment and The Panel considers that the proposal to extend the Low Recommendations: Density Residential Zone in the vicinity of Ross Creek cannot be justified in strategic terms. The Panel’s recommendation for Council to review the proposed Rural Living and Low Density Residential Zones in this general area in the north west of the Shire is relevant to this submission.
The Panel does not support what is essentially an ad-hoc rezoning of the subject land and recommends that the zoning of the land be consistent with the outcome of the recommended review of the proposed Rural Living and Low Density Residential Zones in the vicinity of Ross Creek.
62 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 12
Submitter Name: Stephen Murphy Carr Street TEESDALE VIC 3328 Location and Map 24ha reserve located in Teesdale, north of and adjoining the Reference No: Don Wallace Rec. Reserve and the Sheoak Reserve, Teesdale.
Map 8 Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Requested Zone: Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested · The subject sites be covered by an Changes/Issues Raised: Environmental Significance Overlay. · First site contains indigenous grassy woodland and viable communities of Hairy Tails (Ptilotus embescous) which is registered as rare and endangered in Victoria. Council Comment: An Environmental Significance Overlay would recognise and protect the environmental values of the two sites. Strategic Considerations The proposed provision is consistent with Council’s overall and Implications: strategy. Council Recommendation: That Council support the submission. Panel Comment and The Panel notes that Council supports the inclusion of these Recommendations: sites under an ESO. Both sites are reserves under the control of Council Committees of Management.
The justification of including these sites under an ESO would need to be documented by Council as part of the review of overlay controls.
However the Panel’s views on the inclusion of such public reserves under an environmental significance overlay control are also relevant (see Section 3.5.2).
63 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 13
Submitter Name: Peter Mueller Dames and Moore Pty Ltd Level 10, 636 St Kilda Road MELBOURNE VIC 3004 Location and Map VicRoads Patrol Depot, Inverleigh Reference No: Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Township Requested Zone: Township Proposed Zone: Township Submission: Requested · Site clean-up works completed. Changes/Issues Raised: · Land should be zoned ‘Township’.
Council Comment: Land is already zoned Township in new planning scheme.
Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council note the submission and advise submitter that the land is appropriately zoned.
Panel Comment and Council advised the Panel that the site was previously a Vic Recommendations: Roads depot. Works have been done to make the site contamination free and the land is proposed to be zoned Township, as requested by the submitter. There is no issue to be determined by the Panel.
64 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 14
Submitter Name: W D and P F Morris PO Box 25 BUNINYONG VIC 3357
Location and Map Lots IV, IT, IU, IT2, IG2 and IG3 South Durham Bridge Road, Reference No: Garibaldi Map 10 Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Rural Zone Requested Zone: Rural Living Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested · Shire boundary on map 8 not shown. Changes/Issues Raised: · Part of South Durham Bridge Road not shown. · Objection to zoning of land as Rural in the new
planning scheme. · Land is 48ha in seven titles. · Has current permit to restructure the existing titles. · Considers the subdivision provisions of cause 35.01-4 may make intentions more difficult. · Requests zoning of land as Rural Living, reflecting surrounding residential development.
Council Comment: · Map details have been corrected in the digitising
of the draft planning scheme. · The Rural Zone provisions referred to require
that following subdivision an agreement be entered into limiting further subdivision of the land. · It is considered that the Rural Zone is flexible enough to enable subdivision. An existing permit P96-050 for the creation of six (6) lots.
65 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Strategic Considerations The area is generally rural in nature and further residential and Implications: zoning would represent excessive supply. Council Recommendation: That Council not support the submission. That the submission be referred to an independent panel.
Panel Comment and Council advised the Panel that the technical matters raised Recommendations: in the submission relating to mapping errors have been rectified.
The submitter has an existing permit to subdivide the subject land, restructuring the existing seven lots to six new lots. Council’s view is that the proposed Rural Zoning will not prevent the proposal from proceeding, with the main difference to the requested Rural Living Zone being the rural uses which will be permitted.
The Panel agrees with the Council’s position and recommends that the subject land remain zoned Rural as exhibited.
66 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 15
Submitter Name: Victorian Farmers Federation Jon Pitt Executive Officer Land Use Committee Farrer House 24-28 Collins Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Location and Map N/A Reference No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested · Municipal Strategic Statement in planning Changes/Issues Raised: scheme. · Requested copy of Municipal Strategic Statement. Council Comment: Copy of Municipal Strategic Statement was sent 13 May 1997. No objection was submitted. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: Not Applicable.
Panel Comment and There is no issue to be determined by the Panel. Recommendations:
67 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 16
Submitter Name: St Paul’s Vestry Inverleigh Bruce McDonald Hamilton Highway INVERLEIGH VIC 3321
Location and Map Crown allotments 19, 20, 21 and 22 of lot section 6A, Reference No: Cambridge Street, Inverleigh Map 11 Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Public Conservation and Resource Zone Requested Zone: Township (where not subject to inundation) Proposed Zone: As above Submission: Requested Rezone land from Public Conservation and Resource Zone Changes/Issues Raised: to Township on that section not subject to inundation.
Council Comment: Agree to submission.
Strategic Considerations The land was incorrectly zoned. and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council support the submission.
Panel Comment and Council submitted to the Panel that this is a case where an Recommendations: error was made in the exhibited zoning. The Panel recommends that the subject land be zoned Township with the land subject to inundation defined.
68 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 17
Submitter Name: Barwon Region Water Authority
Location and Map N/A Reference No: Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Environmental Significance Overlay 2 Requested Zone: As above Proposed Zone: As above Submission: Requested · Planning scheme provisions in general. Changes/Issues Raised: · Environmental Significance Overlay only applies to development, and not use. · Referral provisions for use should be included. · Query over finalisation of mapping.
69 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Comment: · ‘Use’ relates to the activity on land,
‘development’ refers to the physical aspects of buildings and works. · Generally speaking, zones relate to use and overlays relate to development. · The ‘enabling’ provisions of the Environmental Significance Overlay limit the overlay controls to only applying to development, and it is considered that the Schedule attached to the Overlay cannot deal with use. · In response to the fact that the ESO could not deal with use, a local policy was included to ensure that where the zone provided for control of use that the policy could be used in the exercise of discretion. This is considered to be as strong as the provisions could be within the provisions of the VPPs. · While the intent of Barwon Water’s submission is agreed with, it is considered that the VPPs limit the ability of Council to control use through the ESO because this would be inconsistent with the zone provisions. · There are referral provisions contained in the planning scheme (Clause 66.04) which require referral of applications in a proclaimed water supply catchment to be referred to Barwon Water. To repeat these provisions in the policy and overlay provisions would simply double-up on the planning scheme provisions and is considered unnecessary. · It is understood that Barwon Water is satisfied with an ESO contained in the Moorabool planning scheme (copy attached). This overlay focuses on septic tanks and other treatment and wastewater disposal systems. A benefit of using this overlay is that it would provide consistency between the two municipal areas in the one catchment. · Mapping details which were provided by Barwon Water prior to exhibition were included in the exhibited copy of the planning scheme.
70 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Strategic Considerations The issues raised by Barwon Water in their reference to ‘use and Implications: and development’ and overlays is beyond the Council to address. Council Recommendation: · Council support the submission in part by changing the ESO schedule to reflect that used in the Moorabool planning scheme with additional decision guidelines used from the existing schedule. · That the submission be referred to an independent Panel.
Panel Comment and The key concern of the submitter, Barwon Water, is to Recommendations: protect the water supply catchment areas within Golden Plains Shire from inappropriate development, and to impose appropriate conditions to protect the catchment. The Council’s proposed ESO 2 is seen to be limited as it does not deal with use. Essentially the submission is seeking a variation to the VPP’s to tailor an overlay to water supply catchment areas.
The Panel indicated at the hearing that this is an issue to be addressed by the Department of Infrastructure on a state- wide basis, in any future review of the VPP’s. The Panel will refer the submission by Barwon Water to the Department of Infrastructure for further consideration.
In the short term, Council’s agreement to revise the ESO 2 schedule to reflect the provisions of the neighbouring Shire of Moorabool ESO is supported by the Panel, subject to agreement from the Department of Infrastructure to ensure a consistent approach within the region to this issue. The Panel has recommends that this action be taken.
The submitter expressed concern about the potential for dairy farming to cause damage to water courses if not adequately controlled. The submitter argued that Dairy Farming falls within the definition of Extensive Animal Industry which is a Section 1 use in the Rural Zone, and that it is not within the powers of the Panel to recommend changes in this area. The Panel points out that there are other mechanisms to control off-site discharges, and that it is not appropriate for planning schemes to seek to duplicate controls that may have statutory force under other legislation.
71 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 18
Submitter Name: P and C Baird ‘Glenairlie’ Taylor Road MEREDITH VIC 3333 Location and Map Taylor Road Reference No: Map 12 Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Environmental Rural Zone/Rural Zone Requested Zone: Environmental Rural Zone Proposed Zone: Environmental Rural Zone/Rural Zone Submission: Requested · Lack of Vegetation Protection Overlay to Taylor Changes/Issues Raised: Road area. · The area is formally recognised as a Roadside
of Significance. · This area of the Shire is suited to high quality environmental living and extension of intensive animal raising would jeopardise this status. Area is that southeast of Meredith and bounded by the Midland Highway, Sharps Road, Steiglitz Road and the Moorabool River.
Council Comment: · Agree with the use of a Vegetation Protection
Overlay for the area of roadside referred to.
The issue of environmental living is generally covered by the land being zoned Environmental Rural in the area. Intensive Animal Husbandry is prohibited in this zone. In the Rural Zone a permit is required for Intensive Animal Husbandry and assessment as the suitability of this use in a particular location could ensure environmental impacts are adequately addressed. It is considered that the planning scheme already addresses the submitters concerns. Strategic Considerations and Implications:
72 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Recommendation: That Council support the submission in part by:
· applying the Vegetation Protection Overlay to area of roadside in Taylor Road on map 17/18 of the planning scheme. The delineation of the overlay should be limited to public land; · advising the submitter of provisions of the Environmental Rural Zone with regard to Intensive Animal Husbandry.
Panel Comment and The Panel notes that the submitters have provided Council Recommendations: with very comprehensive information relating to the significance of roadside vegetation in the Taylor Road area. However, the Council will need to carefully assess the information and provide a full justification for the use of a VPO in this area, as part of the overall review of overlays proposed in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme.
Council submitted to the Panel that it did not believe the extension of the Environmental Rural Zone onto cleared land to create a buffer could be justified. The Panel accepts this position and recommends that the zoning of the subject land remain as exhibited.
73 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 19
Submitter Name: P Millane Joaquin Enterprises Pty Ltd Hills Road BATESFORD VIC 3221 Location and Map Hills Road, Batesford Reference No: Map 13 Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested Wishes to excise a lot from an existing title in Hills Road, Changes/Issues Raised: Batesford.
74 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Comment: · The land is zoned Rural under the new planning
scheme. Changes to the Rural Zone have been made with V3 which limits subdivision in the
zone to: - subdivision in accordance with the minimum lot size specified in the schedule; - re-subdivision of existing lots; - subdivision of the number of lots which is equal to the maximum yield possible in accordance with the minimum lot size specified in the schedule; - subdivision to create a lot for an existing dwelling. · It should be noted that the local policy related to excision of dwellings and lots 22.03-1 discourages small lot subdivision for residential purposes. · In this instance, if no dwelling exists on the land further subdivision is not possible. The applicant could re-subdivide the two existing titles if this satisfied their proposal. Rezoning to facilitate the proposal is not considered appropriate. An area of Low Density Residential Zone is located at Batesford, on the other side of the Midland Highway. This is considered the most appropriate location for this form of development.
Strategic Considerations The intent of the submission is considered contrary to the and Implications: overall strategy. Council Recommendation: That Council not support the submission. That the submission be referred to an independent panel.
Panel Comment and Council has taken a strong strategic position in the MSS and Recommendations: LPPF to discourage rural excision. In this case, the Council considers that the submitter is able to restructure the existing two titles to achieve the outcome sought. Council will be required to exercise its discretion on the proposal, however rezoning is not required.
The Panel agrees with the Council’s strategic position on this proposal and recommends that the subject land be zoned Rural as exhibited.
Submission No: 20
75 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submitter Name: Powernet Matt Zema General Manager Assets PO Box 222 Market Street MELBOURNE VIC 8007 Location and Map N/A Reference No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested · Planning scheme in general. Changes/Issues Raised: · No objection to planning scheme provided various easement rights are maintained.
Council Comment: · Planning scheme does not affect easement
rights.
Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council note the submission. Panel Comment and There is no issue to be determined by the Panel. Recommendations:
76 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 21
Submitter Name: Gary Farr Manager/Winemaker Bannockburn Vineyards Pty Ltd BANNOCKBURN VIC 3331
Location and Map N/A Reference No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested · Local Policy 22.22-5 relating to spray drift. Changes/Issues Raised: · Proposal is in conflict with world thinking on vineyards.
· Residential use and vineyards are compatible uses. · Moves towards organic management and strict
guidelines limit chemical use. · More concentrated forms of farming are likely in the future. · Location and buffer will not necessarily prevent spraydrift. · Lead time in establishing a vegetated buffer would be a disincentive. · Operator’s responsibility and consultation between neighbours should avoid conflict. · Policy is broad and possibly retrospective. · Who is the policy trying to protect and at what cost? · Query experience and expertise of responsible authority as assessor.
77 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Comment: · The intent of the spraydrift policy is twofold:
- to prevent sensitive uses (such as residential land use) moving into rural areas where they may be
subject to environmental/nuisance of spraying. This was to avoid limitations on rural uses following proper practice in the use of chemicals.
- to encourage best management practice by uses applying chemicals to avoid spray drift effects. · It should be noted that the policy is only a provision which provides guidance in the exercise of discretion in the assessment of a use or development. It cannot be exercised where a use or development does not require a permit. Uses not requiring a permit in the Rural Zone include crop raising and extensive animal husbandry. The policy is not a prescriptive control and could not be used to control such uses. · The policy could not be retrospective. It does not intend to be and new wording to clarify this could be included. · The policy provision relating to a 300m buffer are included as ‘acceptable’ measures, but the option is available for a use or development to use other methods (siting, design, vegetation) to achieve adequate separation. · The issue has arisen in many areas of the State and a coordinated consistent approach is required. Strategic Considerations and Implications:
78 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Recommendation: That Council note the submission and undertake to consult with the submitter on the operation/effect of the policy.
That Council further investigate this submission and the matter in general and to change the planning scheme as appropriate.
That Council to consult with the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, the Environment Protection Authority and the Department of Infrastructure on this issue for advice and direction. Panel Comment and Council submitted to the Panel at the hearing that its Local Recommendations: Policy on Spray Drift is based on research undertaken by the Queensland Department of Primary Industry (the only research material found by Council).
The major purpose of the Local Policy is to prevent housing locating within a buffer distance of 300 metres of vineyards. However, the Council readily accepted the need to further investigate this matter, and to consult with DNRE, the EPA and the Department of Infrastructure in the rewording of the Local Policy.
The Panel supports the Council in its approach to establish a Local Policy on Spray Drift to guide Council’s decision- making on sensitive land uses in rural areas. The Panel recommends that Council’s suggested approach be adopted, namely that Council consult with DNRE, the EPA and the Department of Infrastructure on the rewording of the Local Policy on Spray Drift.
79 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 22
Submitter Name: Department of Natural Resources and Environment Karen Moyle Manager, Land Sales Services Port Phillip Area State Government Offices PO Box 103 GEELONG VIC 3213 Location and Map Map 13 Reference No: Three properties at Inverleigh (2) and Maude. Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: Underlying zone Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested · The Department intends to dispose of these Changes/Issues Raised: three properties and requests that they be zoned as the underlying zone.
· These are: - 56.98ha Common Road, Inverleigh (Golf Course) as Rural. - 1.358ha High Street, Inverleigh (Vacant Land) as Township with Land Subject To Inundation Overlay. - 0.642 Perdrisat Road, Maude (Quarry) as Rural.
80 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Comment: · The 56.98ha site at Common Road, Inverleigh is
zoned Public Conservation and Resource under the proposed planning scheme. Before agreeing to changing the zone to Rural more information should be provided on the intended use of the land. Information should also be provided on the environmental significance of the site which may warrant the use of overlay provisions in addition to the zone. · The land at High Street, Inverleigh is zoned Rural under the proposed planning scheme. The land should not be zoned as Township as requested by DNRE. The land is outside the ‘developed’ part of the town. The land is not included in areas identified as suitable for residential development in the town structure plan. · The site at Perdrisat Road, Maude is already zoned Rural under the proposed planning scheme.
Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: 1. Further justification be provided to support the request for rezoning of subject land at Common Road, Inverleigh. 2. Subject land at High Street, Inverleigh remain zoned as Rural. 3. DNRE be advised that subject land at Perdrisat Road, Maude is already zoned Rural under the proposed planning scheme.
81 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Panel Comment and This submission relates to three parcels of land to be Recommendations: disposed of by DNRE.
As the land at High Street Inverleigh is outside the area designated for development in the town structure plan, a key strategy of the MSS, the Panel recommends that the rural zoning of this land as proposed by Council remain in place.
With respect to the land at Common Road Inverleigh, the Panel considers that further information and justification could assist the Council in determining the appropriate zone and if an overlay control is warranted. The Panel recommends that DNRE provide the further information and justification to Council, and that the proposed application of an overlay control be assessed within the overall review of overlays recommended by the Panel.
The land at Perdrisat Road Maude has already been zoned Rural as requested by the submitter and a Panel recommendation is not required for this site.
82 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 23
Submitter Name: L and K Watson Lot 1C, Cambrian Hill (RMB R200, Colac Road, Cambrian Hill) Location and Map Lot 1C, Cambrian Hill Reference No: Map 14 Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Public Use Zone 2 Requested Zone: Low Density Residential Proposed Zone: Low Density Residential Submission: Requested · Land was purchased from Crown and is used for Changes/Issues Raised: residential purposes. · Requests zoning be changed from PUZ2.
Council Comment: The surrounding, and appropriate zoning, for the land is Low Density Residential.
Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council support the submission. That Council advise submitter that the appropriate zone is Low Density Residential.
Panel Comment and Council advised the Panel at the Hearing that it was Recommendations: unaware that the subject land had been purchased from the Crown. The Panel recommends that the subject land be zoned Low Density Residential in accordance with the zoning of the surrounding land.
83 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 24
Submitter Name: J H G Watson (Peninsula Plantations) V A Williams 21 Cedar Grove HIGHTON VIC 3216 Location and Map Crown Allotments 43A and part 43B Parish of Warrambine. Reference No: Crown Allotment 29L Parish of Dereel. Map 15 Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Requested Zone: Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested · Warrambine property subject to existing plan of Changes/Issues Raised: subdivision (approved after previous appeal determination) and should be zoned Low Density Residential. · Requests similar zoning for Dereel property.
Council Comment: · Agree with request for Warrambine property as
this reflects previous provisions and AAT decisions. · Disagree with changing zoning of Dereel property as adequate supply of Low Density Residential land is provided for the area.
Strategic Considerations Council has already made extensive provisions for Low and Implications: Density Residential development. Council Recommendation: That Council support the submission in part: · zoning land at Warrambine Low Density Residential; · not changing zoning of land at Dereel.
That Council refer the submission to an independent panel.
Panel Comment and The zoning for the subject sites now proposed by Council is Recommendations: in accordance with previous permits issued as a result of a decision by the AAT (for the subject land at Warrambine); and with Council’s strategy for the provision of low density residential zoned land (by not extending this zone to the subject land at Dereel).
The Panel therefore supports Council’s proposal to zone the subject land at Warrambine (Crown Allotments 43A and Part 43B Parish of Warrambine) Low Density Residential under the Golden Plains Planning Scheme; and the subject land at Dereel (Crown Allotment 29L Parish of Dereel) Rural under the Golden Plains Planning Scheme.
84 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
85 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 25
Submitter Name: R Mercer 5/10 Havana Key BROADBEACH QLD Location and Map L4 LP219830 (Cnr State Forest Road and Post Office Road), Reference No: Ross Creek
Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested Request information on provisions relating to land. Changes/Issues Raised:
Council Comment: No submission was made following the request.
Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: Not applicable.
Panel Comment and There is no issue to be determined by the Panel. Recommendations:
86 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 26
Submitter Name: G and I Shultz
Location and Map Area of South Bannockburn, bounded by Brislane Road, Reference No: Ormond Road, Teesdale Road and Harvey Road. Map 16 Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Rural Zone Requested Zone: Rural Living Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested · All lots are less than 8 hectares. Changes/Issues Raised: · Area has largely developed as residential. · Lots are not suited to farming. · Request change to Rural Living Zone. · Infrastructure (power, water, phone, road) is in place. · Vegetation/landscaping improvements could be made. · Would provide a buffer between town area and broadacre farming.
87 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Comment: · It should be noted that the Rural zone is generally flexible in terms of subdivision provisions and, given that there is an existing dwelling on the land, further subdivision would be possible without changing the zone. · A change to a Rural Living zone would effectively prevent further subdivision because with the V3 amendment to the VPPs the excision provisions in this zone have been removed. · There may appear to be an anomaly that the Rural living zone is more restrictive than the Rural zone in terms of subdivision. This is generally not the case. It is because the subject land happens to be around 8ha, which is the minimum subdivision size in the Rural Living zone, that the apparent anomaly arises. The Rural zone allows an excision of a dwelling irrespective of existing lot size. An example to explain the anomaly is that if the subject land were 80ha not 8ha, then under the same provisions the Rural zone would allow only two lots (the excision of the dwelling), whereas, the Rural Living zone would allow 10 lots. This is why the apparent anomaly appears in this case where the land is already down to the minimum size provided in the zone. · A change to a Rural Living zone would require a suitable area for the zone to be identified, it could not just apply to the subject site. · There is also a need to consider the effects of a change to Rural Living zoning on existing agricultural uses. There is a clear differences between the Rural zone and the Rural Living zone, i.e. that it is primarily a ‘rural’ zone and the Rural Living zone would be more restrictive. · The proposal may affect long term growth options for Bannockburn. · Reticulated sewage will not be provided to this area. · Vegetation and landscaping improvements can be made irrespective of zoning/land use. It is generally a matter of land owner/manager attitude and ability to undertake such works. · Discussions were held with the submitter and the subdivision provisions explained. At the time of writing, the submitter is still undecided on the matter. If the zoning remained as Rural, the submitter’s ability to subdivide would be retained. It should be noted that this would require an application for a permit to Council which could be granted or refused.
88 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council not support the submission. That Council advise the submitter that the Rural zone would allow for the consideration of a permit application for the excision of a dwelling.
Note: Submission withdrawn in writing, therefore no action be taken. Panel Comment and As the submission has been withdrawn, no action is Recommendations: required. The Panel notes that the Council has explained to the submitter that the proposed zoning of Rural provides more flexibility in the use of the subject land, which is already at the minimum subdivision size for the Rural Living Zone.
89 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 27
Submitter Name: J Vagg Vaggs Road ROSS CREEK VIC Location and Map Vaggs Road, Ross Creek Reference No: Map 17 Current Zone: N/A (Grenville IDO Area) Exhibited Zone: Rural Living Zone Requested Zone: Low Density Residential Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested · Requests land be zoned Low Density Changes/Issues Raised: Residential. · Personal circumstances related to health are outlined in the submission.
Council Comment: · Adequate land is provided in the area for low
density residential use and development. · Additional land would represent excessive supply. · Unfortunately personal circumstances are not relevant to determining land use provisions.
Strategic Considerations Substantial land has been zoned for further development and Implications: recognising existing subdivisions. Council Recommendation: That Council not support the submission. That Council refer the submission to an independent panel.
90 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Panel Comment and The subject land comprises five existing titles, and the Recommendations: submitter is seeking further subdivision to create a total of thirteen lots.
The issues raised in the consideration of the Council’s proposed zoning of Rural Living and Low Density Residential in the north west of the Shire are relevant to this submission. The Panel’s concerns over the widespread use of these two zones in this area has been discussed and specific recommendations made for Council to review these proposed zonings.
Zoning of the subject land as Low Density Residential cannot be justified given the strong strategic approach by Council to the contain any additional low density residential development. The subject land, if zoned Low Density Residential, would set a precedent for rezoning of the surrounding land which is currently proposed as Rural Living.
The Panel recommends that the subject land not be zoned Low Density Residential as requested, and that the appropriate rural zoning of the land be determined as part of the Panel recommendation that Council review its proposed Rural Living and Low Density Residential zones in the north west of the Shire.
91 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 28
Submitter Name: George Buckland Manager - Extractive Industries Development Department of Natural Resources and Environment PO Box 500 EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 Location and Map Ballarat Supply Area (generally in the north west area of the Reference No: municipal area).
Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested · Advises that the Ballarat Supply Area - Extractive Changes/Issues Raised: Industry Interest Areas 1997 Report has been completed.
Council Comment: · Not a submission to the planning scheme, but an
advisory notice of the availability of the report. · The issue of the Environmental Significance Overlay 10 that was developed based on a draft of the above report is discussed in relation to submission number 9 and is to be replaced with a local policy.
Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: 1. That Council note the submission. Panel Comment and The issue of the appropriate recognition of stone resources Recommendations: in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme has been dealt with as part of Submission No.2.
92 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 29
Submitter Name: Public Transport Corporation C/- Jewell Partnership Pty Ltd PO Box 49 MARKET STREET VIC 8007 Location and Map Five (5) Public Transport Corporation sites throughout the Reference No: municipal area. Map 17 Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Requested Zone: Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested · The submission argues that a number of different Changes/Issues Raised: overlays should not apply as they are inappropriate given the status of the land (i.e. over major transport routes). · The subject sites include: - Environmental Significance Overlay 1 and 3 at rail line located close to watercourses near Lethbridge, Wingeel and Inverleigh; - Vegetation Protection Overlay 4 between Lethbridge and Bannockburn rail stations; - Design and Development Overlay 1 at Meredith and Bannockburn rail stations; - Salinity Management Overlay along all rail line; - Land Subject to Inundation Overlay at rail line located close to watercourses near Lethbridge, Wingeel and Inverleigh.
93 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Comment: · The Salinity management Overlay is proposed to
be modified in the planning scheme, effectively satisfying the submission in relation to this matter (point 4 in the submission). · It is considered that the reasons for applying the overlays in other areas, i.e. that the land has environmental significance, there is vegetation worthy of protection, design and development aims apply or the land is subject to inundation, still apply regardless that it is Public Transport Corporation land.
Strategic Considerations It is understood that the Department of Infrastructure is and Implications: convening discussions with a view to resolving issues relating to PTC land. Council Recommendation: That Council not support the submission on points 1,2,3 and 5. That Council refer the submission to an independent panel. Panel Comment and The issues raised by the PTC are common with submissions Recommendations: made throughout the State on the new format Planning Schemes. It is necessary that a consistent approach be made to the PTC’s general request that overlays not apply to its lands.
Council indicated to the Panel at the Hearing its intention to continue to apply all the overlays in question to PTC lands, including the Salinity Management Overlay (which in its written submission it stated that it intended to remove).
While the Panel has recommended review of some of the overlays proposed in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme, it recommends that the PTC lands still be subject to any overlays retained by Council. The Council however should consider exempting the PTC from obtaining permits for minor, routine and maintenance works provided these works are carried out in accordance with guidelines prepared by the PTC which ensure that the outcomes sought in the overlays can be achieved.
94 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 30
Submitter Name: Jenny Barnett Research Officer Victorian National Parks Association Inc. 10 Parliament Place EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 Location and Map N/A Reference No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested · General environmental issues Changes/Issues Raised: · Congratulate the Shire on many of the provisions of the planning scheme, including use of the Environmental Rural Zone and Vegetation Protection Overlays. · Concern that excavation and fill and ‘landforming’ to 1 metre will be allowed without a permit and may affect native vegetation, weeds and drainage. Suggests a zero threshold with all excavation requiring a permit. · Concern that Environmental Significance Overlays and Vegetation Protection Overlays provide exemptions for roadworks and unenclosed buildings. · ESO10 (Extractive Industry Interest Area) should not be implemented by an Environmental Significance overlay but rather a policy in the Local Planning Policy Framework. · Suggests VPO1 have more detailed and specific decision guidelines.
95 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Comment: · The excavation and fill and landforming
provisions are proposed to be changed as part of the review of the VPPs. · Exemptions for roadworks and unenclosed buildings are considered necessary as part of the Environmental Significance Overlays and Vegetation Protection Overlays otherwise many minor developments will require a permit. · Agree to change ESO10 for reason detailed in submission number 9. · Agree to more detail in VPO1 along the lines of decision guidelines to: - whether another appropriate site is available in order to avoid or minimise clearing; - the objectives of, and any recommendation made under, the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.
Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council agree to the submission in part. That Council refer the submission to an independent panel. Panel Comment and Council submitted to the Panel that it has agreed to include Recommendations: the additional decision guidelines in the proposed VPO1, and delete the proposed ESO 10 (refer to submission No. 9). Further the Council believed that many minor developments in the ESO and VPO areas should be exempt from permit requirements. This view is supported by the Panel.
In agreeing that the decision guidelines in the VPO1 take into account the objectives of, and any recommendations made under, the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act the Panel recommends that the relevant clauses of this Act are quoted or referenced.
This submission essentially addresses the overlays in the Planning Scheme and the Panel recommends that the changes suggested be taken into account in the Council’s review of the overlay controls.
96 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 31
Submitter Name: K Clement for J and M Roberts RMBC148 ROSS CREEK VIC 3351 Location and Map Map 19 Reference No: Post Office Road, Ross Creek Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Rural Living Zone Requested Zone: Low Density Residential Zone Proposed Zone: Rural Living Zone Submission: Requested Request for zoning of land as Low Density Residential. Changes/Issues Raised: If this is not possible, the submitter requests a partial rezoning of approximately 2 hectares. Land borders land that is proposed to be zoned Low Density Residential Zone. A preference by the owners is to retire on a smaller lot at this site.
97 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council Comment: · The land is proposed to be zoned Rural Living under the
new planning scheme. · The minimum lot size in the Rural Living zone is 8 hectares, there is no provision for the excision of dwellings. · The minimum lot size in the Low Density Residential zone is 0.4 hectare. · A structure plan for Ross Creek was developed as part of the new planning scheme. · The structure plan identified that there was existing capacity in the areas proposed to be zoned Low Density Residential to the north east of the subject site. · To support the submission would be inconsistent with the structure plan developed for the town. · Adequate land is provided for in the new planning scheme in the general area of Ross Creek for Low Density Residential development. Additional land would represent excessive supply. · Post Office Road forms an effective boundary between the Low Density Residential and Rural Living zone. · A similar request in the Ross Creek area was not supported by Council (submission 11).
Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: Not support the submission. Refer submission to panel.
98 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Panel Comment and The Panel agrees with the strategic position taken by Recommendations: Council on this submission. The proposal is inconsistent with the Council’s structure plan for the Ross Creek Township. The Council has taken a very strong approach in the MSS and Planning Scheme zones to defining the Township boundaries and discouraging residential development outside those boundaries.
The Panel notes that the subject land is within the area covered by the previous Shire of Grenville IDO, for which separate recommendations have been made by the Panel.
The Panel recommends that the subject land be zoned an appropriate rural zone, subject to the review of Council’s proposed Rural Living and Low Density Residential zones in the north west area of the Shire.
99 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Submission No: 32
Submitter Name: Colin Brown (1) G Brown (2) Location and Map Lightwood Park Reference No: Snake Valley 3351 Map 18 Current Zone: Grenville IDO Exhibited Zone: RUZ Requested Zone: Low Density Residential zone Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested 1. Request ‘reinstatement’ of LDRZ along a strip of land Changes/Issues Raised: fronting Haddon School Road to Preston Hill Road on the western side of Wilson’s Road.
2. ESO 10 (recognition of potential extractive industry areas) be removed from property at L416204. Property is 100ha and is used for grazing. Submission states that there are no resources on the property. Council Comment: 1 This matter had been previously raised with Council following the draft exhibition. On the basis that it recognised the existing infrastructure (water, power) and in recognition of the existing land use pattern. The land was inadvertently excluded from the exhibited scheme in accordance with Council’s determination. Strategic Considerations 1. The land is logically within the adjoining LDR zone. and Implications: 2. Council needs to recognise existing supply areas. Council Recommendation: 1. Rezone Property in accordance with submission. 2. The application of the overlay is relevant where the DNRE’s published map applies. (Ballarat Supply Area - Extractive Industry Interest Areas 1997 report).
100 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Panel Comment and The Council advised that although the exhibited zoning of Recommendations: the subject land was Rural, it was meant to be Low Density Residential. Council supports the submitter’s request to zone the land Low Density Residential, and noted that the existing services to the land (water, power, sealed roads) warranted this zoning.
The Panel, however, is concerned that the subject land is used for rural purposes, and is contiguous with the rural zoning to the west. No real strategic justification for its zoning as Low Density Residential has been put to the Panel. The proposal appears to contradict the Council’s strong strategic position on restricting further low density residential development given the existing supply.
The Panel notes that the subject land is within the area covered by the previous Shire of Grenville IDO, for which separate recommendations have been made by the Panel.
The Panel recommends that the subject land be zoned an appropriate rural zone, subject to the review of Council’s proposed Rural Living and Low Density Residential zones in the north west area of the Shire.
In relation to the application of the ESO 10 (Extractive Industry Interest Area), the recommendations at Submission No 9 to remove the overlay and replace it with a local policy are relevant to this submission. The Panel also notes that the more detailed mapping of stone resources is being undertaken by DNRE to clearly define the areas of interest.
101 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
5. PANEL/ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
In making its recommendations, the Panel/Advisory Committee is seeking to remove unnecessary complexity from the Golden Plains Planning Scheme. It is acknowledged that in the time since the Golden Plains Planning Scheme was drafted, the application of the VPP’s has evolved. Many of the Panel’s recommendations arise from evolution of the approach, particularly in relation to the MSS, and implementation of the strategies in the MSS.
The Panel/Advisory Committee’s recommendations are set out in several parts. The first section sets out recommended actions or changes that should be implemented prior to the adoption and approval of the Golden Plains Planning Scheme. Other recommendations, that are also important but require further time to complete, are also described. Finally, the Panel/Advisory Committee notes matters that have arisen during the course of its consideration of the Golden Plains Planning Scheme that relate to the VPP’s or have wider implications that require assessment and/or review.
It is also noted that it is not the role of the Panel/Advisory Committee to redraft sections of text, rather to identify key issues that require attention. Unless crucial to the issue under consideration, wording changes to the LPPF or controls are therefore not suggested. It will be the responsibility of the Council and the Department of Infrastructure to address such matters in detail.
Similarly, it will be the responsibility of the Council and Department of Infrastructure to agree on any matters that may require re-exhibition prior to the adoption of the Planning Scheme. The Panel/Advisory Committee has taken the view that some changes are appropriate to be made without further exhibition and prior to the adoption of the Planning Scheme. These are changes that clearly reflect the policy of the exhibited MSS and are a logical outcome of the MSS. They are also matters that are not considered to have an adverse impact on any party. Other matters require exhibition in the initial review of the Planning Scheme or through a separate amendment process.
5.1 Prior to Adoption of the Scheme
The Panel/Advisory Committee recommends that the new format Golden Plains Planning Scheme be ADOPTED, with the following modifications prior to its approval by the Shire of Golden Plains and the Minister for Planning and Local Government:
1. The format of the Golden Plains Planning Scheme should be reviewed and corrected in accordance with the revised Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes and the revised Manual for the Victorian Planning Provisions, and that any errors and omissions that have been identified should be corrected.
Municipal Strategic Statement:
2. The Municipal Strategic Statement should be reviewed and simplified to provide clarity and improve understanding of the Council’s position as follows:
• State succinctly the objectives being sought, strategies to achieve the objectives and key actions. Reference to “strategic directions” should be deleted.
102 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
• Include a section which clearly shows the linkages between objectives, strategies, and implementation techniques. Corresponding references to zones and overlays to assist in explaining the basis of the Scheme as a whole should be included in the MSS.
• Incorporate the key strategies and outcomes of the Golden Plains Shire Land Use Strategy Plan (Feb 1997) and Golden Plains Shire Town Structure Plans (Feb 1997) in the MSS.
• Accommodate the Panel/Advisory Committee’s recommended changes to the local policies and overlays. In particular, where the Panel/Advisory Committee has recommended deletion of local policies or overlays, there will be a need to include some of the content of these local policies and overlays in the MSS.
• Reword the dot point “maintaining growth options for future town use and development” in Clause 21.10-3 of the Golden Plains MSS (and any subsequent revised versions of the MSS) to ensure that the intent of the statement could not be interpreted as weakening Council’s strong position in relation to the definition and maintenance of township boundaries.
• Incorporate actions from Council’s Corporate Plan (as adopted by Council in December 1997) in the redrafted MSS, in summary form, detailing the links to the particular objectives and strategies contained in the MSS.
• Strengthen Council’s position in the MSS in relation to timber production and processing to ensure that the MSS and the Local Policy is in accordance with the SPPF and any amendments to the VPP’s introduced prior to the adoption of the Planning Scheme.
Local Policies:
3. The following general changes should be made to the form and content of the Golden Plains Local Policies:
• All Local Policies to be retained in the Planning Scheme should be revised to be consistent with the principles for writing local policy contained in the Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions.
• Local Policies should clearly articulate Council’s position. Duplication or repetition of objectives also found in the MSS or the SPPF and the Local Policies, should be removed.
• All “permit conditions” and development controls should be removed from those Local Policies to be retained in the Planning Scheme.
103 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
• Review the Local Policy on Timber Production and Timber Processing Industries (Clause 22.04-4) to encourage and facilitate timber production in the Shire in accordance with the MSS (Submissions No.s 3 and 10 refer). The Local Policy should be deleted unless some situations are retained in the Planning Scheme where a planning permit is required for timber production and processing.
• Council consult with DNRE, the EPA and the Department of Infrastructure in the rewording of the Local Policy on Spray Drift (Submission No 21 refers).
4. Council should delete the following Local Policies which can be addressed through the MSS and SPPF and through the use of non-statutory Development Guidelines:
22.02-1 Agricultural Land 22.02-3 Effluent Disposal and Water Quality 22.02-4 Erosion Risk 22.02-7 Wetland Areas 22.04-1 Agriculture 22.04-2 Horticulture 22.04-3 Industrial Development 22.04-5 Tourist Use and Development 22.05 Infrastructure Local Policies (22.05-1 to 22.05-4 inclusive) 22.06-1 Animal Keeping 22.06-3 Dams 22.06-4 Highway Development 22.06-5 Industrial Development Landscaping 22.06-6 Intensive Animal Husbandry 22.06-8 Sheds and Outbuildings
5. Council should include Local Policies on the following matters in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme:
• Protection of Stone Resources.
• Rural Residential development in north west area of Shire. The Panel recommends that Council prepare a specific Local Policy for the north west area of the Shire in the locality of Scarsdale, Haddon and Ross Creek currently proposed to be zoned Low Density Residential and Rural Living. This Local Policy would be a holding measure to guide decision-making until further investigation in this area had been carried out.
• Other Local Policies arising from deletion of overlays or changes to zoning or changes to incorporation of documents.
Zones:
6. Council should examine alternative zones (such as the Environmental Rural Zone) to be applied to the north west area of the Shire in the locality of Scarsdale, Haddon and Ross Creek currently proposed to be zoned Low Density Residential and Rural Living. This work should to be undertaken in conjunction with the City of Ballarat and the Department of Infrastructure.
104 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
7. The Dogs Rocks area (currently proposed to zoned Special Use 2) should be zoned to be consistent with the residential development permitted under the Dogs Rock Concept Plan, using an Incorporated Plan Overlay or Development Play Overlay to bring into effect the Dogs Rocks Concept Plan.
8. Delete the requirement for a planning permit in the Rural Zone for timber production on areas greater than 40 hectares, unless this requirement can be fully justified in discrete areas on landscape or environmental grounds.
Overlays:
9. The application of Overlays proposed in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme should be reviewed with a view to: • Simplifying the Planning Scheme through reducing the number of Overlays and replacing them with statements in the MSS or Local Policies. • Deleting Overlays (ESO’s and VPO’s) from public lands (Reserves, State Parks and Crown Lands) under the control of DNRE or Council where the managing authority’s objectives are similar to those contained in the proposed Overlay. • Justifying the extent of the areas to be covered by Overlays where the Overlay control is to be retained.
10. That the ESO’s be carefully assessed to ensure that they can be fully justified, and whether the use of the MSS, Local Policies and zoning are as effective in ensuring consideration of the matters identified. The review of the ESO’s should incorporate an examination of the additional areas raised in the submission by the Geelong Field Naturalists (Submission No 8 refers) and S. Murphy (Submission No 12 refers), noting that in particular the justification for inclusion of land in an ESO be addressed.
11. That ESO 10 be deleted and replaced with a Local Policy on Protection of Stone Resources, to be prepared in consultation with DNRE and the Department of Infrastructure.
12. That the additional sites nominated by DNRE (Submission No 9 refers) and P and C Baird (Submission No 18), and the suggestions of the Victorian National Parks Association (Submission No 30 refers) should be further investigated by Council, DNRE and the Department of Infrastructure in the review of Overlay controls.
13. That the application of the Salinity Management Overlay be modified to be more specific, in accordance with the more detailed mapping of areas subject to or susceptible to salinity provided by the Centre for Land Protection Research.
14. That the ESO 2 schedule be revised to reflect the provisions in the neighbouring Shire of Moorabool ESO, as requested by the Barwon Region Water Authority and Council, (Submission No 17 refers) subject to agreement from the Department of Infrastructure to ensure a consistent approach within the region to the isssue of management of land use in water catchment areas.
15. That PTC lands still be subject to any Overlays retained by Council (Submission No 29 refers). Overlays should exempt the PTC from obtaining permits for minor, routine and maintenance works provided these works are carried out in
105 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
accordance with guidelines prepared by the PTC which ensure that the outcomes sought in the overlays can be achieved.
16. That the decision guidelines in the VPO1 be drafted to take into account the objectives of, and any recommendations made under, the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, and that the relevant clauses of this Act are quoted or referenced in the VPO.
Incorporated Documents:
17. That the Golden Plains Land Use Strategy and the Township Structure Plans should be deleted from the schedule of incorporated documents and be retained as reference documents.
18. That the inclusion of the Barwon Region Water Authority Proclaimed Water Supply Catchments Map as either a reference or incorporated document in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme should be reviewed with the Department of Infrastructure to ensure a consistent approach State-wide to this issue.
19. With respect to the documents relating to the Dogs Rock Concept Layout, that these documents should form the basis of a Incorporated Plan Overlay or Development Play Overlay for the Dogs Rock site, and be deleted from the schedule of incorporated documents.
20. Incorporation of other documents due to their referencing in the various proposed overlay controls will need to be reviewed by Council as part of the general review of the application of overlays in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme.
In Relation to Submissions (not covered by the general recommendations above): Many submissions sought to have Council’s zoning or overlay proposals changed to allow for further subdivision and development. Council’s strategic position in this matter is quite clear, and is supported by the Panel/Advisory Committee subject to its recommended investigation and review of land in the north west area of the Shire. Thus the Panel/Advisory Committee is not prepared to support proposals to allow further subdivision which are inconsistent with Council’s strategic position.
The Panel/Advisory Committee recommends:
21. That the rezoning of land adjacent to the Lethbridge Township to Rural Residential (Submission No 2 by B. O’Shannassy refers) cannot be justified at this stage. The Panel recommends that the land be zoned Rural as exhibited.
22. That Lot 4 Ryans Road Gheringhap (Submission No 4 by I and R. Gvildys refers) remain zoned Rural as exhibited.
23. With respect to Barunah Plains, (Submission No 6 by C. Barlow refers), that Council issue a planning permit with the same conditions as apply in the provisions of Amendment L6 to the Golden Plains Planning Scheme, and drawn as appropriate from the existing Section 173 Agreement. In the circumstances, it
106 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
would be appropriate that the permit issue for a longer period than normal to allow for staged development.
24. That the zoning of Lot 10 LP 119122 Tom Jones Road Ross Creek (Submission No 11 by G. Roach refers) be consistent with the outcome of the recommended review of the proposed Rural Living and Low Density Residential Zones in the vicinity of Ross Creek.
25. That Lots IV, IT, IU, IG2 and IG3 South Durham Bridge Road Garibaldi (Submission No 14 by W. and P. Morris refers) remain zoned Rural as exhibited.
26. That Crown Allotments 19,20,21 and 22 of Lot section 6A, Cambridge Street Inverleigh (Submission No 16 by B. McDonald refers) be zoned Township with the land subject to inundation defined.
27. That the zoning of the Taylor Road Meredith area (Submission No 18 P. and C. Baird refers) remain as exhibited.
28. That land in the vicinity of Hills Road Batesford (Submission No 19 by P. Millane refers) remain zoned Rural as exhibited.
29. That with respect to the land at Common Road Inverleigh (Submission No 22 by DNRE refers), the Panel considers that further information and justification could assist the Council in determining the appropriate zone and if an overlay control is warranted. The Panel recommends that DNRE provide the further information and justification to Council, and that the possible application of an Environmental Significance Overlay control be assessed within the overall review of overlays recommended by the Panel.
30. That the land at High Street, Inverleigh (Submission No 22 by DNRE refers) remain zoned Rural as exhibited.
31. That Lot 1C Cambrian Hill (Submission No 23 by L. and K. Watson refers) be zoned Low Density Residential in accordance with the zoning of the surrounding land.
32. That Crown Allotments 43A and Part 43B Parish of Warrambine at Warrambine (Submission No 24 refers) be zoned Low Density Residential under the Golden Plains Planning Scheme.
33. That Crown Allotment 29L Parish of Dereel at Dereel (Submission No 24 J. Watson and V. Williams refers) be zoned Rural under the Golden Plains Planning Scheme.
34. That the land at Vaggs Road Ross Creek (Submission No 27 by J. Vagg refers) not be zoned Low Density Residential as requested, and that the appropriate rural zoning of the land be determined as part of the Panel recommendation that Council review its proposed Rural Living and Low Density Residential zones in the north west of the Shire.
35. That the land at Post Office Road, Ross Creek (Submission No 31 by J and M Roberts refers) be zoned an appropriate rural zone , subject to the review of
107 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Council’s proposed Rural Living and Low Density Residential zones in the north west area of the Shire.
36. That the land at Lightwood Park Snake Valley (Submission No 32 by C. and G. Brown refers) be zoned an appropriate rural zone, subject to the review of Council’s proposed Rural Living and Low Density Residential zones in the north west area of the Shire.
5.2 Subsequent Actions
It is recommended that the following actions be undertaken by the Shire of Golden Plains, with consequent amendment(s) to the Planning Scheme to be considered at the earliest opportunity or within the timeframe recommended by the Panel/Advisory Committee:
37. That Council should develop processes and systems for monitoring and reviewing the Planning Scheme, in conjunction with the Department of Infrastructure. This should include a system for monitoring decisions made under the Planning Scheme and evaluating them against the intentions of the LPPF. Recognition of monitoring/review processes should be included in the MSS.
38. That further work on refining the zoning of the north west area of the Shire should be undertaken by Council in conjunction with the City of Ballarat and the Department of Infrastructure.
39. That Council prepare a Local Policy dealing with the siting and operation of poultry farms taking into account any efforts by the Department of Infrastructure and others to achieve State-wide consistency on this matter.
40. That Council finalise work to determine the boundaries of the SMO and SBO if this matter is not resolved before the adoption of Planning Scheme.
108 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
5.3 Other Matters
As noted in this report, several matters were raised that the Panel/Advisory Committee suggests may warrant attention in consequent reviews of the VPP’s. These are matters that, although referred to in the context of the Golden Plains Planning Scheme, are likely to have wider strategic significance:
41. That the Department of Infrastructure co-ordinate the drafting of appropriate statements in the Golden Plains MSS, local policy or overlay controls to address the general concerns raised by the CFA using a consistent approach across both the region and the State.
42. That the Department of Infrastructure and Council assess the inclusion of the EPA’s suggested environmental management statements in the MSS in the review of the MSS, ensuring that a consistent State-wide approach is made to the matters raised by the EPA.
43. That the Department of Infrastructure resolve with VicRoads whether further referral clauses are required and if so, that this issue be addressed on a state- wide basis.
44. That the Department of Infrastructure determine an appropriate state-wide approach to the issue of managing land use in water supply catchment areas to ensure consistency.
109 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Appendix 1 –
Advisory Committee Terms of Reference ______
110
Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Appendix 2 –
Written Submissions Received Prior to the Hearing ______
111
Golden Plains Planning Scheme Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee July 1998
Appendix 3 –
Parties Appearing at the Hearing ______
Department of Infrastructure Mr Geoff Forbes
Golden Plains Shire Mr Trevor Budge
Individual Submitters Mr Des Nicol (for the Barwon Water (in order of appearance) Authority)
Mr Malcolm Tonkin (for Victorian Plantations Corporation)
Mr Bruce McDonald/Mr Charlie Morgan
P. & C. Baird
Mr Peter Millane (for Joaquin Enterprise P/L)
W. & P. Morris
Mr Steve Roffey and Mr Jim Knott
Mr R. & Mrs I. Gvildys
Mr Colin Barlow (for Mr Graham Mills)
Mrs Vagg and Mr Sullivan
112