Macedon Ranges

MACEDON RANGES

NEW FORMAT PLANNING SCHEME

REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

MARCH 1999

MACEDON RANGES NEW FORMAT PLANNING SCHEME

Report of the Advisory Committee & Panel

Cathie McRobert (Chair)

Warwick Horsfall

Max Richards TABLE OF CONTENTS

0.1 Introduction 1

1. STRATEGIC OVERVIEW 2

1.1 Characteristics of the Shire 2

1.2 Key Planning Issues 4

1.2.1 Population growth 4 1.2.2 Heritage 5 1.2.3 Rural areas 7 1.2.4 Rural Planning Scheme provisions 11 1.2.5 Environment 17 1.2.6 State Planning Policy No.8 18 1.2.7 Landscape 20 1.2.8 Bushfire 21 1.2.9 Flooding 23 1.2.10 Calder Freeway 24 1.2.11 Catchments/water supply 25 1.2.12 Mount Macedon 27 1.2.13 Restructuring of lots 28 1.2.14 Industrial areas 32 1.2.15 Commercial areas 33

1.3 Overall assessment 34

2. RESPONSE TO TERMS OF REFERENCE 36

2.1 Consistency with Form and Content Requirements 36

2.2 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) 41

2.3 Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) 42

2.4 Local Policies 44 2.5 Zones, Overlays and Schedules 50

2.6 Incorporated Documents 56

2.7 Monitoring and Review 57

4. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 59

4. RECOMMENDATIONS 239

4.1 Before Adoption 239

4.2 After Adoption 247

4.3 Other Recommendations 250

ATTACHMENT A – CHANGES REQUESTED BY COUNCIL I

ACRONYMS CW Coliban Water DNRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment DoI Department of Infrastructure DPO Development Plan Overlay EMO Environmental Management Overlay ESO Environmental Significance Overlay HO Heritage Overlay IN1Z Industrial 1 Zone LDRZ Low Density Residential Zone LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework LSIO Land Subject to Inundation Overlay MSS Municipal Strategic Statement PCRZ Public Conservation and Resource Zone PPRZ Public Parks and Recreation Zone PPV Planning Panels Victoria PTC Public Transport Corporation PUZ Public Use Zone RDZ Road Zone RLZ Rural Living Zone RZ Rural Zone SMO Salinity Management Overlay SPPF State Planning Policy Framework TZ Township Zone UFZ Urban Floodway Zone VPO Vegetation Protection Overlay VPP Victoria Planning Provisions MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

0.1 Introduction The Panel and Advisory Committee appointed under Sections 151 and 153 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to consider the new format Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme comprised Ms. Cathie McRobert (Chair), Mr. Warwick Horsfall and Mr. Max Richards. In the remainder of the report references to “the Panel” refer to both functions as an Advisory Committee and Panel. The Panel held a directions hearing at the Shire of Macedon Ranges (“the Shire”) offices in Kyneton on 29 September 1998 and conducted its public hearing at the Shire offices in Woodend on 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26 and 27 November 1998. The new format Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme (“the Scheme”) was exhibited during August, September and October 1997. A total of 192 submissions were received by Macedon Ranges Council (“the Council”) during the exhibition period. Additional submissions were received after the formal exhibition period, resulting in more than 200 submissions being referred to the Panel for consideration. Section 3 of this report provides a summary of each submission (prepared by Council), Council’s response and the Panel’s comment and recommendation. The Panel did not inspect all of the sites identified in submissions, however it’s members visited various parts of the municipality to familiarise itself with the physical aspects of areas identified in submissions. The Panel has considered all written submissions and the documentation put before it by Council and those who participated in the public hearing. The remainder of this report is divided into four main sections: 1. Strategic overview 2. Response to terms of reference 3. Consideration of submissions 4. Recommendations

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

1. STRATEGIC OVERVIEW This part of the report represents a general overview, including a brief appraisal of the municipality and its strategic planning response to its circumstances. It will determine the adequacy with which the major strategic issues have been addressed in the Planning Scheme and identify any inconsistencies or anomalies. This part will also evaluate whether the Planning Scheme is in accordance with the expectations of planning reform and is an improvement on the existing Scheme. Options will also be considered for improvements to the Scheme both before and after its adoption.

1.1 Characteristics of the Shire Council and the regional office of the Department of Infrastructure (DoI) detailed the Shire’s characteristics in their submissions to the Panel. The Panel’s summary of those characteristics is based on those presentations. Macedon Ranges Shire lies in central Victoria approximately 50 to 90 kilometres north-west of Melbourne. It is surrounded by the municipalities of Mount Alexander, Mitchell, Melton, Moorabool and Hepburn Shires, and Hume City. Macedon Ranges is made up of the former municipalities of Gisborne, Romsey, Newham and Woodend, and Kyneton (other than the Trentham area). The Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme as approved in June 1995 consolidated the former planning provisions into five chapters, to create the present Planning Scheme. The Shire contains the major urban centres (in the context of the Shire) of Gisborne, Kyneton, Woodend and Romsey and the service centres of Riddells Creek, Lancefield and to a lesser extent, Macedon, Mount Macedon and Malmsbury. In addition to these centres there are the villages or hamlets of New Gisborne, Darraweit Guim, Tylden/Clarkefield and Newham. Macedon Ranges Shire lies astride the Calder Highway, rail and water supply corridor from Melbourne to Bendigo and northern Victoria. Calder Highway connections to Tullamarine Freeway and the Western Ring Road allow access to Melbourne City, northern suburbs and Tullamarine Airport. The rail corridor provides connections between Melbourne and Macedon Ranges towns, Castlemaine, Bendigo and Swan Hill. Water infrastructure includes the Coliban Main Channel carrying water from reservoirs in the north-west of the Shire to Bendigo for urban supply. Much of the western part of the Shire is an urban water supply catchment. Of the towns (not including hamlets), all are serviced with a reticulated potable water supply and only Lancefield, Macedon and Mount Macedon are without reticulated sewerage. These three towns as well as Tylden, are proposed to be sewered by the relevant water authority. This Calder Highway corridor is attractive for new residents of the Shire's towns, especially Gisborne and Woodend, and the non-urban areas with ready road access to employment locations. The corridor also contains State significant landscapes. Features of the Shire that are of State significance include the landscapes of Hanging Rock and Mount Macedon and surrounds. Forest values and fire risk are also significant. Many

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

of Mount Macedon's great houses and gardens and their "hill station" origins are of State historical significance. The Shire had an estimated resident population as 34 087 in 1996 and has grown at a healthy 1.69 percent per annum since 1991. This compares with a 0.19 percent per annum for the same period across Regional Victoria. The age structure is younger than that of Regional Victoria, with slightly higher proportions of people in the ‘young family’ age groups, 0-4, 5-17 and 35-49 years, and a much smaller proportion of people in age groups over 60 years. Personal and household incomes are also slightly higher overall than for Regional Victoria as a whole. The DoI predicts that the Shire will experience a continued moderate to strong growth rate of between 1.47 and 2.20 percent per annum for the next 25 years. As with the rest of Regional Victoria the population will age, with significant increases in almost all age groups and greater increases in the number of people in age groups over 50 years. The population in the Shire’s rural areas is growing rapidly, increasing 3.3 percent annually between 1981 and 1996. These areas contained 14,048 people, or 43 percent of the Shire’s population, in 1996. The economic base of the Shire is diverse and many residents travel outside of the Shire to Melbourne to work. The employment base includes manufacturing, education and health services, tourism, retail and wholesale trade, business services and commuting to the metropolitan area. ABS employment figures (1996) show that in the largest urban centres of Gisborne and Kyneton, the main employer industry groups are wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing and health and community services. For the rural balance of the Shire the main employers are health and community services, wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing and business services. Agricultural production is worth approximately $30.5 million per year in the Shire. Agriculture directly employs 4.5 percent of the Shire's workforce. Approximately 14 percent of the workforce is employed in manufacturing and almost half these workers live outside the main towns in the Shire. The retail and wholesale trade group, and the education, health and community group each account for over 17 percent of employment by industry in the Shire. Tourism is a significant and growing business in the Shire which offers heritage buildings and gardens, antiques, natural beauty, cafes, wineries and festivals. The Shire contains one of the top 20 most visited sites in Victoria in Hanging Rock. Compared to the rest of regional Victoria, the Shire has a high level of spending per tourist which means Macedon Ranges has high end dollar value tourism opportunities. The Panel heard from Council’s consultant that the Shire is very diverse and does not function as one community. For example Kyneton does not regard itself as part of the Macedon Ranges and each town has very much its own identity. There are competing interests throughout the Shire which has made the preparation of the new Scheme difficult.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

1.2 Key Planning Issues There are many planning issues that Council needed to address in the course of preparing the new Scheme. Some of these issues are long standing such as the route of the Calder Freeway and development on Mount Macedon whereas others have arisen as part of the planning process, such as attempts to preserve existing subdivision entitlements in rural and semi-rural areas of the Shire under the new format Scheme. The Panel has identified each of the planning issues and they are addressed below. The Panel’s discussion, assessment and recommendations are based on the nature of the issue and the approach taken by Council to address using the tools available to it under the VPP’s.

1.2.1 Population growth The Shire has been, and is expected to continue, experiencing population growth. However there has been diverging approaches to this growth between the former municipalities forming the Macedon Ranges Shire. Some communities such as Gisborne have been less enthusiastic in attracting population growth as against communities more distant from Melbourne such as Kyneton. The rate of growth in the Shire is one of the highest in non- metropolitan Victoria and is more rapid in the areas closer to Melbourne. Most of the pressure of growth stems from the Melbourne metropolitan area as commuter travel convenience increases and travel times continue to decrease. These trends are expected to continue with the extension of the Calder Freeway and the Citylink project, and improved public transport. However, there are limits as to how much growth can be accommodated in some parts of the Shire such as Riddells Creek, Woodend and Mount Macedon. The limits are created by a combination of limited urban infrastructure such as reticulated water and sewer, and environmental issues such as protection of water catchments and bushfire risk. There is also a recognised need to maintain and protect a ‘green wedge’ between the metropolitan and rural townships. This was recognised in the Statement of Planning Policy No 8 (PP8) which has set out planning policy for the area for more than two decades and maintains a central role in the exhibited Scheme. The issue of population growth and pressure has been recognised in the revised MSS together with a need to formulate a clear urban growth strategy. The development of the new Scheme only sought to translate existing Scheme provisions and completely neglected the issue of the extent and location of residential growth to be accommodated in the Shire. This has resulted in a somewhat disjointed application of residential zones across the Shire, and in particular the LDRZ. Most of the larger towns in the Shire have been provided with this zone to provide choice in living environments and to meet demand for lots at this density. In many cases, such as south of Woodend and north of Riddells Creek, the zone has been used to reflect the existing subdivision pattern created either historically or through poor planning in more recent times. This has resulted in some areas of the Shire having a supply of this land far in excess of the short to medium term demand. Figures supplied to the Panel indicated nearly 40 years supply around Lancefield and more than 20 years around Riddells Creek and Kyneton. In severe cases, Council has utilised the RO to reduce the development potential and subsequent impacts, of certain areas such as Macedon. The

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

LDRZ is regarded as an urban residential zone and as such Council should include this land in its preparation of an Urban Growth Strategy for the Shire. It appears to the Panel that the Shire largely intends relying upon existing strategic studies that have been prepared for various parts of the Shire and at various times to guide future population growth, as well as the township Structure Plans and the overall strategic Land Use Framework Plan for the Shire. A major omission from the strategic directions section of the MSS addressing urban growth is that of PP No 8 even though it is recognised elsewhere as a major influence. The MSS states a number of supporting actions involving a great deal of strategic planning work. These include the preparation of: Macedon Ranges Integrated Strategy Plan Integrated Land Use and Development Strategies for Woodend, Gisborne and Macedon townships Residential Development Strategies for all major townships Landscape Character Study for the entire Shire Management Plans for areas of open space The Panel endorses the need for this work but is sceptical however that Council will commit itself to these tasks in the short term given its apparent lack of commitment and resource allocation to the preparation of the new Scheme. The Panel’s recommendations provide an indication of the areas of work it believes should be undertaken as a matter of priority. The Panel recommends that Council: recognise PP No 8 in the “How do we want to achieve it?” section of the Strategic Direction for Management of Urban Growth and Development; within six months of this report, undertake a review of all additional works intended to flow from the new Scheme (including costings), and prepare a realistic timeframe for the completion of the work; give priority to an Urban Growth Strategy for the Shire, and the review of rural areas which should be acknowledged in the MSS; and commit itself in the MSS to undertake the work.

1.2.2 Heritage The Shire contains extensive heritage assets, including sites associated with Aboriginal occupation, the first overland squatters, the gold rush, early farming settlement and associated towns, "hill station" estates, and tourism. Places include landscapes gardens and trees. The main studies and reports that have been undertaken cover the majority of heritage assets of the Shire. They are, the Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study (1994), the Kyneton Conservation (Heritage) Study and the Mount William Quarry, Education and Cultural Tourism Project; Feasibility Study. A Landscape Protection Character Study is proposed for the future.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

The overview in the revised MSS notes the significance of the municipality's cultural heritage and in clause 21.7-4 "Promotion of the Shire's Cultural Identity and Community Values", the significance of the assets and their conservation are fully detailed. The National Trust provided a detailed submission, essentially supporting the Council and suggesting improvements and detailing areas where further investigation is required. (See Submission No 64). Three areas of concern, expressed by submitters, were: 1. the incorrect locations of sites on the maps; 2. the size of sites in excess of the actual heritage area; and 3. owners of individual sites had not been notified and a publicity campaign informing of the proposed inclusion of heritage sites had not been conducted. In marking the sites Council has adopted the practice of marking the whole of the reference allotment, based on the premise that this would provide a trigger to check the citation. Many citations refer to only a small area of allotment and referring to the whole allotment has caused concern to some landowners. The Council pointed out that the vast number of citations created a logistics problem in drafting the maps, and that a number of citations include extensive driveways. The Manual for the Victorian Planning Provisions provides that the control may be reduced to the area of the citation. The Panel accepts the position adopted by the Council is a rational approach to the problem. However, where submitters identify specific instances where heritage values only apply to a limited part of a property this information should be reflected in the application of the overlay to avoid the need for unnecessary planning applications. When resources are available the Council is encouraged to review the citations and amend the application of the overlay accordingly. The exhibited scheme included new heritage controls over specific properties (some of which were incorrectly shown on maps) but individual notification was not provided to owners. The Panel advised the Council after the hearing that owners of properties subject to heritage provisions for the first time should be notified prior to adoption of the scheme. Where the owners are in agreement the HO can be included prior to adoption of the new scheme but where objections are received, application of the HO to those properties should be included as part of the first amendment. The Panel recommends that owners of all heritage sites not previously subject to heritage planning control and proposed for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay are advised of the proposals. Where owners consent has been obtained, the site be included in the Heritage Overlay prior to adoption and that sites not agreed be considered with the next amendment. The Heritage Overlay contains 674 sites recognising the extensive heritage assets of the Shire. The Overlay as presented to the Panel contained many errors. The Council advised that the errors would be corrected prior to adoption and forwarded a set of corrected maps to the panel after the hearing The Panel recommends that the heritage overlay be thoroughly checked to ensure sites are correctly located prior to adoption.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

1.2.3 Rural areas The MSS (Clause 221.7-3) recognises the multiple functions of agricultural land as both an economic resource and in maintaining landscape values. The MSS promotes sustainable land management practices and protection of environmental and landscape values. It also emphasises the protection of agricultural land from development pressures and conflicting residential uses, including the following objectives: “Ensure that future rural subdivisions have regard to the viability of existing and surrounding agricultural; activities, the landscape and the natural environments; Preserve the viability of existing agricultural activities by discouraging encroachment of urban uses and directing all rural residential developments to areas of low agricultural quality Maintain rural land in large holdings by discouraging fragmentation and encouraging consolidation of landholdings…”. The Shire includes significant areas of land of Class 1 and Class 2 agricultural capability. While much of that land is currently used for grazing, it is a resource with potential for more intensive agricultural use which should be protected. The exhibited scheme included ESO3 Good Quality Agricultural Land – Agricultural Capability which applied to some of the Class 1 land. Council advised that it does not support extension of the ESO to Class 2 land sought in some submissions. The Panel accepts that Council intends to place particular emphasis on protecting the agricultural land with the highest potential productivity by applying the ESO. For consistency, this overlay should apply to all Class 1 agricultural land in a rural zone and the MSS text (Clause 21.7-3) should be amended accordingly. The ESO acts largely as an identifier of the most productive land and does not trigger significant additional approval requirements over and above those within the SPPF, MSS and zone provisions. It is also noted that the SPPF (clause 17.05) and the MSS requirements to have regard to agricultural capability in evaluating proposals will apply to areas not subject to the ESO. The MSS (Clause 21.7-3) indicates strategies for achieving objectives which include: “By application of Rural zones and specification of minimum subdivision sizes in zone schedules that encourage lot sizes based on the productive capacity of the agricultural land.” This strategy is consistent with SPPF provisions but unfortunately bears no relationship to the lot sizes applied in the zone schedules (see discussion below). The Panel recommends that ESO3 apply to all land identified as Class 1 in CLPR mapping of agricultural land. Improved road and rail access to the metropolitan area are enhancing the strong appeal of the Shire as a residential location for commuters, and the demand for rural living opportunities is likely to be maintained. It was put to the Panel that, irrespective of property size, much of the rural land in the Shire fulfils a predominantly residential function in a rural setting. Estimates of demand and supply for rural living development were presented on the final day of the hearing. The complexity of the rural and rural living subdivision provisions make

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

estimates of supply particularly difficult to establish but it appears that overall there is probably an adequate supply, with Kyneton having zoned land to provide more than 100 years supply, Romsey 30 years supply, Gisborne approximately 15 years supply, Riddells Creek 12 years supply and Lancefield 11 years supply. Some localities such as Malmsbury, Tylden, Bullengarook, Clarkefield and Daraweit have less than the indicative10 year supply suggested in the SPPF but additional provision should be based on straegic objectives rather than routinely applying a “prescribed” supply. In an area such as Macedon Ranges purely market driven planning responses are inappropriate and the extent to which potential demand for rural living is satisfied and the areas to which development is directed, should be specifically evaluated in terms of competing planning objectives. PP No.8 has provided strategic policy direction for most of the current Shire for more than two decades and indicates that “water supply, tourism and recreation and nature conservation must be the primary concern”. The development of the Planning Scheme did not include any strategic assessment of existing rural living opportunities or where any further opportunities should be directed. However, two planning documents from the former Shires of Gisborne and Romsey provide some insight into influences on the planning provisions applied in rural areas. The Shire of Romsey Strategy Plan 1992 indicated that: the Shire is no longer a conventional broad acre farming area but has maintained its rural landscape; planning provisions applicable at that time would potentially result in an additional 1,126 additional lots in rural areas ie almost double the housing existing at that time; the retention of rural land in 40 hectare parcels facilitates productive farming purposes but increasing the minimum lot size would not have a major impact on the number of potential lots given the existing pattern of subdivision; infrastructure limitations suggest that the continued viability of communities and facilities at Monegeetta, Bolinda and Darraweit Guim would be supported by limited hamlet style rural residential subdivision in those areas; restructure of hobby farm zones in close proximity to towns may be appropriate; continued rights to construct houses on existing small rural lots is unlikely to adversely affect the rural character; long standing landholders have legitimate expectations that land subdivision should continue albeit in a controlled manner; and subdivision “hope value” attached to rural land works against consolidation of rural properties. The objectives of that strategy included to: preserve rural landscape qualities and character; strictly limit growth in the Macedon Ranges; ensure an effective rural landscape buffer on the metropolitan boundary;

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

guide population into areas which can best accommodate it; ensure that future rural residential subdivision is consistent with environmental capability and stringent landscaping and servicing standards and controls apply; ensure continued use of rural land for productive farming purposes; facilitate subdivision and opportunities for small rural lots but prevent subdivision which would not contribute to retention of land for commercial farming or preservation of landscape and natural values; and facilitate re-subdivision of rural residential and hobby farming areas close to towns. In summary, the Romsey Strategy sought to facilitate controlled rural residential development, harness rural subdivision to achieve agricultural, landscape and environmental objectives and provide additional rural residential opportunities in existing zones close to towns. The Gisborne Non-Urban Review 1993 was intended to stimulate debate. It consisted of a consultative process that involved conducting a forum and the preparation of a working paper setting out issues to be addressed. The review indicated the following. Additional lots of the order of 150 would be possible under the primary/secondary lot provisions in place at the time. Infrastructure costs associated with dispersed rural residential development should be investigated further. The agricultural viability of some primary lots which were not evaluated in terms of agricultural viability at the time of subdivision has been questioned by owners with requests for further subdivision (prohibited under the Scheme). The review indicated that it is imperative that a viable agriculture land capability assessment be undertaken. It was suggested that some areas were not suitable for primary-secondary lot subdivision due to water catchment and landscape values. In these instances consideration of transferring development rights was raised for further investigation. The 4 hectare lot size applied in traditional subdivisions was questioned from the view of limited potential agricultural use and part of the lots being unused. The Emmaline Vale Estate, South Gisborne and Bullengarook were cited as examples where requests for further subdivision or second houses (with or without subdivision opportunities) have been received and the options of as of right dual occupancy should be considered. There was a need to explicitly indicate in the Planning Scheme that the rural lifestyle for the Shire would be maintained by protecting large tracts of rural land. Incentives may be necessary to achieve the objective. The issue of protecting the existing rural landscape and the capacity to absorb further development without transforming it was raised. The need to revise statutory provision to reduce the number of non-urban zones (9) and adoption of a clear plain English format, identify options such as outline development planning and to review appropriate land uses.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

The review emphasised the need to protect remaining viable agriculture and to appoint consultants to undertake further investigations to tackle the complex issues. These documents highlight the issues confronting non-urban areas in Macedon Ranges and indicate significantly different responses with Romsey explicitly facilitating controlled rural residential development, while Gisborne took a more cautious approach emphasising protection of agricultural capability. The MSS Key Issues and Trends indicates that provision for rural residential lifestyles is now being confined to the fringe of urban centres where there is good access to services and impacts on productive agricultural land can be prevented. The strategic framework plans do not specifically address rural living except indirectly in terms of preserving significant landscapes, protecting good quality agricultural land, protection of water quality, maintenance of the rural buffer to outward expansion of the metropolitan area and the like. The MSS clearly indicates Council’s intentions to protect significant landscapes and the rural setting of townships. It recognises the various functions of rural land and seeks to protect agricultural viability. However, the MSS sends mixed messages regarding rural subdivision and rural living development. In clause 21.7-3 Facilitation of Agricultural Productivity, objectives include to: “ensure future rural subdivisions have regard to the viability of existing and surrounding agricultural activities, the landscape and the natural environment.. Preserve the viability of existing agricultural activities by discouraging encroachment of urban uses and directing all rural residential developments to areas of low agricultural quality… Maintain rural land in large lots by discouraging fragmentation and encouraging consolidation of landholdings…” In practice these objective should result in extremely limited further subdivision in rural areas. The objectives anticipate further rural residential development on lower quality agricultural land. The lack of a strategic planning basis for the MSS means that the spatial implications of this objective have not been explored. Further, the application of policy 22.14 Rural Housing and Subdivision, zones and overlays have attempted to translate existing Planning Scheme provisions without any evaluation of how they relate to strategic planning objectives for the Shire, or how those objectives can be achieved most effectively. The Panel has been repeatedly told that even the largest parcels of land in the Shire are not viable agricultural units, which raises questions regarding the application of primary secondary lot mechanisms. The infrastructure implications and issues of accessibility to services of providing for dispersed clusters throughout the municipality warrants consideration, as do the potential conflicts between rural residential clusters with agricultural operations. These potential conflicts are exaggerated in areas with horticultural potential such as the Class 1 areas identified in the ESO3, part of which is zoned RLZ. The lack of a strategic review to form the basis of the new Scheme, rather than merely consolidating existing provisions, means that opportunities to accommodate rural residential development in areas selected on the basis of the land’s capacity to accommodate this form of development without compromising key planning objectives, have not been identified.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

The Panel believes that there is a clear need for a comprehensive strategic review of rural living in the municipality to: establish the extent to which rural living opportunities are to be accommodated; identify areas where appropriate rural living development would not compromise key objectives relating to protection of landscape, environmental and agricultural values based on analysis of land capability and other constraints; and formulate the most effective planning mechanisms to implement objectives. The Panel recommends that a strategic review of rural areas including rural living opportunities and Planning Scheme provisions be undertaken within 12 months of approval of the Scheme. The review should: evaluate demand and supply of land; establish the extent to which rural living will be accommodated,; identify opportunities and constraints for rural living having regard to land capability, protection of significant landscape values, protection of productive and commercially sustainable farms, farm restructuring, and availability of infrastructure and services; and develop a planning framework to manage this form of development.

1.2.4 Rural Planning Scheme provisions The existing Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme contains 16 Rural zones with a range of subdivision controls. Tenement controls apply in the Kyneton area and to a lesser degree in the Romsey and Newham/Woodend areas which means that some individual Crown allotments currently may not attract the right to construct a dwelling. The existing minimum lot size for subdivision in rural zones varies across the Shire as shown below. Kyneton 40 hectare minimum in most areas, including water catchment areas. In some areas, particularly around Baynton, the minimum is 80 hectares. The option to excise a lot (0.4 to 4 hectare) also exists in some areas. Newham/Woodend Minimum lot size is 40 hectares. Gisborne No minimum lot size but 26 properties are specifically mentioned in the Planning Scheme which the maximum number of lots for each of these holdings and primary/secondary lot subdivision with 85 percent of the property to be retained permanently for farming. Romsey Minimum lot size 40 hectares with option for “cluster” subdivision similar to the Gisborne provisions. The Panel was advised that the exhibited Scheme was intended to directly translate existing Scheme provisions. The exhibited Scheme applies the RUZ as the typical rural zone with significant RLZ west of Kyneton, between Woodend and Kyneton, on the southern boundary of the municipality at Clarkefield, Riddells Creek and south of Gisborne, between Romsey and Lancefield and at Daraweit Guim. In both instances the schedules to the zones nominate minimum lot sizes with reference to Policy 22.14 Rural Housing and Subdivision indicating how those lot sizes may be varied. Interpreting these provisions was acknowledged at the hearing as almost impossible.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

The policy includes significant duplication of provisions which are comparable to the averaging and re-subdivision provisions, waste disposal and boundary realignment which apply in the VPP zones. The retention of these components in the policy only serves to confuse interpretation. The drafting of the section of the policy relating to primary/ secondary lots in RUZ means the provisions are unintelligible, the following examples illustrate the problems: 22.14 –1 – Area “A” zone schedule nominates 100ha minimum lot size, the policy refers to creation of lots less than 40 hectare, the rationale for the bonuses under the fourth dot point relating to common ownership of secondary lots and body corporate management is unclear Poor drafting means that the table presented as relating to area “A”, negates the earlier provisions. It is understood that this table (which generates 183 secondary lots) is derived from the former site-specific approvals in the Gisborne chapter. These site-specific provisions are discussed further below. In area “B” the lot size average is decreased from the scheduled 40 hectares to 20 hectares if the primary/ secondary lot option is adopted. It is unclear whether this was intended to apply throughout this extensive area in the east of the Shire. The transfer of development rights component is particularly wordy and the second dot point does not make sense. In the RLZ schedule provisions apply except in Area “A” (the former Shire of Romsey) where the policy provides for the average lot density to be increased to 16 hectare subject to the primary/secondary lot clustering option. The table below presents the Panel’s understanding of the main features of the RUZ and RLZ subdivision provisions.

PROVISION RURAL ZONE RURAL LIVING ZONE A B C A B C D Schedule 100 ha 40 ha 40 ha 40 ha 100 ha 2 ha 1 ha (max min. lot size 2 lots) Lot density 100 ha 20 ha 16 ha

Primary or 85% total 75 ha 40 ha balance lot Scheduled 28 listed departures (probably area “C”) Re- As VPP As VPP subdivision with 75 ha with 40 ha lot lot Transfer of Yes –max Develop- 2 balance ment Rights lots of undefined size

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

PROVISION RURAL ZONE RURAL LIVING ZONE A B C A B C D Schedule 100 ha 40 ha 40 ha 40 ha 100 ha 2 ha 1 ha (max min. lot size 2 lots) Scheduled 40 ha 40 ha 40 ha 1 ha 1 ha 0.4 ha 0.4 ha ‘as-of-right’ house lot size

The RLZ area “A” operates more like RUZ with requirements for minimum balance lot of 40 hectare to meet the clustering option. This is not inappropriate as the area relates to high quality agricultural land. The area “B” RLZ which applies to RLZ in the south of the municipality acknowledges the established function/subdivision of the areas with so-called ‘as-of-right’ housing development permitted on one hectare lots, but further subdivision is effectively prohibited by the 100 hectare minimum lot size. The mechanism used to tie the zone schedules back to the policy was questioned at the Panel hearing. The Panel believes that, given the duplication of VPP requirements, it should be possible to simplify the schedule sufficiently to avoid the need to refer back to the LPPF. The most significant local provision in the policy relates to primary and secondary lots. The schedule can readily provide for various lot sizes with a qualification that retention of a primary lot of the nominated size would allow a smaller nominated average lot size for various areas if it is considered imperative that the formula is binding. The function of the policy would then be to indicate how discretion associated with subdivision applications in rural zones would be exercised. The VPP Manual indicates that the preferred form of development approval is the planning permit rather than site specific amendments. The table within the policy perpetuates a system of providing rural residential approvals through site specific amendments. The Area “A” site specific provisions in the policy are intended to preserve development rights under the existing Scheme, many of which were approved many years ago and have not been acted on. The site specific provisions include six properties (77 lots) for which planning permits have issued and site specific provisions/further permits are not necessary, provided that those permits prevent further subdivision. The current status of subdivision rights of a further three properties (17 lots) which are significantly affected by VicRoads acquisitions should be clarified. Submissions also highlighted the possible effect of sale of part of the tenement to which the subdivision opportunity provided in the table relate which should be clarified. The VPP Manual suggests a number of methods of dealing with existing site specific provisions within Schemes. The most relevant are: the “do nothing option” which applies to developments where permits have already issued (noted above); and convert the consent to a permit for the remainder of the consents. Consideration should be given to time limits which may be appropriate on those permits. The manual also suggests consultative processes which should be adopted to facilitate the conversion. In mot instances the approvals relate to less than ten lots and conversion of the approval to a permit would be the most appropriate option. However, consideration should be given to applying the RLZ to larger developments, some of

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

which exceed 30 lots. In the interim, theses approvals should all be converted to permits with rezoning considered as part of the recommended strategic review. The exhibited Scheme maintained requirements for development planning in the RLZ area “D” (Emmaline) through DPO3 which requires detailed development plans including building envelopes, consideration of existing and proposed landscaping areas, habitat and heritage assets, drainage control measures, connection to reticulated water, and sets out requirements for second dwellings. The requirement for a 4 hectare lot is inconsistent with the zone schedule which provides for 1 hectare minimum subdivision lot size (2 lot maximum). The normal averaging provisions in clause 35.03-4 mean that a simpler approach is possible. DPO 13 Bolinda provides for 21 lots between 3 and 10 hectares. The land is zoned RUZ and a rezoning would be required The Panel commented on the difficulty in interpreting the maps attached to these schedules. Since the hearing Council has prepared much clearer maps. However, the Panel believes that interpretation would be assisted further if the maps associated with the schedule to each zone were consolidated to show all of the policy areas on one map. The schedules to the rural zones in the exhibited Scheme did not specify the capacity of dams. At the hearing, Council nominated 3,000 cubic metres as the capacity above which a permit is required. The Panel accepts this figure as an interim measure but believes that the dam capacity above which a permit is required should be established in consultation with the CMA, DNRE and DoI to ensure that catchment wide issues are taken into account and to achieve some consistency on a regional basis. The lack of any strategic basis for the lot sizes adopted within rural zones requires further consideration in the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme. Farm viability is highly variable, being directly affected by macro economic considerations such as interest rates and commodity prices. Industry wide and individual management practices and circumstances are also relevant (eg extent of owner operator versus corporate influence). Perhaps the best which planning schemes can achieve is to maintain rural holdings which: provide for diversification; allow alternative product mix to achieve some long term flexibility to respond to changing market conditions taking account of basic resources and constraints eg soils, water, micro climate, topography; promote adoption of best practice means of production; do not inflate land values by promoting non agricultural uses; and prevents conflicting uses which are likely to constrain normal agricultural practice. In metropolitan fringe areas with high real estate values and significant subdivision pressures, such as Macedon Ranges, simple nomination of a minimum lot size is unlikely to achieve agricultural viability objectives but may meet landscape objectives. These issues should be addressed in the strategic review of rural areas.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

The Panel recommends that prior to adoption: Policy 22.14 Rural Housing and Subdivision be revised to only address how discretion would be exercised and development guidelines; the schedules to the RUZ and RLZ be redrafted to provide for reduced average lot size where primary/secondary lot conditions are satisfied and a consolidated map of the areas associated with each schedule be included (rather than separate maps for each area); the site specific subdivision provisions in the table to Policy 22.14 Rural Housing and Subdivision be converted to permits with consideration of rezoning being addressed as part of the recommended strategic review; the inconsistencies in lot sizes identified in the RLZ area “D” be corrected; DPO13 be deleted; and Council consult with the CMA, DNRE and the DoI with a view to determining the appropriate size of dam in the Shire, above which a permit is required. The Panel recommends that after adoption: the strategic review of rural areas address appropriate lots sizes in the rural zone having regard to productive capability, environmental constraints, landscape objectives and existing fragmentation of land; and the strategic review of Rural areas consider rezoning RLZ area “A” to RUZ together with consideration of appropriate subdivisions provisions for the area. The ERZ has been applied somewhat indiscriminately resulting apparently from a translation based on previous environmental zones. The areas subject to the ERZ include Mount Macedon, part of the catchment of the Rosslynne Reservoir and two smaller areas of land around Ashbourne. The opportunity to re-evaluate use of this zone in this environmentally sensitive municipality has been lost for the time being. In a number of cases, combinations of habitat values, water catchments, wildlife corridors and soil capability strongly indicate the desirability of an ERZ. Overlays have been used to manage these issues but may not have been the best method. The Panel believes the DoI should provide further guidance regarding the circumstances where the use of the ERZ is considered justified to achieve some consistency in its use across the State. In addition, the schedules to the ERZ need to be more specific to address the environmental outcomes each particular schedule is trying to achieve. The Panel recommends as part of the first review of the Scheme, Council: undertake a review of the application of the ERZ based on an assessment of all environmental factors, and re-draft the schedules to the ERZ to achieve more specific environmnetal outcomes. Criticism was directed that the areas around the Cobaws previously covered by an environmental control were to revert to rural. The Council submitted to the hearing that these areas should be included in the ERZ and the Panel accepts this proposition as it appears to have strong community support and supports the MSS statements on the environment. The Macedon Ranges and Surrounds study identifies seven landscape units in the Shire. The Cobaws has the third highest landscape value after Mount Macedon and the Northern Uplands. These three areas account for almost half the area of the Shire and

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

extend northwards from Woodend, Mount Macedon and Romsey. This, combined with other environmental factors, support the application of the ERZ to this area. The Panel recommends that those areas around the Cobaws previously provided with a Landscape zone in the former Romsey Planning Scheme be zoned ERZ. Extensive use has been made of the Environmental Significance Overlay to manage a number of distinctive issues. ESO1 Lancefield North covers inappropriately subdivided land with drainage problems. If the cause of the problem is inappropriate subdivision then the RO is a more appropriate tool for addressing the issue. The restructuring of lots into larger lots will in the long run, be a better outcome. The Panel recommends that prior to the first review of the Scheme, the area encumbered with ESO1 be considered for a RO. ESO2 applies to the Monegeetta Piggery. In response to the EPA submission the Panel has recommended consideration of an extension to the buffer from 1,500 metres to 2,250 metres. This brings the ESO into line with the buffer required by the Piggery Code of Practice. The extension of the buffer will affect a number of properties (including the area affected by the Bolinda DPO) that will not have had the benefit of viewing and commenting on such a proposal. The Panel recommends that prior to the first review of the Scheme, the area of ESO2 be extended to 2,250 metres radii from the Monegeetta piggery and an assessment of the impact of that extension be undertaken. ESO4 - Water Quality – Catchments. See discussion on water catchments below. ESO5 applies to the Calder Buffer Zone. The ESO has been used in this instance as a buffer, not unlike the schedule for the Monegeetta piggery. Although a VPO and/or LSO could also have been considered, the ESO meets the combined objectives. ESO6 Mineral Springs, Kyneton is designed to protect the water quality of this natural feature. However, the ESO does not identify the source of the mineral water which is an issue. The ESO is justified if its intentions are principally to protect the actual site of the springs and its environs from land uses that may be harmful. Council should investigate the source of the spring water with a view to extending the ESO to protect water quality if this is practical. The Panel recommends that a study be undertaken of the Mineral Springs to identify the source of the water and to develop management guidelines. The Vegetation Protection Overlay has been used in one instance in the new Scheme. VPO1 is for the Blackgum Areas which is a translation of control from the previous Scheme and refers to a limited area. In response to submissions, the Panel agrees that an additional VPO should be applied to cover the areas on roads identified in the previous Shire’s road management plans as of moderate or high value and those functioning as wildlife corridors with adequate documentation of their significance. This VPO could be extended as Council completes its roadside management plans throughout the Shire. The Panel recommends that a VPO be applied to roads identified as being of moderate or high conservation value, and to documented wildlife corridors.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

The Erosion Management Overlay has been applied to only a small area of the Shire on the eastern boundary and is based on DNRE land capability mapping. Sufficient information has been available to the Panel to determine that other areas of erosion risk exist and should be shown on the overlay. The Macedon Ranges Conservation Society pointed out the documents in connection with the Kyneton Planning Scheme had identified areas of high erosion risk. The Panel recommends that: the EMO include erosion areas identified in documents associated with the Kyneton Planning Scheme; and that prior to the first review Council investigate further the need to extend the application of the EMO to other areas of the Shire. The use of the Salinity Management Overlay in the Scheme is based on the DNRE’s mapping of salinity discharge and potential for recharge in the Macedon Ranges Shire. There are a number of mapping errors evident in the translation of this information into the Scheme maps such as lack of continuity and these require correction. The issue of the use of the SMO to indicate both discharge and recharge areas was again raised in the context of the Macedon Ranges Scheme. Some submitters from rural areas questioned the accuracy of the SMO mapping on the basis of their local knowledge of the presence or lack of salinity and were concerned that the application of the overlay to recharge areas “tainted” their properties. The Panel endorses Council’s use of the overlay in both recharge and discharge areas which is clearly intended by the overlay but suggests that DOI consider renaming the overlay clarify its purpose. The Panel recommends that mapping errors on the SMO be corrected; and DoI consider including reference to recharge in the VPP Salinity Management Overlay Title.

1.2.5 Environment The MSS places considerable importance on protection of the environment as one of the key issues in the municipality. Unfortunately, the task of translating these principles into the Scheme has been far from satisfactory. The Panel has made numerous recommendations aimed at overcoming obvious errors and omissions. The Panel notes that in the draft Macedon Ranges Shire Environment Strategy proposes to "commission a project to compile existing information, undertake field surveys, and map significant native flora and fauna habitat and translate the results into Planning Scheme overlays". The undertaking of this work is supported by the Panel. There appears to be extensive information available in the form of reports, previous Planning Schemes measures and the availability of CLPR mapping and the like. A project to collate this information, fill in the gaps and consult with the community to improve the Planning Scheme is essential. Some submitters have recommended that the Scheme be abandoned due to errors and faults, however whilst agreeing that the problems are serious, the Panel believe that the Scheme as presented and with immediate amendments will provide an adequate working document until improvements are possible. Indeed Council has already undertaken significant work since the hearing to correct technical errors.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

One submitter, Ms Pruneau, tabled a draft Native Flora and Fauna Protection Policy in the format of a Local Policy. This policy was prepared on the grounds that the exhibited Scheme was deficient in addressing this issue. The draft policy has been competently prepared and would be a useful tool to address the issue of native flora and fauna. However, the Panel believes a broader approach to environmental issues is warranted. The Panel has already expressed it concerns as to the lack of attention in the Scheme to this issue, and indeed the Council has also presumably identified the shortcomings by preparing an Environmental Strategy for the Shire. Although it is convenient to focus on specific environmental issues and introduce mechanisms such as zones, overlays and local policies in the Scheme to address them, it is the Panel’s view that the ‘environment’ needs to be addressed as a whole and within a coordinated framework. The Panel sees the Environmental Strategy as a step in the right direction to approach the issue along these lines. The Strategy goes beyond the limits of a Planning Scheme and will consume considerable resources of Council in preparation and implementing recommendations. The Panel strongly urges Council to commit itself to this strategy with a view to implementing those outcomes that are relevant to a Planning Scheme by way of amendment. By taking an overall approach, Council can manage its environment in an efficient and coordinated fashion. Submissions to the Panel indicated a strong commitment to protection of the environment among community organisations. A cooperative approach to developing appropriate strategies would allow Council to draw on the expertise and local knowledge within the community. The Panel recommends that a detailed review of the environmental issues of the Scheme including review of existing information, preparation of additional information (including use of CLPR mapping) and consultation with the community to prepare an updated environmental strategy and Planning Scheme, within a two year period.

1.2.6 State Planning Policy No.8 In 1975 the then Town and Country Planning Board prepared Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 Macedon Ranges and Surrounds (PP No.8), which applies to approximately 80 percent of the Macedon Ranges Shire and was incorporated into the Planning Schemes of the Shires of Romsey, Newham/Woodend and Gisborne. The adoption of the policy recognised the significance of this area on a State level and indicated support at a State level of planning measures for its protection. The policy was based on: the importance of the area for nature conservation, water supply, tourism, recreation, agriculture and forestry; the integration of recreational and water catchment planning; the need for limited subdivision on Mount Macedon; coordinated township development on a regional scale; maintenance of the rural character and high landscape values; high quality effluent disposal for urban development; and

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

recognition of the areas as a local and Victorian asset. In the SPPF Clause 14.02-2 Metropolitan Development states: “Environmentally sensitive areas with significant recreational value such as the Dandenong and Macedon Ranges, the Upper Yarra Valley, Western Port and Port Phillip Bays and their foreshores, the Mornington Peninsula, The Yarra and Maribyrnong Rivers and the Merri Creek, as well as nominated urban conservation areas, historic buildings and precincts should be protected from development which would diminish their environmental, conservation and recreation values.” (Panel’s emphasis). The SPPF references specific geographic strategies in relation to this clause but does not refer to PP No.8. The Panel agrees with Council’s submissions that the principals of PP No.8 have been a foundation for the preparation of the new Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme. PP No.8 is emphasised in the LPPF as follows: MSS Key issues and Trends (clause 21.3) highlights the policy and the importance of protecting the environment, rural landscapes and water quality in the context of extensions to the metropolitan fringe. PP No.8 is identified as a major State Policy affecting the Shire in clause 21.4. It is acknowledged that the policy should be reviewed given that it is over 20 years old. The Macedon Ranges and Surrounds Policy (Clause 22.01) repeats PP No.8 with the addition of further headings for readability and a section relating to restructure overlays (see later discussion ) Both PP No.8 and the report of studies for the preparation of the policy are incorporated documents listed in clause 81. The reasons for the policy remain relevant and the state section of the Scheme recognises the need to protect important environmental values. However, the absence of reference to the policy in the SPPF implies that the specific planning objectives and provisions of the policy are now considered to be issues for the local section. Advice from the DoI at the hearing did not indicate whether this was intended. The panel acknowledges that the amalgamation of the municipalities achieves coordination of planning within the policy area, which was one significant reason for a state policy, and that the exhibited Planning Scheme maintains clear statutory commitment to the policy. However, the Panel believes that endorsement of PP No8 at a state level should be maintained through referencing in Clause 14.02-3 because: the area is identified as an asset of importance at a state level; and the relationship of the policy area to the metropolitan area, which is an important source of pressures on this sensitive area in terms of urban expansion, residential development for commuters and recreational use, is unchanged. The Panel recommends that endorsement of PP No8 at a State level should be maintained through referencing in Clause 14.02-3

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

1.2.7 Landscape Statement of Planning Policy No 8 Macedon Ranges and Surrounds 1975 states that one the major factors influencing the Statement is "The high quality of landscapes, both natural and man made in the Policy Area”. The Council has an objective to "protect the landscape and scenic qualities of forested hill slopes, rural landscapes and bushland setting of the Shire's towns" and strong statements are included in the MSS. Hence the landscape is an important issue and the Significant Landscape Overlay has been applied over extensive areas of the Shire in the form SLO1 Ranges and SLO2 Ridges and Escarpments. The SLO has been applied over extensive areas of the Shire. Two schedules are provided: SLO1 Ranges which is applied broadly over the Macedon Ranges; and SLO2 Ridges and Escarpments which applies to more localised features such as volcanic outcrops. The Panel was advised that PP No 8 was not used as the basis for the overlay. The overlay does not extend to cover the entire area of PP No 8, but includes the most significant areas. Other important landscapes in the municipality have had the overlay applied, without the backing of detailed landscape assessment strategies such as the area north of Kyneton. The Panel considers that the approach taken is acceptable but would benefit from a reassessment of the landscape values. Criticism was received from some submitters that the application of the SLO2 was not extensive enough and should extend over additional landmarks and steep escarpments. The Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study (1994) provides an excellent source of information upon which Council could base its application of the SLO. The Study has a firm analytical and strategic basis and is recommended by the Panel for use by Council for review of the extent of the SLO as part of the scheduled review of the Scheme. Specific comments applicable to the SLO include: An assumed typographical error in SLO1 requiring a plan of the “shire” instead of the “site”. The 10 metre exclusion zone in SLO2 is considered to be inadequate and should be replaced by performance criteria such as silhouette against the skyline and the like. SLO2 also exempts the construction of a road from the need for a permit. As a road could have significant impacts on a landscape, this exemption is not supported by the Panel. The Panel recommends that: (after adoption) the Council review its landscape policies based on the Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study (1994) to reassess the application of the SLO and provide objectives and guidelines for future evaluation; and (prior to adoption) in SLO1 the plan required to relate to the site rather than the Shire, SLO2 include performance criteria rather than a prescriptive requirement, and “road” be removed from items exempted from a permit, in the schedule to SLO2.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

1.2.8 Bushfire Parts of the Shire of Macedon Ranges are subject to extreme fire hazard and sound management to minimise risk is relevant to most of the Shire has been clearly demonstrated. The omission of the SBO (since revised and re-named Wildfire Management Overlay) is a major flaw in the exhibited Scheme. SPPF clause 15.07 Protection from Wildfire was revised in July 1998. This clause requires planning authorities to consult with fire authorities and to consider fire hazard in decisions relating to priority fire risk environments to avoid intensifying the risk through inappropriate development. Key documents are identified including the CFA Wildfire Intensity Maps and where guideline requirements are not met the advice of the fire authority should be sought. The MSS emphasises the need to manage development to ensure that fire hazard and fighting requirements are recognised. It addresses the issue as follows. The municipal snapshot indicates that “Urban expansion at the urban edge of Woodend and other towns has led to loss of vegetation cover, increased fire risk and drainage problems.” Wildfire is highlighted in the Key Issues and Trends (Clause 21.3) which indicates “Much of the Shire is at risk of wildfire. Wildfires in forest and bushland areas around Mt. Macedon have caused considerable damage to life and property. Land use and development planning in the Shire must reduce the level of fire risk.” Clause 21.4 State and Regional Planning Context identifies the relevance of the SPPF clause 15.07 Protection from Wildfire. Within the Strategic Directions (clause 21.7) fire is addressed as follows:

Clause 21.7-1 Management of Urban Growth and Development – “Some villages are located in areas of high or severe fire risk. Limited capacity of road networks and water systems make both escape and fire fighting difficult. The objectives include to “ensure all new development is designed and located to minimise the risk to life and property from wildfire…Ensure new growth areas and subdivision comply with fire safety criteria and advice of the Country Fire Authority.” Implementation is identified through the application of the WMO and referencing of key CFA guideline documents.

Clause 21.7.2 Protection of Environment and Landscape highlights the cost of fire prevention and the particular hazard in many environmental/landscape sensitive areas due to poor access and the absence of reticulated water supplies. The use of the WMO based on CFA fire intensity mapping together with a local policy were identified. Supporting actions included building partnerships with the CFA and DNRE in prevention and control of fire.

Clause 21.7-3 Facilitation of Agricultural Productivity also noted the relevance of managing fire risk. The Panel invited Mr James Fox, Risk Manager for the Outer Metropolitan North West Area of the CFA, to attend the hearing. He made a very clear presentation of the approach now being adopted with regard to managing fire risk and the role of the Planning Scheme. The new wildfire intensity maps indicate areas where controlling a fire will be difficult due

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

to its potential intensity (10,000 kw/m), rather than all areas at risk of fire. These fire intensity areas are based on vegetation cover (fuel), aspect and slope. The new fire intensity map for the Shire was available at the hearing and indicates the areas to which the WMO should apply. It was noted that the maps identified both forested land and some open land with hot aspect/steeper slopes. It was also suggested that application of the WMO should be subject to evaluation in conjunction with the CFA to ensure practical application of the overlay eg not apply to small isolated pockets, relate to property boundaries. The Panel also raised concerns that the WMO should also apply to areas that are effectively encircled by high intensity areas and that access for fire fighters should be considered when the WMO is applied. There is a strong strategic basis for introducing the WMO prior to adoption of the Scheme which is reinforced by the focus of the overlay on safety objectives. Mr Fox highlighted the distinction between Bushfire Prone Areas (BPA’s) prepared for the purposes of the Building Regulations and WMO under the Planning Scheme. BPA’s will generally be more extensive and are directed at ensuring that dwellings are constructed to be resistant to heavy ember attack from wildfires. The WMO provides performance based planning provisions to address land management issues relating to water supply, siting of buildings, vehicle access, and vegetation cover in high fire intensity areas and are intended to have more limited application. This position is endorsed by the Panel. It was noted that the CFA is a referral authority for subdivision applications that create a road, and this will allow land management issues to be addressed for most subdivisions. It appears that the system is appropriate except that Building and Planning requirements do not appear to address the issue of water supply requirements in BPA’s without reticulated water or land management issues for houses constructed on existing lots. Consideration should be given to whether promotion of good practice is adequate in these circumstances or whether specific approval to address these issues is warranted. The Panel was advised that the CFA intends to identify to Council the applications for which referral is sought and provide a general endorsement for other applications which will be considered as meeting CFA requirements. Such a general endorsement suggests that referral requirements could be refined in the future. The Scheme includes a policy (clause 22.20) which highlights the need to identify high fire risk areas and fire protection outcomes. Those areas have been identified in BPA’s and the proposed WMO. The SPPF and MSS both reference key CFA guideline documents which provides for their consideration in relevant planning applications such as subdivision applications, and Section 2 uses. It is also commented that a policy cannot trigger a permit and programs other than the Planning Scheme are likely to be more effective to promote good land management practice in BPA’s generally. The policy focus on subdivision and particular uses is reasonable but could be edited to remove the extensive repetition. The Panel recommends that prior to adoption of the Scheme: a WMO be developed in consultation with the CFA and should be based on CFA Fire Intensity mapping with consideration given to the effect of poor access and areas surrounded by high intensity fire potential prior to adoption of the Scheme;

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

the need to require the provision of adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes in Bushfire Prone Areas (under the Building Regulations) without reticulated water be investigated; and after adoption of the Scheme: the CFA develop a clear policy regarding referral applications it considers meets its requirements with consideration of review of referral requirements.

1.2.9 Flooding Flooding problems arise in a number of locations in the municipality. The Rural Floodway Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay have been applied. Strong criticism has been directed at the incomplete mapping, inaccuracies and failure to use appropriate zonings and overlays available. Clearly, overlays for flooding based on property boundaries rather than water levels (ie. contours) is nonsensical. The Council advised that available information had been used and that further mapping and control would be carried out when the Floodplain Management Authority had completed detailed investigations. On a state- wide basis detailed flood mapping at Macedon is not scheduled for some years due to more urgent state-wide priorities. This leaves an unsatisfactory situation where issue of building permits is possible in known flooding areas. Mr Crapper (an engineer involved in flood planning) advised of a house currently being constructed at Darraweit Guim, where floodwaters had reached a metre high in 1975, graphically illustrating the problem. The Panel considers that it is preferable that slightly inaccurate zones and overlays be applied than houses are built in flood situations or without proper consideration in inundation situations. It was also evident that accredited information such as the Woodend Township Drainage Study by Coomes was available but not used. In another cases information collated by the previous municipalities, preliminary FPMA advice, Report on Flood of May 1974 Maribyrnong River Basin-MMBW, Camp Scott & Furphy report 1974, contour s and the like should provide a sound basis for interim control until detailed studies are complete. Since the hearing the Council have submitted to the Panel additional information suitable to form the basis for zones and overlays. Some owners may be aggrieved that their property may have unwarranted liabilities requirements to apply for planning approval placed on it but this is preferable to the alternative which does not allow evaluation of flooding issues. Another submitter, Ms Pruneau, provided evidence of situations where overland flow occurred and use of the Special Building Overlay was advisable. Use of the Overlay in areas subject to residential development is appropriate if the relevant information is confirmed. The Panel recommends that the SBO be applied to areas with adequate documentation of overland flows. The Urban Floodway Zone (UFZ) has not been used presumably, as information available does not provide sufficient detail to differentiate between use of UFZ and LSIO. This situation will be rectified when detailed studies are complete. Until detail studies are available the Panel is satisfied that the RFO and LSIO will provide sufficient protection. The Panel recommends that after detailed studies of flooding have been concluded by the CMA, the UFZ be incorporated into the Scheme in appropriate urban situations.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

The RFO has been placed over sections of the Campaspe River and based on the previous Shire of Woodend and Newham information, an LSIO has been placed in the vicinity of Woodend. Information was provided by some submitters to the Panel of the inaccuracies in defining the boundaries of these overlays based on local knowledge of flooding characteristics. Whilst detailed information is not available from the CMA, information from other related studies is available which can be used until such time as detailed flooding studies have been completed. This will allow protection against construction of housing in flood areas. Since the hearing, the Shire has collated additional information including that from the CPA on rural and urban flooding, correction of errors in marking the RFO and known flood areas. The RFO has been loosely utilised in the new Scheme. The CMA has identified additional areas of flooding along the Campaspe River. Incorrect RFO's were identified by Mr Crapper and subsequently confirmed by Council. The Panel recommends that the RFO be extended to areas along the Campaspe River and at Gisborne as detailed by the FPMA and that incorrectly marked areas be deleted. The LSIO in the vicinity of Woodend follows the previous Rural “A” (Lowland) Zone and follow property boundaries. Conversion has caused concern by a number of submitters, as land clearly not subject to flooding has been included in an LSIO. The Panel believes that use of the LSIO is the most appropriate method of providing interim protection until such time as a detailed CMA report is available. Since the hearing the Council has collated plans of areas known to be subject to flooding. The Panel recommends that areas of known flooding be placed in a LSIO subject to: use of previous flood information, reports and reliable documentation; a check of information against contour plans; and a review of the LSIO when detailed flood information is available. The Panel also recommends that the current application of the LSIO be checked against contour plans and obvious anomalies removed. The use of the Special Building Overlay (SBO) in the context of flooding was raised at the hearing. The submission of Ms Prueau highlighted the problem of localised flooding in areas proposed for residential development. The Panel supports the concern that a Special Building Overlay is required to address the problem and to overcome problems in the future. The Panel recommends that areas of likely development, known to be subject to overland flow and the potential for drainage problems, be investigated and Special Building Overlays be applied by way of a future amendment and that such action take place prior to any subdivision.

1.2.10 Calder Freeway The significance of the Calder Freeway as a planning issue is some what diminished now that the route has been finalised. However, the impact of the route and construction still requires consideration in the new Scheme in terms of land use. Surprisingly, little attention is paid to this issue in the new Scheme for that part of the Shire where the freeway is not yet contructed (ie. north of Gisborne).

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

The profile of the Shire in the MSS (clause 21.2) recognises that “the location of the Calder Highway and the development which has been promoted by its use and upgrading have led to impacts on the Shire’s environmental features”. The route is also briefly mentioned as a Key Issue and Trend in the “pressure for urban growth has and will continue to occur in urban centres within the Calder Freeway corridor…”. This does not address however the impacts on local land use and tenement patterns in close proximity to the route. Council’s approach to the Calder would also be enhanced by adopting a position on the route of the Freeway and therefore providing more direction for planning. This issue was demonstrated by a number of submitters with holdings on the eastern edge of Woodend between the urban area and the foothills of Mount Macedon. Land that both appeared and was zoned rural has been split by the route of the Woodend by-pass. This has created access problems for rural activities on the land as well as creating smaller holdings that are even less suitable for rural activities than they were before. The Woodend, Macedon and Kyneton Township Local Policies recognise that the by-pass will form a new edge to the township and provide a future direction for the expansion of the urban area but it is not supported in the application of strategic directions and land use controls. Issues that need to be addressed include town entrances, service facilities, urban boundaries, fragmentation of rural land, built form, views and buffer ‘zones’. These issues could be addressed in a Local Policy. It is the Panel’s opinion that Council has failed to address this issue in any detail in the new Scheme and has not nominated any constraints and opportunities that the freeway route presents. The Structure Plans for the future development of Woodend, Macedon and Kyneton cannot be considered complete until this issue has been addressed. Apart from recognising the issue, Council does not state any intentions to study the issue except for an area “for investigation” in the Woodend Structure Plan. The Panel recommends that prior to adoption of the Scheme, Council prepare a Local Policy to address the impacts and issues surrounding the Calder Freeway route through the Shire. The Policy should include guidelines for development for land in proximity of the freeway route.

1.2.11 Catchments/water supply A significant area of the Shire forms part of water catchment areas encompassing both public and private land. The importance of protection of the catchment has given appropriate credence in the MSS. The Effluent Disposal and Water Quality Local Policy (clause 22.08-01), the ERZ in some instances, and the ESO (Schedule 4) are the tools used by Council to address this issue. A number of authorities have an interest in the protection of the catchment to preserve water quality. Included are North Central Catchment Management Authority, Goulburn Murray Water, Western Water, Southern Rural Water, Port Phillip Catchment Management Board and Coliban Water. The large number of authorities having an interest in various catchments could create problems in administering catchment based issues. It will be highly desirable that protocols, procedures and policies be developed to simplify administration.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

ESO4 has been placed to assist protection of the catchment of water supply reservoirs. The catchments contain a mixture of public and private land and in some cases the catchment is predominantly private land. Consequently the risk of contamination is greater and a high level of management is desirable. Extensive areas of the municipality are covered by the overlay, but it appears that considerable modification and extension is required to ensure coverage of all catchments. The Scheme maps appear to cover some gazetted areas but does not cover the catchments as shown on the water authorities maps. The Eppalock catchment and Campaspe Reservoir Catchments in particular do not appear to be covered. As discussed in other sections of this report, a state-wide approach to catchment management is desirable. Western Water outlined the problems of water contamination and tabled a report by Australian Water Technologies (1998) pointing out the high risks of contamination by nutrients, sediment and pathogenic organisms. The need for strong approach to catchment management and for a uniform approach across the state was submitted. Western Water recommends an Environmental Rural Zone (ERZ) and an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) over private land in proclaimed catchments. This matter has been discussed in other Panels where it has been suggested that a new VPP overlay specifically directed at the protection of water quality in proclaimed catchments, rather than the use of both the ERZ and ESO may be the appropriate tool. Such an overlay would need to provide for control of land use as well as land management and vegetation protection to meet planning objectives. The explicit focus of such an overlay may lessen concerns of landowners opposed to use of the ERZ. The Panel believes that of the mechanisms currently available in the VPP’s, the ERZ supported by an ESO provide the most appropriate control, but is reluctant to recommend such a change without full notification of affected parties. In these circumstances the measures proposed are considered satisfactory until a consistent approach has been adopted on a state-wide basis. Water supply has not been raised as an issue in the planning scheme but references to the annual need for water restrictions in Woodend and Gisborne was made at the hearing. At the hearing Western Water representatives commented that there were some problems with quantities of water available, which they believed could be overcome. Water supply was not generally regarded at this stage as a constraint to urban growth in the same context as the infrastructure needed to provide it (ie. water mains). The issue of water supply and the capacity of catchments and water storages should be addressed as part of the strategic review of population growth. ESO4 has been placed to assist protection of the catchment of water supply reservoirs. The catchments contain a mixture of public and private land and in some cases the catchment is predominantly private land. Consequently the risk of contamination is greater and a high level of management is desirable. Extensive areas of the municipality are covered by the overlay, but it appears that considerable modification and extension is required to ensure coverage of all catchments. The Scheme maps appear to cover some gazetted areas but does not cover the catchments as shown on the water authorities maps. The Eppalock catchment and Campaspe Reservoir Catchments in particular do not appear to be covered. As discussed in other sections of this report, a state-wide approach to catchment management is desirable.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Unlike some other Councils, Macedon Ranges has elected not to use an ESO over the waterways in the Shire. This issue is one that is currently being addressed at the State level for a consistent application across regional Victoria. To prepare for this eventuality, references to “watercourses” in ESO4 should be deleted, leaving that Schedule to deal specifically with water catchments. The Panel recommends that: the DoI develop a consistent state-wide approach to water catchments and investigate the addition of an overlay to address land use and management issues in water supply catchments; when a consistent approach to proclaimed catchment management has been developed, that the catchment areas be reviewed in conjunction with the relevant authorities and provisions be introduced to the Scheme by way of amendment; and land capability studies be added as reference documents to this overlay.

1.2.12 Mount Macedon Mount Macedon is a prominent feature in the Shire and the new Scheme provides a package of provisions which recognise its significance and provide an acceptable, albeit multi layered, planning framework. These include: the prominent position of Planning Policy No.8 in the LPPF which highlights the importance of protecting the locality and limiting development; specific recognition of the importance of protecting landscape and cultural heritage significance in the MSS objectives, strategies, implementation and strategic framework plan, and in the Local Policies, particularly the 22.02 Townships Policy and supporting structure plan; and the use of the following overlays: Landscape Significance Overlay – Ranges (LSO1), Heritage Overlay (HO), ESO4 Water Quality and Catchments, Restructure Overlay (RO 10) and the Wildfire Management Overlay proposed since exhibition. Ms. Pruneau and others suggested that the Environmental Rural Zone should be applied rather than the RUZ and LDRZ exhibited for these sensitive areas. Ms Preneau also suggested that the SLO should be applied more widely to protect landscape values within the whole of the policy area, including protection of views from Mount Macedon. The Panel acknowledges that the variety of planning controls necessary to achieve an appropriate level of protection of this sensitive area point to an environmentally based underlying zoning and the ERZ is the only such zone available in the VPP. The Panel has recommended that, under current VPP provisions, catchments should be zoned ERZ supported by an ESO. The Panel as commented that the DoI should provide further guidance regarding the circumstances where the use of the ERZ is considered justified to achieve some consistency across the State. The recognition of residential areas where environmental values are significant was addressed by the VPP Advisory Committee consideration of the need for a Residential Conservation Zone. That Advisory Committee came to the view that overlays and policies could achieve objectives to protect environmental values which is the approach adopted in the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme. The use of overlays has the advantage of

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

identifying the key issues relevant to specific areas and the planning tools applied do achieve a planning framework which meets planning objectives and clearly signals the sensitivity of the area. Although the LDRZ subdivision decision guidelines require consideration of environmental issues, there is a perception that specific promotion of more intensive subdivision in the zone could undermine the weight given to these issues. The absence of a schedule to the zone which would clearly indicate limitations on subdivision opportunities in particular areas, has resulted in more extensive application of the Restructure Overlay than would otherwise be necessary. There is also an argument for recognising the primary planning intentions to protect environmental values in some areas through zoning as is the case with the ERZ. The Panel recommends that: more extensive use of the ERZ be considered as part of the first review of the planning scheme; DOI provide further guidance regarding circumstances where the use of the ERZ is justified to achieve a consistent approach; and consider including a schedule to the LDRZ to address subdivision issues in that zone. DPO15 379 – 383 Mt. Macedon Rd, Mt. Macedon has been applied in recognition of a site specific provision in Clause 6 (page 115) of the existing Scheme which allows a restaurant and dwelling subject to conditions. The use is discretionary in the exhibited LDRZ and the DPO is redundant. The statutory effect of conditions in the existing Scheme could be carried forward in a new permit as an interim measure prior to full development approval. It should be recognised that the LDRZ provides for wider discretion than previously existed which is consistent with the intentions of the reform process. The Panel recommends that DPO15 379 – 383 Mt. Macedon Road, Mt. Macedon be deleted and a new permit be issued to carry forward existing Planning Scheme conditions, if necessary.

1.2.13 Restructuring of lots The MSS only provides a basis for restructure provisions in the Scheme near Woodend and which relate to Macedon and Mt. Macedon. (clause 21.7-1). However, there is some inconsistency between the areas identified in the objectives and implementation sections of that clause. The Macedon and Mount. Macedon sections of Clause 22.02 Townships Policy provide further support for the implementation of restructure plans. PP No.8 clearly intends to limit development in the Macedon–Mt Macedon area. The revised LPPF included a translation of PP No8 in the Policy 22/01 Macedon Ranges and Surrounds (with a revised heading format), except that a section Restructure Overlay area was inserted. The section inserted does not make sense. It refers to tables which are not attached and includes prescriptive requirements which appear to have been omitted from the schedule to the overlay and are not appropriate in the context of this policy. The copy of the Scheme which corrected identified errors and was forwarded to the Panel after the hearing, relocated that section of the policy to the Restructure Overlay schedules RO10 and RO11. Evaluation of the RO will focus on the latest version available to the Panel as it has been argued that the RO does not introduce new controls but merely seeks to preserve existing

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

provisions. The Panel is not familiar with the specific conditions in each instance and has generally focused on the form of translation of the existing provisions. The VPP Manual indicates that restructure plans should be incorporated documents because they control whether or not a permit can be considered. The Panel recommends that RO plans be included as incorporated documents. The RO was applied to 11 areas in the exhibited Scheme and Council’s submission proposed the addition of another area at Monegeetta. Each of these areas is discussed below. RO1 Ellandee Crescent, Macedon proposes to create 40 lots from 84. The existing lots, houses, and restructure lots are shown. The annotation ND on lot 231 should be shown in the legend, alternatively, if it is intended to indicate that the building envelope is to be located on lot 21A, the building envelope could be shown. RO2 Montague Street, Macedon (Argyle Street Estate) proposes to create 8 lots from 31. Existing and restructured lots are shown, together with road closures. RO3 Zig Zag Rd, Mt Macedon (Bounty Rd Estate) proposes to create 9 lots from 21. The existing lots, houses, lots in common ownership and restructure lots are clearly identified. RO4 Bent St, Macedon (Macedon Downes Estate) proposes to create 51 lots from 107. The existing lots (at 7/3/79), houses, areas identified as not suited to development, and area subject to investigation and restructure lots are clearly shown. RO5 Macedon South West (Moyne Estate) proposes to create 11 lots from 38. The existing lots, road closures, and restructure lots are shown. It is assumed that the closure of Jackson St is sold to the adjoining lots outside the restructure area. The reason for identifying some restructure lots with letters and others with numbers is unclear. RO6 Crombie Rd , Macedon (Haig St Estate) proposes to create 10 lots from 37. The existing lots, houses, road closures, a drainage area and restructure lots are shown. Common ownership appears to be shown but is not included in the legend. RO7 Shone & Shultz Restructure, Riddells Creek proposes to create 6 lots with a minimum area of 20 hectares from more than 200 lots. The existing lots and restructure lots are shown. RO8 Cherokee Township Restructure Plan identifies the general area with a schedule which nominates specific lots and identifies the existing development and development permitted with a permit. The schedule to the plan identifies 23 lots and results in the following: extensions to 5 existing houses may be permitted; extensions to two existing houses may be permitted subject to consolidation of 5 lots and 3 lots respectively; 2 additional houses are permitted (one subject to consolidation of 3 lots); and 6 lots are identified as no further development. RO9 Braemar Park Woodend is a hand drawn plan that proposes to create six lots from more than 300 lots and has been developed by Council for exhibition in the new Scheme. The three owners are affected by the restructure with the lots shown as 1(3.2 hectare) and 3 (2 hectare) on the exhibited plan being owned by separate parties with the balance of the restructure area owned by submittor number 199. The submittor does not object to the requirement to restructure the subdivision but seeks modifications to the plan which was

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

prepared by Council without their input. The submittor seeks three additional lots resulting in a total of 9 lots with some adjustment to the exhibited lot boundaries. The rationale for the hand-drawn exhibited plan remained unclear after questions to Council at the hearing. The Panel is concerned that the inclusion of the restructure plan amounts to approval of a subdivision plan with amendment of the Scheme required to vary it, but the plan has been presented without the normal documentation. If the matter cannot be resolved prior to adoption, it should be included in the first amendment to allow independent review based on adequate information. The Panel is not in a position to design the restructure plan but makes the following comments as the basis for further review of the plan prior to adoption of the Scheme: The size of the balance lot should be maximised. It is reasonable to provide separate lots for the existing houses. It may be possible to include an existing house in lot seven proposed in Mr. Viny’s submission to the Panel hearing which would result in a total of 8 lots in the restructure area. The Panel recommends that the Braemar Park Restructure Plan be reviewed prior to adoption of the Scheme. RO10 and RO11 Mt. Macedon and Gisborne Restructure Areas included tables of lots with various annotations without any introductory clause indicating the meaning of the abbreviations. Since the Panel hearing, Council has forwarded revisions to the ordinance. The revisions include Clauses 57,57 and 58 of the Gisborne chapter of the existing Scheme and allow interpretation of the schedules to those clauses which have been translated as a restructure overlay in the exhibited Scheme. The application of controls to nominated properties in the schedule is summarised in the table below.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

SUMMARY OF RO10 & RO11 SITE SPECIFIC SCHEDULE CONTROLS CONTROL NO. BUILDING NO. EXISTING COMMENT ENTITLE- LOTS MENTS AFFECTED “H” One house 696 696 Address by general provision rather than listing permitted individual properties “Special Investigation - - None identified –delete Area” “HSC” house permitted 31 66 Most consolidation of 2 lots into 1 lot, with 4 X subject to consolidation 3 lot consolidations and 1x4 lot; of lots 53 Childers Rd has been consolidated and should be in the “H” category

H(2), H(3), H(x) etc. 76 91 (21 entries) Some existing lots already consolidated or have consolidation of subdivision potential. identified lots into (x) H(9) 2 ha minimum lot size new lots H(20) 1 balance lot min 38 ha and remainder with access from Howey St. “ND” Not to be 63 - developed for a house of listed use unless consolidated with adjoining “NFH” No further 132 348 In 5 instances the lots were already house than existed on consolidated – “H” could apply instead 13/8/1980 Minimum lot size as - - Unnecessary – delete per underlying zone Where land is not - - Retain as a general provision referred to in the schedules, subdivision must not create additional lots

These provisions have been in place since 1980 and were subject to review under Amendment L5. The complete absence of submissions relating to the provisions suggest that they are well accepted in the community. The absence of plans indicating the location of limitations has not allowed the Panel to evaluate the actual requirements in any way. The Panel accepts that the objectives of the development limitations identified in the restructure areas are consistent with PP No 8 and are the result of detailed, site specific evaluation. Thus the maintenance of these provisions in the new Scheme is generally endorsed but the following comments are made regarding the redrafted Scheme provisions: The two storey height limit which applies throughout these restructure areas (a translation of the existing requirement) was not included in the exhibited Scheme and therefore the basis for it was not discussed at the hearing. The prescriptive nature of the control is not consistent with reform principles that would suggest a more performance basis for considering built form. The RO would require an amendment for any variation although there may well be circumstances where three storeys would not compromise the unspecified planning objectives for the area. Planning objectives are not identified in the RO schedule format. The two storey limit is probably largely directed at the protection of landscape values and should be

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

addressed in the SLO which also applies to most of the Macedon township (but not Gisborne) and is designed for the purpose. Reference is made to “Special Investigation Areas” are unnecessary as they are not identified elsewhere in the overlay schedule. The schedule identifies 696 lots where a house may be constructed without the requirement for any lot restructuring. Assuming that all lots in the restructure areas have been identified and evaluated, a general provision that lots within the RO which are not identified in the table to the schedule may be developed for a house (subject to a permit), would be more concise and significantly reduce the existing bulk of the 30 page table to the schedule. Alternatively, the extent of the overlay should be reviewed to remove properties without any restructure requirements to avoid the administrative load of unnecessary planning applications. Landscape issues should be addressed by the appropriate overlay. It is recognised that the removal of those areas from the overlay would provide greater flexibility in considering development proposals which would be a shift from the current regime. It is not necessary to indicate that the lot size applicable to the underlying zone applies. The interpretation of the schedule would be assisted by representing the requirements on a plan or plans. The Panel recommends that in relation to RO 10 and RO 11: the two storey hight limit be deleted and built form to protect landscape values in the area be addressed through performance based provisions in the relevant SLO; the reference to “Special Investigation Areas” be deleted; a general provision indicate that only one house is permitted on a lot except where lot restructuring or other development constraints are identified in the table to the schedule; consideration be given to removing the RO from properties without any restructure requirements; delete the sub clause indicating that the lot size in the underlying zone applies; and prepare a plan showing restructure requirements prior to the scheduled review of the Scheme. RO 12 Monegeetta is a new RO proposed for an old subdivision on the north west corner of the Gilmour-Kilmore and Melbourne-Lancefield Roads. The plan shown in the revised schedule to the zone submitted after the hearing delineates the area but does not indicate the form of re-subdivision envisaged. This is an acceptable mechanism that prevents any development prior to the approval of a restructure plan. An annotation on the schedule plan should indicate that a restructure plan to be approved by amendment of the Scheme to clarify that a single lot is not necessarily the restructure outcome sought.

1.2.14 Industrial areas Overall, the Shire has only a small industrial sector but it provides an important source of local employment. Kyneton has the largest industrial area in the Shire situated to the north of the township and includes such activities as saleyards and abattoir. With the proposed

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Kyneton by-pass, the majority of the industrial area will be to the north of the freeway which will provide a convenient buffer to the rest of the town. It also creates the opportunity to promote this location for industrial development and this is recognised in the Kyneton Structure Plan and supported by the application of the IN1Z. Kyneton will remain the key focus for industrial development, and in particular ‘heavy’ industry, in the Shire. Other industrial areas in the Shire tend to be small isolated pockets that reflect the historical and current land use rather than targetted for large-scale industrial development. Gisborne has an area of industrial zoned land to the north of the freeway and adjacent to New Gisborne and is not mentioned in the Structure Plan for the town. Woodend has a small industrial area entrenched within the urban area of the town. The Structure Plan indicates that the appearance of this area should be improved but there is no indication that expansion in this location or any other within the town is desirable. The story is similar for Riddells Creek, Romsey, Lancefield, Macedon and Mount Macedon where the objectives for the future character of these towns is based on residential amenity and lifestyle which are perceived by many to be incongruous with industrial development. This places the Shire’s strategic objectives in conflict in the sense that on one hand there is a desire for economic development, which includes industrial activities, yet there is a clear message in the new Scheme that lifestyle characteristics that attract people to the area should be protected. The Panel is satisfied that the Scheme achieves a balance between these two outcomes by relegating industrial activity to a more minor role in economic development (with the exception of Kyneton) with more emphasis on the tertiary sector. The Panel notes that there are no local controls for industry proposed in the new Scheme other than general references in Structure Plans for various towns. This is acceptable in all places with the exception of Kyneton which is identified as a major industrial focus. The Kyneton Structure Plan provides some guidance for development in the town’s industrial area but more detail would be desirable, particularly if heavy industries are targetted. The Panel recommends that Council prepare a Local Policy for the Kyneton Industrial Area.

1.2.15 Commercial areas Each of the towns in the Shire has a commercial sector more or less commensurate with the size of the population they service. Towns closer to Melbourne such as Gisborne, Romsey and Riddells Creek are probably slightly under serviced because of the influence of the metropolitan area which compensates for many commercial activities. Kyneton and Woodend certainly have a more comprehensive range of commercial services offered to residents in the town and surrounding area. The strategic emphasis in the new Scheme is one of consolidating existing commercial centres in the towns rather than expansion. This consolidation will result in more cohesive centres and assist in retaining the character and form of the towns which is recognised as one their main attributes. This is particularly applicable to Kyneton which has an extremely disjointed commercial centre. One issue in Kyneton is that relating to supermarkets. Council has opted for the straight translation of the existing commercial zone to B1Z in this town on the basis that it intends reviewing the Kyneton Retail Strategy (1991) and using the

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

outcomes as a basis of an amendment to the Scheme if necessary. The Panel was provided with a report entitled Kyneton Supermarket Site Options (1998) which recommended a site between Baynton and Jennings Streets. The preferred future for the commercial centres is detailed in the Structure Plans prepared for each town and included in the MSS as Local Policies. These areas are supported by use of the B1Z. In many cases the commercial centres include a number of heritage items which contribute to the streetscape of towns and a are a major contributor to town character. The Panel supports Council’s approach to commercial centres.

1.3 Overall assessment The objective of the new format Planning Schemes is to establish a strong strategic basis for the future planning of the municipality. The Schemes are intended to be more flexible than their predecessors but they must also give clear direction for land use and development in the municipality. The Panel’s response to the new Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme is in two halves. The first part is the revised MSS which is now well presented. It provides a concise overview of the Shire and the key planning issues that need to be addressed as well as placing the Scheme in the context of State planning objectives as well as Council’s own Corporate goals and vision for the future. The strategic directions are grouped under broad headings and are easy to follow and comprehend as to why they are included and how they are to be addressed. The LPPF also provides a list of reference material that has been referred to in the preparation of the strategic directions. However, the MSS has a major flaw in that fundamental strategic planning issues regarding the extent of growth to be accommodated in the shire and where growth should be directed has not been tackled in the new Scheme. This important gap and the need for further work is acknowledged in the MSS. The second part is the means of implementing the MSS. This includes the Local Policies and the tools provided by the VPP’s to prepare a new format Scheme. This half is a major disappointment and in parts, fails in its attempts to implement the strategic directions. The gap between the ‘strategy’ and the ‘tools’ has become even greater since the MSS was rewritten. This become clear to the Panel over the course of hearing submissions and making its assessment of the Scheme. It appears to the Panel that many of the Scheme’s shortcomings were derived from a lack of commitment by Council to allocate the necessary resources to the task and provide leadership during the preparation phase of the Scheme. The result of this is a Scheme that very much appears to have been cobbled together and is error ridden. The lack of attention to detail in the Scheme presented to the Council was disappointing and highlighted by a 100 page plus submission from a local resident that largely consisted of the identification of technical errors. The lack of cohesiveness in the Scheme is exacerbated by the admission of Council that the Scheme is essentially a translation of existing zones and provisions, despite there being a clear direction from the DoI that new Schemes were not to be prepared on this basis. Despite some Council’s believing that a translation of existing planning provisions is the cheapest and provides the course of least resistance to a new Scheme, it is the Panel’s experience that direct translation of existing provisions into the VPP format, often results in

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

an unwieldy document with poor links between objectives, strategies and implementation. Given the absence of a strategic basis of the new scheme and the extent of technical errors, the Panel considered the option of re-exhibition of the Scheme. However, correction of errors and a clear commitment to undertake the necessary strategic planning work, can reach a standard adequate for adoption. The major shortcomings of the new Scheme can be summarised as follows: Lack of comprehensive public consultation for the revised MSS (ie. public meetings, widely distributed pamphlets). The absence of a strategic planning basis which treats the municipality as a whole rather than perpetuating the planning regimes of the former municipalities. Scheme is based on a direct translation of existing provisions rather than the strategic directions in the MSS and existing strategic planning documents. General lack of cohesion between strategies and local policies, zones and overlays. Extensive mapping errors, particularly with overlays and lack of detail on maps themselves. Almost incomprehensible subdivision provisions and dwelling entitlements in rural zones. Appearance that identification of further planning work is a ‘wish list’ rather than any firm commitment by Council. Exclusion of the WMO in one of the highest fire risk areas in the State. Failure to adequately address flooding and apply appropriate controls. Superfluous Local Policies that are either non-specific or are repetitive of other sections of the Scheme such as the SPPF. The Panel has identified other errors but these can be remedied either prior to adoption or the first review of the Scheme, depending on the recommendation. In its current format, the Panel does not regard the new Scheme as a significant improvement over the existing Scheme. However, the implementation of the Panel recommendations should provide an adequate interim document while the appropriate strategic planning work is undertaken.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

2. RESPONSE TO TERMS OF REFERENCE This part of the report contains the Advisory Committee’s response to the form and content of the Scheme.

2.1 Consistency with Form and Content Requirements 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; The Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme has been prepared generally in accordance with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The exhibited Scheme was prepared prior to the review of the Victoria Planning Provisions (that resulted in Amendment V3 and revision of Ministerial Directions) and this has led to a number of anomalies with the current requirements. Council has attempted to address this issue and other anomalies in the Scheme by firstly tendering a revised LPPF to the Panel at the hearing and secondly preparing a complete modified Scheme (the “revised Scheme”) afterwards. Neither of these amended documents has been subjected to a complete public exhibition process although the revised MSS has been before the Committee created by Council to address submissions on the Scheme and advertised in local newspapers. Consequently, the Panel’s assessment in this section is principally of the exhibited although the Panel has taken into account the amendments in its assessment and recommendations where relevant. An assessment of the Scheme against the requirements of Ministerial Direction 7(5) is undertaken below.

MINISTERIAL DIRECTION COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING SCHEME 2 A Planning Scheme or Planning Scheme Presentation appears to be generally in amendment must be prepared and presented in accordance with Annexure 1 of the Direction. accordance with the style sheet set out in Scheme is generally written in plain English. Annexure 1 and written in plain English. 3 A Planning Scheme must include a title page of No title page in exhibited or revised Scheme. the Planning Scheme and the following parts of Insert title page. the Victoria Planning Provisions in the same order: Objectives of planning in Victoria. Compliant Purposes of this Planning Scheme. Compliant Contents (modified to indicate only those Contents of MSS absent but included in revised zones and overlays included in the Planning Scheme. Scheme). Zone contents amended in revised Scheme to reflect changes to Scheme. IPO and AEO included in contents for exhibited Scheme but correctly deleted from revised Scheme. Errors in use of subheadings for overlays corrected in revised Scheme.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

MINISTERIAL DIRECTION COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING SCHEME User guide. Compliant Clauses 11-19 (inclusive), 31 (if a Planning Compliant Scheme includes a zone clause), 41 (if a Planning Scheme includes an overlay clause), 51-52 (inclusive), 61-67 (inclusive), 71-74 (inclusive) and 81. List of amendments to the Planning Scheme. Compliant 4 A Planning Scheme must not include any zone or It is assumed by the Panel that zone and overlay overlay clause other than a zone or overlay clause provisions in the exhibited and revised Schemes selected from the Victoria Planning Provisions. were taken verbatim from the VPP’s. Council should proof read the Scheme carefully prior to submission for gazettal, to ensure that this requirement is met. 5 If a provision from the Victoria Planning See above. Provisions is required to be included or selected for inclusion in a Planning Scheme, the entire provision or clause (including all sub-clauses) must be included in the Planning Scheme in the same form (without modification) following the same sequence and using the same clause numbers as in the Victoria Planning Provisions. 6 Each page of any local provision in a Planning Compliant Scheme must be identified by a LOCAL PROVISION page header in the format set out in Annexure 3. This does not apply to the title page and the contents pages. A local provision (other than the title page) must include: The name of the Planning Scheme in a Absent in revised Scheme. header. Insert header. The name of the local provision, the date it Absent in revised Scheme. came into operation and a page number in a Insert footer. footer. 7 If a Planning Scheme includes a provision with a Many schedules are non-compliant or absent in schedule, the schedule must be included in the the exhibited Scheme due to the influence of V3. Planning Scheme. The schedule must be These have been addressed in the revised included as a local provision on a separate page Scheme, but the following errors remain: immediately following the clause or provision to Requirements for dams in the Schedule to which it relates. The schedule must be in a the RUZ are non-compliant. format set out in Annexure 2 and must include any details or information indicated in the clause Delete “none specified”. or provision as being mandatory. If no information is to be included in the schedule the Schedule 5 to the SUZ is missing clauses 3, words “None specified” must be included where 4 and 5. appropriate to make the intent clear. Italicised Insert clauses 3,4 and 5. words in the schedules in this Direction either prompt a response or give guidance to the Schedule 7 to the DPO is missing clauses 2 completion of the schedule. and 3.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

MINISTERIAL DIRECTION COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING SCHEME Insert clauses 2 and 3. Schedule to cl.52.05-5 is absent. Insert schedule to clause 52.05-5. Schedule to clauses 61.01 – 61.04 should state Macedon Ranges Council in first two lines. Insert “Macedon Ranges Council”. 8 Any schedule which includes a requirement to Compliant describe land may use a map or maps to describe areas of land. The maps must be described as ‘Map number to the Schedule to clause number’. 9 A Planning Scheme must not include a schedule Compliant for any provision for which a schedule is not provided in the Victoria Planning Provisions (as set out in Annexure 2). 10 Any schedule which contains a Table of uses The SUZ with five schedules has been used in (such as a Special Use Zone) must: the Scheme. The CDZ and CCZ have not been used in the Scheme. Not contain any provision which is Compliant inconsistent with State planning policy as expressed in the State Planning Policy Framework. Be consistent in format with the Table of List of uses should be in bold text. uses for a zone in the Victoria Planning Provisions. Include “Mineral exploration” in Section 1. Non-compliant in schedules 1 to 4. Include “Mining” in Section 1 with the Non-compliant in schedules 1 to 4. condition, “Must meet the conditions of Clause 52.08”. Include “Search for stone” in Section 1 with Non-compliant in schedules 1 to 4. the condition, “Must not be costeaning or bulk sampling”. Include “Mining - if the Section 1 condition Non-compliant in schedules 1 to 4. is not met” in Section 2. Include “Search for stone - if the Section 1 Non-compliant in schedules 1 to 4. condition is not met” in Section 2. Rectify schedules 1 to 4.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

MINISTERIAL DIRECTION COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING SCHEME 11 A Planning Scheme must include a schedule to Compliant clause 52.28 which gives the name, locality and land description of any shopping complex specified in Annexure 4 within the area covered by the Planning Scheme. A Planning Scheme must not include in a schedule to Clause 52.28 a shopping complex which is not specified in Annexure 4 to this Direction. If the area covered by the Planning Scheme does not include a shopping complex specified in Annexure 4, the schedule must state “None specified”. 12 If a Planning Scheme includes land in a Special Compliant Use Zone for the purpose of recognising or providing for the use and development of the land for Extractive industry, the Planning Scheme must include the schedule set out in Annexure 5. 13 A Planning Scheme may only include land in a Council should confirm boundaries with the Public Use Zone, a Public Park and Recreation DNRE and other public land managers in the Zone or a Public Conservation and Resource municipality prior to submission of Scheme for Zone if the land is Crown land, or is owned by, gazettal. vested in or controlled by a Minister, government department, public authority or municipal council. 14 A Planning Scheme must include a List of Compliant amendments to the Planning Scheme which lists the amendment number, the date from which the amendment operates and a brief description of the amendment. The List of amendments must be in the format set out in Annexure 6. 15 If a Planning Scheme includes land in a City Link Not applicable. Project Overlay, the Planning Scheme must incorporate Melbourne City Link Project – Advertising Locations Reference Number 6v.024, dated 20/10/95, by including it in the Schedule to Clause 81. 16 If a Planning Scheme includes land in an Airport Although indicated in the contents page to the Environs Overlay, the Planning Scheme must exhibited Scheme, the AEO has not been used. include either one or both of the schedules set out Error corrected in revised Scheme by deleting in Annexure 2 and must incorporate Australian from the contents page. Standard AS 2021-1994, Acoustics - Aircraft Noise Intrusion - Building Siting and Construction, issued by the Standards Association of Australia by including it in the Schedule to Clause 81. 17 A road which is a declared road under the Council should confirm with Vicroads that all Transport Act 1983 must be shown as a Road declared roads are correctly identified. Zone - Category 1 on the Planning Scheme maps.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

How does the Planning Scheme take into account the Ministerial Directions under Section 12 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987? There are a number of Ministerial Directions that Council must take account of in the preparation of the new Scheme. Council has not addressed this question in its submission to the Panel. Ministerial Direction No. 1 – Potentially Contaminated Land Since the Panel hearing, Council has provided the Panel with an explanation as to the land affected by this Ministerial Direction. There are a number of known contaminated sites in the Shire and these are recorded in a Contaminated Sites Register as well as a number on the State register. The Ministers Direction and the EAO requirements are only instigated when a potentially contaminated site is proposed to be used for “sensitive uses” either by application for a permit or request for amendment. The approach taken at other Panel hearings is that if a potentially contaminated site is zoned so as not to allow “sensitive uses” then the application of the EAO is unnecessary. If a site is zoned such that it permits the use of the land for “sensitive uses” (either by permit or as-of-right), then the EAO should be implemented and the Ministers Direction complied with. The Panel recommends that Council apply the EAO to all known potentially contaminated sites that permit the use of land for “sensitive uses” as defined in Ministerial Direction No. 1. Ministerial Direction Nos. 6/6A – Rural Residential Development Council has advised the Panel that it has not proposed any new rural residential areas as part on the new Scheme. In addition, exemption from this Direction is justified on the basis that all zonings of a rural residential nature simply recognise existing zonings and in some instances DPO’s have been applied to prevent any increase in residential density. Other Directions Ministerial Direction No. 8 does not apply because local variations to the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing techniques have not been sought. All other Directions relate to geographic locations that are outside the municipality. Does the Planning Scheme follow the guidance of the Manual for the Victorian Planning Provisions? The purpose of the Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions is to provide information and advice to Councils preparing new format Planning Schemes. The underlying principle in the preparation of new format Schemes is for them to be based on clear strategic direction. The Manual specifically states that the new Scheme must not be a simple translation of previous controls into the new VPP format. The basis for selection of ‘new’ zones should not be the existence of the ‘old’ zones. Rather the Scheme should be the outcome of a strategic review process undertaken prior to the consideration of the Scheme’s contents. It has already been identified in this report that Council has conceded their new Scheme was predicated on a translation of existing controls. The process of translation has discounted

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

the integrity of the new Scheme and represents an opportunity lost for Council to get the Scheme ‘right’ at its beginning rather than at some future time. The Panel appreciates that the structure and content of the new format Schemes was continually evolving during the period between Scheme preparation and the Panel hearing and this has made the task more difficult. Council has recognised that the Scheme as exhibited and presented to the Panel is not totally in compliance with the State’s current requirements and some changes have been undertaken to take account of this. Most of the issues covered by the Manual are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

2.2 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) Is the LPPF and other local provisions consistent with the SPPF? The goal of the SPPF is to “ensure that the objectives for planning in Victoria are fostered through appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development.” The strategic directions in the MSS and Local Policies are generally consistent with the goal of the SPPF. Clause 21.4 of the Scheme places the MSS in the context of the SPPF and actually specifies which State Policies are relevant to the Shire and are to be taken into account in planning decision making. This is a useful inclusion and will assist in strengthening the links with the SPPF, particularly when they are at risk of being ignored in the day-to-day use of the Scheme. The assessment of the Local Policies below identifies which of those are repetitive of State Policies and should be deleted or amended to be more locally specific. While the MSS objectives for rural areas are generally consistent with the intentions of the SPPF, Council’s application of the Rural and Rural Living Zone does not reflect objectives to protect areas of high agricultural land capability. The exhibited scheme also did not reflect requirements relating to use of wildfire protection or bio-diversity mapping. The scheme could be strengthened with regard to the SPPF environmental objectives by more closely relating the Catchment Management Strategies to the Planning Scheme and fostering relationships with the authorities. Council should refer to the government publication Working Together in Catchment Management for guidance in this regard. The issue of catchment management is addressed in more detail in Section 2 of this report. The Panel recommends that the LPPF, and in particular Local Policies, be strengthened in regards to planning matters in the various catchments in the Shire and acknowledging any relevant Catchment Management Strategies.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

2.3 Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) How does the MSS further the objectives of planning in Victoria to the extent that they are applicable to the municipal district? 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? Considering the objectives of planning in Victoria and the planning authority’s objectives, are there any important omissions or inconsistencies? Does the MSS provide realistic strategies for achieving its objectives? What were the processes used in arriving at the MSS? Are there satisfactory links with the corporate plan? Are local provisions clearly expressed and written following plain English principles? There is no set format for a MSS, although guidelines for their preparation have been provided by the DoI and made available to Councils. The guidelines stipulate what a MSS should contain and that as a whole, this should express the future of the municipality in terms of strategic directions. This message should be conveyed in a clear and concise manner. The circumstances surrounding the MSS in the new Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme are unusual. The MSS that was included in the exhibited Scheme was re-written after exhibition but prior to the Panel hearing. This revised MSS was presented to the Panel at the hearing. The original MSS was subjected to a comprehensive public consultation as part of the Scheme exhibition process. The tendering of a revised MSS at the Panel hearing has confused the issue, however it is obvious from comparisons with the earlier version that it is a vast improvement. The Panel was advised that the revised MSS was only submitted to public scrutiny by notifying all those persons who submitted on the exhibited Scheme, placing advertisements in local newspapers and referring it to the Advisory Committee set up by Council to consider submissions on the Scheme. Clearly there is little point in the Panel considering the exhibited MSS now that a superior version exists. Council should be commended for recognising the shortcomings of the exhibited MSS and addressing them prior to the Panel hearing rather than tender the exhibited MSS which may have been a hindrance to the progress of the Scheme. The objectives of planning in Victoria are reflected in the SPPF section of the Scheme. The relationship of the MSS with the SPPF has already been addressed above. As stated in the overall assessment of the Scheme, the strategic section of the MSS (clause 21) identifies the issues in the Shire and provides a comprehensive strategic response to each. The overall strategic vision for the Shire is “to foster economic and cultural diversity, protect natural and cultural heritage assets and creatively enhance attractive and efficient living environments.” The content of the MSS provides a good framework from which to achieve this vision through the planning process. It recognises the development pressure at the southern end of the Shire, the significant environmental values of the Macedon Ranges, the importance of the towns and the need to keep firm control over subdivision in rural areas.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

There are however a number of shortcomings in the Scheme. These include the need for an updated Urban Growth Strategy, poorly prepared Heritage Overlay, non-sensical rural subdivision provisions, Shire-wide environment assessment upon which to base the ERZ and overlays, absence of WMO and lack of definitive flooding and salinity information. The revised MSS covers most of the major planning issues in the Shire but there remains the missing ‘link’ between the strategic focus of its contents and the balance of the Scheme which has not been subjected to the same level of review since exhibition. The MSS is structured under the following headings: Management of urban growth and development Protection of environment and landscape Facilitation of agricultural productivity Promotion of the Shire’s cultural identity and community values Facilitation of economic development and tourism The means of implementing the strategies under these headings are generally couched in terms of the planning tools available such as Local Policies, zones and overlays which are readily available and are also realistic. The MSS was initially prepared ‘in-house’ by Council’s planning staff and overseen by a Steering Committee comprising community representatives and other Council staff. Prior to the preparation of the MSS an Issues Paper identifying nine issues (“focus areas”) was prepared for community circulation and comment. These nine issues closely reflect the strategic directions in the MSS and also the planning issues identified by the Panel during the course of its assessment. The Issues Paper and the feedback gleaned from its circulation formed the basis of the MSS. However, as detailed above, this version of the MSS was subsequently re-written after it was exhibited with the Scheme. The revised MSS does however maintain the content and spirit of the original in an improved form. The Corporate Plan was prepared in 1998 and identified the following three issues as being fundamental to the community: 1. People “we want to achieve a lively and vibrant community spirit.” 2. Planning “we are committed to planning for development so it happens in a way that does not compromise the quality of life and environment we now have.” 3. Progress “we will devote energy and resources to economic development that is long term, viable and complimentary to our existing economic strengths.” The MSS is consistent with these broad objectives, and in particular to the second objective which is a direct reference to planning. Local provisions are generally clearly expressed in the MSS and written in so-called ‘plain English’. The same cannot be said for other parts of the Scheme such as rural subdivision and dwelling provisions.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

2.4 Local Policies 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 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? There are 24 Local Policies in the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme. In evaluating policies, the Panel has been conscious that the policies should: have a sound basis in the MSS; address specific issues or areas with land use outcomes; where addressing a specific issue, have a sound technical base or be justified by appropriate research/practice; not merely restate material from the SPPF, MSS, zones, overlays or general provisions; and indicate how discretion will be exercised to assist in day to day decision making. The questions above are addressed in the following table which represents an assessment and recommendations by the Panel on each of the Local Policies included in the revised Scheme.

POLICY POLICY INTENT PANEL COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION 22.01 Conservation and A sound policy of long standing. MSS recognises need for utilisation of the policy review. Restructure element that has been added should be Macedon Ranges area relocated. and Surrounds Retain – relocate restructure component 22.02 To provide for growth. A brief overview and introduction to each of the policies relating to towns. Country towns are not well catered for in Townships the SPPF. Structure Plans for individual towns need to be reviewed where reticulated sewer and water infrastructure is to be made available. Retain. Review strategies for towns and amend Structure Plans accordingly where reticulated services are to be made available in the near future. 22.02 A To protect current Good concise policy supported by excellent plan and character and reinforce references to relevant strategic documents. Gisborne commercial role. Township Retain 22.02 B To protect current Good concise policy supported by excellent plan and character and reinforce references to relevant strategic documents. Needs to Woodend commercial role. address impacts of by-pass. Township Retain and address opportunities and constraints of bypass.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

POLICY POLICY INTENT PANEL COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION 22.02 C Support industrial Good concise policy supported by excellent plan and development and references to relevant strategic documents. Kyneton consolidate commercial Township Retain activities. 22.02 Protect landscape character Good concise policy supported by excellent plan and and reinforce town centre. references to relevant strategic documents. Indicate Riddells Creek numbering in title. Township Retain and amend title. 22.02 Contain urban Good concise policy supported by excellent plan and development and protect references to relevant strategic documents. Indicate Romsey townscape. numbering in title. Township Retain and amend title. 22.02 Contain urban Good concise policy supported by excellent plan and development and protect references to relevant strategic documents. Indicate Lancefield townscape. numbering in title. Needs to address plans to sewer the Township town. Identify investigation of possible development to capitalise on trotting track on plan. Retain and amend title. Review in light of proposed sewer. 22.02 Ensure fire protection and Good concise policy supported references to relevant protect built heritage and strategic documents. Indicate numbering in title. Mount Macedon landscapes. Township Retain and consider structure plan for mountain. 22.02 Ensure fire protection and Good concise policy supported by excellent plan and protect built heritage and references to relevant strategic documents. Indicate Macedon views to Mount Macedon. numbering in title. Address plans to sewer since exhibition Township note whether provides for further development. No further development wanted anyway. Retain and amend title. 22.02 Contain urban Good concise policy supported by excellent plan and development and protect references to relevant strategic documents. Indicate Malmsbury townscape. numbering in title. Needs to take account of impending Township sewer. Retain and amend title. Review and amend in light of proposals to sewer. 22.03 Protect heritage. Given significance of heritage in the Shire, policy is appropriate. Requirement for adjoining uses to consider Heritage heritage item could only apply if a permit was required. Wishful thinking otherwise. Retain. 22.04 Economic development Adds little to the Scheme and of little use in day-to-day based on quality of Shire’s decision making. Economic environment. Development Delete.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

POLICY POLICY INTENT PANEL COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION 22.05 Encourage tourism based Adds little to State Policy for Tourism. Draws reference to on Shire’s assets. Shire’s Tourism Policy. Tourism Delete. 22.06 To protect the agricultural The policy adds little to the SPPF, MSS, zone and overlay sector of the Shire provisions. Agriculture Delete. 22.07 To provide for the The policy only relates to RLZ, its relevance to LDRZ appropriate design and should also be considered. The policy purports to manage Rural Residential location of rural residential the development of dwellings but in most instances a permit development will not be required (lots of 0.4 –1.0 hectare depending on area). Overlays address development requirements in areas of landscape significance. Retain – edit to focus on subdivision and development requiring a permit; include relevant elements of 22.14. 22.08-01 Contain effluent and This is a significant issue in the rural areas and urban protect water quality. fringes of the Shire. Policy is justified on this basis Effluent although should be strengthened. Disposal and Water Quality Retain and strengthen. 22.08-02 The MSS places considerable importance on the issues of bio-diversity and the environment and retention of the Vegetation remaining vegetation is critical to these issues. This policy Clearance could be better named the tree retention policy, as it only refers to trees above 4 metres in height. Needs to be altered to ensure that policy does not undermine native vegetation removal clause and VPO in the VPP’s. Consider the draft policy prepared by Ms Preneau as basis for change. Amend to refer to vegetation (not limited to trees) and the restriction to 4 metres be altered to "all vegetation". 22.08-3 To retain soil resources The policy is relevant to the protection of an important resource. Soil Removal Retain 22.08-4 To provide for appropriate The policy could be strengthened to address catchment dam siting and design issues, maintenance of environmental flows in waterways, Dams impacts of dams located on waterways and flooding etc. A VPP general provisions relating to dams may assist in achieving a consistent approach to dams. Useful reference document. Inconsistent in numbering format. Retain – consult with CMA and NRE to identify any other issues which should be addressed. 22.08-5 Precautions to be taken for Policy would need to be stronger if used as a basis for development. rejecting development. Inconsistent in numbering format. Steep Land and Ridgelines Retain and strengthen.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

POLICY POLICY INTENT PANEL COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION 22.08-06 To facilitate management Does not add significantly to the State Policy for Catchment of catchments. Planning and Management. This issue is adequately Catchment covered by other mechanisms in the Scheme such as ERZ Management and ESO4. Delete. 22.08-07 This policy could be improved by including guidelines in the policy and should also apply to land in LDRZ and ERZ. Erosion Risk Delete or strengthen with guidelines for administration of the policy and extend to land zoned ERZ and LDRZ. 22.09 To protect and provide for Policy highlights preference for cash contributions in lieu of open space. provision in subdivision and points to a number of related Open Space and strategic studies. However, the policy is weak and does not Recreation add to other provisions already applicable to open space. Delete. 22.10 Offset cost of Council does not yet have a Developer Contributions Plan infrastructure provision. in place. The “policy basis” is stated as “to establish a Development framework to assess developer contributions for Contributions subdivisions…” This policy falls far short of this claim. Delete and prepare a Developer Contribution Plan. 22.11 To provide for the The policy does not indicate when Environmental appropriate assessment and Management Plans will be required. The policy is couched Environmental mitigation of in general terms and could be developed further in the Management environmental impact future or the Environmental Management Plan Guidelines Guidelines 1994 could be evaluated for inclusion in whole or part in the policy. Retain – clarify when EMP’s will be required, consider including key elements of the Environmental Management Plan Guidelines 1994 22.12 To protect visual amenity. It is arguable whether this policy as written, is warranted. It should certainly be strengthened if retained. .Specific Building provisions of overlays address areas identified as having Aesthetics landscape or heritage significance. Delete. 22.13 To provide a basis for road This policy provides little guidance for decision making on upgrade requirements in an important issue. It may be appropriate to direct Road rural areas development to land served by existing sealed roads. Construction in Consideration of fire fighting requirements should be Rural Areas added. The policy reference being developed may provide more detailed guidelines and inclusion of key elements may be appropriate. Alternatives to two way access could include passing bays etc. – a performance based approach should be supported. Retain – strengthen to address fire access and consider directing development to existing sealed roads.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

POLICY POLICY INTENT PANEL COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION 22.14 To provide for the Policy is poorly drafted – see comments in Section 1 of this continuation of the Report. The policy is unclear whether concentrations of Rural Housing primary/secondary lot and lots or dispersed lot location is promoted. Prescriptive and Subdivision clustering of lots frontage requirements should be removed. The requirement subdivision provisions for new sealed roads is onerous. The policy does address from the existing Planning further subdivision under VPP provisions where previous Scheme. subdivision approval has been given based on balance lot requirements which should be retained in the policy (particularly if agreements were not required). Consolidate with 22.07 – delete primary/secondary lot provisions and relocate in schedule to zone; provide for site specific approvals through permits; delete prescriptive requirements; evaluate requirement for sealed roads; revise to reflect V3 changes; ensure that serial excision is prevented and indicate that applications for further subdivision of existing approved balance lots under zone provisions will not be supported. 22.15 To ensure timber The exhibited Scheme did not require a permit for timber harvesting is in accordance production. The code of practice for timber production is Timber and with the Code of Practice an incorporated document referred to in the SPPF. Timber Timber and to ensure timber Production provisions in 52.18, which have been introduced Processing industries do not have a since exhibition of the Scheme, address the issues more Activities detrimental impact on the comprehensively. Shire’s infrastructure. Delete. 22.16 To ensure growth is Does not add to State Policy for Water Supply, Sewerage commensurate with and Drainage. Future Growth infrastructure provision. and Delete unless there are specific local issues to be Infrastructure addressed. 22.17 To ensure that rural This policy does not provide any guidance as to development has sufficient requirements. Water water supply for domestic Infrastructure for Consult with CFA to establish appropriate guideline or and firefighting needs Rural Areas delete. 22.18 To provide for revegetation While the objectives of the policy are excellent and the using indigenous species intention sound, revegetation is not subject to planning Revegetation of control. The policy would need to be directed at areas Rural Areas identified as important wildlife corridors (the Macedon Conservation society noted three documents listing wildlife corridors), subject appropriate overlays, relevant DPO areas, as an issue in consideration of vegetation removal application. Further guidance could be provided by identifying vegetation that is indigenous to particular areas. Refer to draft policy submitted by Ms Preneau for guidance. Target policy more effectively or delete. Policy to be reviewed upon completion of Council’s Environment Strategy.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

POLICY POLICY INTENT PANEL COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION 22.19 To protect views. Policy is unconvincing and effective application is doubtful. Draws references to other related policies. Visual Outlook Delete and incorporate intentions elsewhere. 22.20 To ensure appropriate fire This policy could be condensed to avoid repetition. protection and mitigation Fire Prevention With regard to new subdivision, the CFA is a referral measures are included in Policy Authority where new roads are created. The referencing the consideration of any guideline documents largely repeats SPPF references but permit application. highlights their relevance in this area Retain – edit to remove repetition. 22.20-1 This policy is missing from the revised Scheme provided to the Panel. Tourism Developments Merge into Fire Prevention Policy (22.20). 22.20-2 To consider fire risk Merge into Fire Prevention Policy (22.20). associated with such uses. Special Events 22.20-3 To consider fire risk Merge into Fire Prevention Policy (22.20). associated with such uses. Caravan and Camping Parks 22.20-4 To consider fire risk of Merge into Fire Prevention Policy (22.20). subdivisions. New Subdivisions 22.21 To protect Mt William. Policy needs to demonstrate that other mechanisms such as the Heritage Overlay cannot achieve the same outcomes. Mt William Archaeological Relocate. Area 22.22 To control shed size and The policy wrongly suggests that it can trigger a permit – materials. this section should be removed. Adds nothing other than Shed and calling up 22.12 building aesthetics and zone setbacks. Outbuildings Delete. 22.23 No objectives stated The minimum subdivision size in the LDRZ is 0.4 ha although the intention is to whereas this policy is attempting to introduce a minimum Bushland Living control development in an size of 1.5 ha along with other development standards. The Areas area of bushland to the basis for prescriptive requirements is unclear and not west of Woodend zoned supported. A Local Policy is the wrong mechanism to LDRZ. implement controls such as these. Delete and reconstitute as a DPO.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

POLICY POLICY INTENT PANEL COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION 22.24 To provide for the The policy should place the onus on applicants to appropriate design, siting demonstrate compliance with performance objectives rather Intensive Animal and operation of intensive than indicating a “presumption against granting a permit..” Husbandry animal industry Amenity considerations could be extended to RLZ and significant recreation areas. The policy includes prescriptive requirements but they are consistent with requirements of codes of practice and provide some certainty. The objectives provide a performance expectation which should prevail if acceptable alternative approaches are adopted. The plan requirements should present a site/development analysis which relates to the planning and operational requirements. Retain – redraft to require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with performance objectives; present requirements as one means of meeting performance criteria, include a requirement for site/development analysis which relate to planning and operational performance requirements.

Overall the number of policies proposed is excessive and many appear to have token value only and contribute nothing to the effectiveness of the Scheme’s implementation. Council needs to take a hard look at all policies to determine those that are absolutely necessary on the basis that their intent or effect cannot be achieved by other mechanisms such as the SPPF, MSS, zones, overlays, provisions or incorporated documents. Policies should be restricted to the major planning issues in the Shire so that it is clear to the reader what matters to Council in terms of land use and development. Of the 27 Local Policies, the Panel has recommended that 12 be deleted. A further four could be merged into the one policy and a number need to be amended or strengthened to warrant their inclusion. The Panel believes that if Council adopt the recommendations above, the Local Policy section of the Scheme will be more effective in assisting in the day- to-day decision making on planning matters.

2.5 Zones, Overlays and Schedules Are there clearly defined linkages between the MSS and the application of zones, overlays and schedules? If there are situations where the application of zones, overlays and schedules are not clearly linked to the MSS, is reasonable justification provided and is it considered acceptable? The intentions of the zones, overlays and schedules are to support the strategic directions in the MSS. This has been generally achieved in the Scheme although the mechanisms chosen to perform some of the tasks are inadequate. For example, the intention of the subdivision controls is to prevent fragmentation of rural lands but the mechanism proposed (zone schedule and map, and long-winded local policy including tables) to achieve this is incredibly complicated and almost incomprehensible. Even the mechanisms don’t match in

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

some instances. For example, focus on town edge but provide for dispersed clusters. The Panel has already made recommendations in regards to this issue earlier in the report. Council provided in its submission to the Panel a table depicting the links between the five key strategic directions and the tools chosen to implement them. The table is a simple reference to respond to this question in the Panel’s terms of reference. Council claimed in its submission to the Panel that “all policies and overlays are derived from Council’s MSS.” Although this is true to some extent, the revision of the MSS after exhibition of the Scheme but before the Panel hearing has added to the confusion between strategy and implementation. More detailed discussion as to the application of zones, overlays and schedules to the various planning issues in the Shire can be found in Section 2 of this report. Is the application of zones, overlays and schedules the most appropriate of the VPP techniques to achieve the stated outcomes? Are overlays and schedules being used when it may be more appropriate to use local policies? The structure of the VPP’s and the requirements for preparing an MSS are such that there is often a number of different ways a particular issue can be approached in a Planning Scheme. Often there is no right or wrong way and this flexibility and ability to tailor planning responses to local issues is one of the major benefits of the planning reform process. Council has been reasonably successful in choosing the appropriate tool, be it zone, overlay, schedule or local policy, to address the planning issues facing the Shire. But, as stated numerous times already, the means of achieving rural subdivision and dwelling objectives fails in this regard. The use of the zone schedule and defining the area to which the provisions apply with a map is fine, as is the use of a Local Policy to further refine Council’s requirements. Despite the method being acceptable, the execution is terrible and needs to be completely re-thought and ultimately re-written. Council expressed a fear that the introduction of more generic or ‘blanket’ controls for rural subdivision and dwelling controls could ‘water down’ current controls and increase opportunities in areas where it might not be desirable. The Panel gained the impression from Council that that part of the community already residing in the rural areas have in the main accepted the current onerous controls because they provide some protection to their ‘space’ which after all is why they chose to live where they do. Despite these arguments, the Panel does not accept that the rural subdivision and dwelling controls proposed in the new Scheme cannot be structured and written in a manner that not only achieves a similar outcome, but are also easily understood. The exhibited planning scheme includes 15 areas which are subject to DPO’s. In some instances plans have been attached to the schedule of the overlay. This means that the DPO operates virtually as an IPO which has the advantage of clearly indicating the approved plan but carries the burden of requiring an amendment to the scheme to vary the plan. That burden is less problematic for the more conceptual plans such as DPO1, DPO4 and DPO6. However, in other cases, such as DPO7, DPO9 and DPO12, specific subdivision layouts form part of the schedule and may prove unnecessarily restrictive if alternative solutions are identified at the more detailed design stage. In one instance the drafting of the schedule

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

implies that a plan has been approved and forms part of the overlay but was not exhibited eg DPO3. The Panel has not been in a position to evaluate the site specific circumstances applicable to each area which is subject to a DPO but raises the following matters for further consideration: The basis for prescriptive requirements within DPO’s should be evaluated eg nominating a specific lot yield, prescriptive setbacks and frontage widths. Some DPO schedules purport to trigger a permit requirement for uses which are as of right in the zone eg. dwelling under DPO10. The schedules and plans associated with the DPO should be checked for consistency with the new scheme with terms clarified as necessary eg. DPO4 refers to a clause 4.3 of the ODP, and DPO5 refers to “Special Investigation Areas” which were in the existing scheme but are not defined in the new Scheme. The Panel recommends that: the implications of including specific plans in the schedules to DPO’s be evaluated in each case; the basis for prescriptive requirements of DPO’s be reviewed; and the drafting of schedules and plans associated with DPO’s be checked to ensure consistency with provisions of the new Scheme. Do local provisions adopt a performance-based approach? Most of the requirements of Local Policies and Overlay schedules are performance-based in that they are objective driven. The obvious exception is the rural subdivision and dwelling provisions. The removal of prescriptive lot sizes from the exhibited LPPF in the revised LPPF is endorsed by the Panel. Zone schedules are more prescriptive in their application of development control but their structure (ie. VPP dictated) ensures that this is the case. Are the zones, overlays and schedules reasonably compatible at the interface with adjoining Schemes? The DoI has made the following assessment of the use of zones and overlays at the borders of the Macedon Ranges Shire and its neighbours.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

MUNICIPALITY ZONING OVERLAY Mitchell Shire Rural Zone (40 ha) adjoins Rural Zone ESO2 Eppalock Catchment - Pipers (40 ha/100 ha) in Macedon Ranges. Creek, Pohlman Creek, Mt Ida Creek. No equivalent (eg ES04) in Macedon Ranges. Rural Zone adjoins Rural Living Zone at Darraweit Guim in Macedon Ranges. EMO, SMO used in border areas in Mitchell generally as in Macedon Ranges. WMO used in Mitchell but not Macedon Ranges. Hume City Rural Zone (80 ha) adjoins Rural Zone ESO1 (Rural Waterways and Environs) (40 ha) and Rural Living Zone (40 ha) in over Konagaderra Creek and environs, Macedon Ranges. and Jacksons Creek. No equivalent in Macedon Ranges. Calder Highway and Lancefield Road RDZ1 in both. Melton Shire Rural Zone (40 ha) adjoins Rural Living DDO3 on Calder Highway in Melton. No (100 ha) in Macedon Ranges for land equivalent in Hume City or Macedon subdivided in approx 5-8 ha lots. Ranges. Environmental Rural Zone adjoins RUZ ESO1 and SBO over Blackhills and RLZ in Macedon Ranges. Woodlands area relates to ESO4 (catchments) in Macedon Ranges. PCRZ on State Forest in both. Moorabool Shire Rural Living Zone adjoins Rural Zone to SBO (now WMO) used for both public Macedon Ranges in the Bacchus Marsh - and private land in Bacchus Marsh - Gisborne Road area. Gisborne Road area. PCRZ for public land. DDO4 used for this private land in Moorabool. Hepburn Shire Rural Living Zone adjoins Rural Zone SBO (now WMO) for border area south (size unknown) in Macedon Ranges (both of Denver. No equivalent in Macedon lands already subdivided). Ranges. RDZ1 in both for Trentham-Kyneton ESO for creeks and reservoirs. ESO4 Road. (catchments) in Macedon Ranges. Rural Zone (Malmsbury area) in both. Mount Alexander Rural Zone (40 ha) adjoins Rural Zone SBO (now WMO) used east of Shire (40/100 ha) in Macedon Ranges. Malmsbury including Pipers Creek and Campaspe River valleys but not in Macedon Ranges. ESO6 (watercourse protection) on Coliban River, Campaspe River and Pipers Creek with no equivalent in Macedon Ranges. ESO1 Eppalock catchment with no equivalent in Macedon Ranges.

The Panel appreciates that it is often difficult for Council’s to achieve identical controls at their borders due to the timing of the preparation of the Scheme or simply different attitudes to particular planning issues. This demonstrates the point made earlier that the VPP’s allow for a number of different approaches to be taken towards a particular issue. The approach by Council to border issues is generally consistent with that taken by neighbouring

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

municipalities. The Panel believes there will be greater opportunity at the first review of Schemes to achieve more consistency across borders. The Panel notes that the Local Policy for Mount William archaelogical area in the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme is identical to that in the Mitchell Shire, although the objectives of the policy could probably be accommodated elsewhere (see assessment of Local Policies in section 2 of the Report). The DoI did identify the following issues of concern along the border of Macedon Ranges Shire that need to be addressed in relation to the Scheme. Use of the Wildfire Management Overlay (formerly SBO) should be considered for the western part of the Shire. The inadequate provisions relating to fire risk represent a major deficiency in the exhibited Scheme. Eppalock catchment is not recognised by ESO4 or an equivalent overlay even though it is proclaimed catchment. ESO4 is used (appropriately) upstream of Malmsbury Reservoir, but not downstream on the Campaspe or Coliban Rivers or Pipers Creek. The significance of Jacksons Creek (south of Riddells Creek township) and Deep Creek (east of Romsey and south of Darraweit Guim) are not recognised by a suitable overlay. The absence of the WMO in the Shire has been noted already with a recommendation that it be addressed. The Panel agrees with DoI’s assessment of the Eppalock catchment. Jacksons and Deep Creeks are not in a water supply catchment in which case the application of ESO4 is inappropriate. As mentioned earlier, the issue of the use of the ESO over waterways is being taken up at the State level. Amendment of the native vegetation and zone provisions of the VPP’s has been recommended to allow for consideration of vegetation removal within 30m of waterways and thus removing the need for routine use of an ESO unless the significance of a particular waterway or part of a waterway has been documented The Panel recommends that ESO4 be applied to the Eppalock catchment in the Shire. Have local provisions introduced referral requirements additional to those in the VPP? The additional consultation requirements in the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme are detailed in the following table.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

CLAUSE SECTION AUTHORITY: TYPE OF CONSULT CATALYST 22.08-03 Soil removal DNRE & relevant “…will have regard to Applications to remove Water Authority the comments soil. received…” 22.08-06 Catchment DNRE, relevant “The views…will be Any proposal considered management Water Authority & sought…” to be incompatible with a relevant CLPB Catchment Management Strategy. 22.18 Revegetation of DNRE & relevant “…the advice of…shall “Where appropriate…” rural areas Landcare Group be sought.” 22.20 Fire Prevention CFA “The advice of…is Applications for tourist Policy considered…” developments. 22.20-2 Special events CFA “The advice of … is Applications for special considered…” events. 22.20-3 Caravan and CFA “The advice of … is Applications for caravan camping parks considered…” and camping parks. 22.20-4 New subdivision CFA “The advice of … is Applications for considered…” residential subdivision. 22.21 Mt William Aboriginal Affairs “The view of …will be Permit application on any Victoria sought…” land abutting or encroaching on the Mt William quarry which may be detrimental. 22.23 Bushland living DNRE, Western “The requirements of Applications for areas Water & CFA …” subdivision in policy area. ESO2 Monegeetta EPA “Must consider any All applications in area of Piggery comments received…” overlay. ESO4 Water quality- DNRE & relevant “…must consider any All applications in area of catchments Water Authority comments…” overlay. ESO6 Mineral Springs, DNRE “…must consider any All applications in area of Kyneton comments received…” overlay. DDO1 Low density VicRoads “…must refer…under Reducing setbacks, residential- Section 55…” creating new access, Kyneton major traffic generation in area of overlay. DPO5 Frith Road, DNRE “…shall have regard to Applications for Gisborne the advice of…” development in area of overlay. DPO11 Booths Lane & DCNR (sic) & “…shall have regard to All applications in area of Blackmore Road, EPA the requirements of…” overlay. Woodend DPO13 Bolinda DCNR (sic) & “…shall have regard to Applications for EPA any comments from…” subdivision in area of overlay.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

The Council has included a number of ‘informal referrals’ in the Local Policy and Overlay sections of the Scheme. Council was advised by the Panel at the hearing that the term ‘referral’ should not be used where Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act is not being invoked. Alternative terms such as ‘consult’ or ‘seek comment’ are more appropriate and assist in making the distinction between the statutory and non-statutory requirements and consequences of referrals. Council needs to make this distinction clearer at each place in the Scheme where a ‘referral’ is required. In addition the phrasing of the referral/consultation should be consistent in each category. The issue of a consistent approach to referrals is being addressed at a State level. The referral requirements also create some confusion where referral is a mandatory requirement under the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 or other related legislation. For example, the referral of applications in a proclaimed catchment to the water authority is mandatory whereas the referral requirements of ESO4 incorrectly imply that it is discretionary. Council needs to cross reference its discretionary referral requirements with those that are mandatory to avoid any confusion. Council states that the additional consultation requirements are necessary in order to provide expert comment on issues that are beyond the expertise of Council officers. The Panel believes this is reasonable justification. The Panel recommends that: Council review local referral requirements to ensure consistent wording and clarity as to referral under S55 of the Act is invoked or less onerous notification or consultation are envisaged; and references to DCNR be amended to DNRE.

2.6 Incorporated Documents Does the Planning Scheme include incorporated documents apart from those in the VPP? Council has indicated in its submission to the Panel that there are no incorporated documents to be included in the Scheme other than those inserted by the VPP’s. This advice contradicts the exhibited and revised Schemes, both of which propose to incorporate an additional four documents. These are: Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study 1994 Kyneton Heritage Study Macedon Ranges and Surrounds – Report of Studies for Preparation of Statement of Planning Policy No.8 Statement of Planning Policy No.8 Macedon Ranges and Surrounds 1975 (Town & Country Planning Board) Although all of the above are key strategic documents for the future of the Shire, they are not warrant the status of incorporated documents. The two heritage studies should be referenced in the MSS and can be called upon when issues arise relating to any areas or items included in them. PP No 8 has already been included as a Local Policy and recognised in the MSS and so its status and influence is ensured.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

The Panel recommends that: Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study 1994 Kyneton Heritage Study Macedon Ranges and Surrounds – Report of Studies for Preparation of Statement of Planning Policy No.8 Statement of Planning Policy No.8 Macedon Ranges and Surrounds 1975 (Town & Country Planning Board) be removed from the list of incorporated documents. The Manual for the VPP’s suggests that Restructure Overlays should also be incorporated documents because they “control whether or not a permit can be issued”. Therefore the Panel recommends their inclusion as incorporated documents. The Panel recommends that restructure plans RO1 to RO12 (inclusive) be included as incorporated documents.

2.7 Monitoring and Review Has the planning authority established appropriate mechanisms for: monitoring decisions made under the Planning Scheme; evaluating decisions against the intentions of the LPPF; and reviewing the LPPF and other local provisions and the Planning Scheme generally? Council has only very briefly addressed the monitoring and review process for the Scheme in the exhibited MSS. It states that “Council will develop and implement a monitoring strategy in 1999”. Council has not taken the opportunity to expand on this section in the revised Scheme. Council‘s submission to the Panel does however elaborate on its intentions in this regard. A three year period is stated as the appropriate review cycle. Data to be continually collected for use in the review is to include: number and type of applications; processing time; relevant provisions applying; basis of decision (use of local provisions to assist decision); compliance level with the Local Planning Policy Framework; and adequacy or other use of zones, overlays, LPPF and local schedules to address issues raised by permits. The Panel is unable to comment in any detail on the monitoring and review program proposed by Council because essentially one does not exist. The Panel is concerned that a completely new Scheme is about to be imposed on the community and the Council will not have in place any mechanisms to monitor its performance. Monitoring is necessary from day one of the Scheme so that Council can measure its performance and make informed decisions about any amendments that might be necessary because of an unforseen problem in the Scheme.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Monitoring and review processes do not have to be complex and the DoI should be able to assist in preparation. Council should ensure that any program includes the monitoring of any matters that are specific to the Shire. For example, the Panel would think that the monitoring of demand and supply of rural living land and the areas contained in restructure plans is essential in order to make informed planning decisions both on a day-to-day and long-term basis. Other issues that should be regularly monitored include: loss of vegetation supply/demand of residential land in townships heritage stock water quality loss of productive agricultural land population growth The Panel recommends that Council prepare a monitoring and review program prior to adoption of the Scheme and include those items that will assist in achieving the strategic directions outlined in the MSS.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

4. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS This section of the Report provides a summary of each submission (prepared by Council), Council’s response and the Panel’s comment and recommendation. The submissions are presented in the same order as presented to the Panel by Council. Prior to finalising the Report, the Panel were advised that one of the submitter’s to the exhibited Scheme claimed not to have been notified of the opportunity to appear before the Panel at the hearing. In deference to Mr Lacey (submitter 41), the Panel has agreed to allow a further submission to be presented by 22 March 1999. The Panel’s assessment and recommendation in regards to this submission will be tendered separately to this Report.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 1 Submitter Name: SJB Planning (for Dekazos) 25 Coventry St South Melbourne Location: CA’s 98E, 98G Ashbourne Road, East Trentham Map 22 Current Zone: Rural General Farming B Zone ( Rural Water Catchment) Exhibited Zone: Rural Zone, with ESO4 & SLO Overlays Requested Zone: No zone requested. Proposed Zone: Rural Zone ( RUZ) Submission: Currently tenement controls apply to the property meaning only 1 house can be built. They request that they be allowed a dwelling on each lot Council Comment: Tenement controls are not part of the new Scheme, as such construction of a dwelling would be allowable under the new Scheme subject to a planning permit. Application for housing on each lot subject to merits of proposal and consistency with zone. Strategic Rural living development must be assessed in relation to access to Considerations and infrastructure, impact on environment and landscape values and Implications: protection of agricultural land. Council That Council supports the retention of the Rural Zone. Refer to Panel. Recommendation: Panel Comment and This submission sought clarification that tenement controls in the existing Recommendations: Scheme has been varied which was confirmed at the hearing. Agree with Council assessment. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained. The site is located on the southern side of the Gisborne township 1 km west of the Calder Highway and has an area of 21.86 ha. The submittor highlighted the land’s proximity to the township, R1Z adjoining to the north and existing 4ha subdivision surrounding it in support of a rezoning to RLZ –Area “C” (2ha min lot size). It was argued that the 1989 overall review of the Gisborne Planning scheme which established the town boundaries and was followed by a review of the non urban zones in 1994 was directed at rationalising existing zones rather than a strategic review of appropriate non urban zonings. It was noted that in that review the land was classified as average to low agricultural quality . The study also identified south Gisborne as a preferred location for rural residential development due to its access to Melbourne and the airport, town water and undulating topography with few trees. It was suggested that the existing land characteristics, combined with property values, make consolidation in productive agriculture unlikely; rural residential zoning should be concentrated to protect larger holdings and a rural residential zoning would provide a buffer at the rural residential interface. The need for a separate amendment was acknowledged in the presentation. The Panel acknowledges that the site meets the MSS criteria of being on the fringe of an urban centre and the land, is in an area with significant existing small lot subdivision and appears to be of moderate agricultural quality based in recent CLPR mapping. Rural Living land supply estimates for Gisborne were difficult to establish but a theoretical supply is in place to meet short term needs. The Panel has recommended that a strategic review of rural living should be undertaken and requests for rezonings should be placed in that context. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zone be maintained.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 2 Submitter Name SJB Planning for Assetta Constructions 25 Coventry Street South and Address: Melbourne 3205 Location and Map 37 ( Lot 6 )Brooking Road, Gisborne Map 36 & 37 Reference No: Current Zone: Rural Exhibited Zone: Rural ( RUZ) Requested Zone: Rural Living Zone ( RLZ) Proposed Zone: Rural (RUZ) Submission: Want land (22 ha) zoned Rural Living to allow for 4 ha lots Council Comment: The land is zoned Rural as a result of significant strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Gisborne (Land Capability Study). The property is located outside the urban boundary and there is presently sufficient land zoned for Rural Living development in this area for the current planning period. Strategic Ministerial Direction No. 6 provides guidelines and criteria for the Considerations and preparation of an amendment for Rural Residential Development. Implications: Council That Council supports the retention of the Rural Zone on this land. Recommendation: Refer to Panel. Panel Comment The site is located on the southern side of the Gisborne township 1 and km west of the Calder Highway and has an area of 21.86 ha. The Recommendations: submittor highlighted the land’s proximity to the township, R1Z adjoining to the north and existing 4ha subdivision surrounding it in support of a rezoning to RLZ –Area “C” (2ha min lot size). It was argued that the 1989 overall review of the Gisborne Planning scheme which established the town boundaries and was followed by a review of the non urban zones in 1994 was directed at rationalising existing zones rather than a strategic review of appropriate non urban zonings. It was noted that in that review the land was classified as average to low agricultural quality. The study also identified south Gisborne as a preferred location for rural residential development due to its access to Melbourne and the airport, town water and undulating topography with few trees. It was suggested that the existing land characteristics, combined with property values, make consolidation in productive agriculture unlikely; rural residential zoning should be concentrated to protect larger holdings and a rural residential zoning would provide a buffer at the rural residential interface. The need for a separate amendment was acknowledged in the presentation. The Panel acknowledges that the site meets the MSS criteria of being on the fringe of an urban centre and the land, is in an area with significant existing small lot subdivision and appears to be of moderate agricultural quality based in recent CLPR mapping. Rural Living land supply estimates for Gisborne were difficult to establish but a theoretical supply is in place to meet short term needs. The Panel has recommended that a strategic review of rural living should be undertaken and requests for rezonings should be placed in that context. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zone be maintained.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 3 Submitter Name and Deep Creek Landcare Group PO BOX 99 Romsey 3434 Address:

Location and Map General Reference No: Current Zone: N/a Exhibited Zone: N/a Requested Zone: N/a Proposed Zone: N/a Submission: Requested Request Council give special consideration to: weed control Changes/Issues Raised: revegetation and water quality issues

Council Comment: These issues have been identified in the MSS and the new planning scheme.

Strategic Considerations The Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme identifies the and Implications: environmental issues facing the Shire, including weed control, revegetation and water quality issues.

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the inclusion of these issues in the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) be accepted.

Panel Comment and The Panel notes that the applicable issues have been included Recommendations: in the MSS and that the Shire is preparing an Environment Strategy. Submission noted.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 4 Submitter Name and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria 115 Victoria Parade ( 2nd Floor) Address: Fitzroy 3065

Location and Map Reference General No: Current Zone: N/a Exhibited Zone: N/a Requested Zone: N/a Proposed Zone: N/a Submission: Requested Request local policies to protect all aboriginal sites, places Changes/Issues Raised: and objects. Request Heritage Overlay to map key aboriginal sites, places and objects.

Council Comment: The policy suggested by AAV should be incorporated into the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme Heritage Policy. This provides for reference to the aboriginal heritage reference documents when considering an application for planning approval. Known sites of aboriginal significance have been included in the Heritage Overlay. Aboriginal Affairs have advised that at this time they do not wish to nominate any additional places to be included on the Heritage Overlay as there is insufficient documentation to assess the level of significance of the sites, and inadequate information to enable the sites to be accurately mapped. They are soon to be commencing a state-wide study to identify and assess significant aboriginal sites, places and objects. Any identified site could be included as a later scheme amendment.

Strategic Considerations Protection of Aboriginal sites, places and objects is identified and Implications: as an objective in the MSS Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that specific reference to the protection of Aboriginal sites, places and objects be included in the MSS and when Aboriginal Affairs Victoria complete their State-wide study, then this be incorporated into the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme Heritage Policy. Panel Comment and The MSS includes statements supporting Aboriginal Heritage Recommendations: and Local Policies 22.03 Heritage and 22.21 Mt William Archaeological Area provide specific reference. Aboriginal Affairs have suggested additional wording for the generalised Local Policy and the Council support inclusion. The Panel recommends that: • The Heritage Policy be strengthened by providing specific reference to the treatment of Aboriginal heritage utilising additional wording as suggested by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria; and • as Aboriginal sites, places and objects are identified they be included in the HO as part of future amendments.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 5 Submitter Name and Energy Victoria 115 Victoria Parade ( Floor 5) Fitzroy Address: 3065 Location and Map Reference General No: Current Zone: N/a Exhibited Zone: N/a Requested Zone: N/a Proposed Zone: N/a Submission: Requested Request energy efficient housing be incorporated in the Changes/Issues Raised: MSS

Council Comment: Energy efficiency in housing is addressed in the SPPF.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel the inclusion of energy efficient housing within the MSS. Panel Comment and The MSS contains support for energy efficient housing as Recommendations: do the provisions of the SPPF Submission noted.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 6 Submitter Name and Robert Scott, “Hollyburton Park”, RSD Sunbury 3429 Address:

Location and Map Bolinda, Melbourne - Lancefield Road Lot 2, 3 on PS 314427 Lot Reference No: 2 on PS 326852 Map 40

Current Zone: General Farming Exhibited Zone: Rural ( RUZ) with a DPO 13 Overlay Requested Zone: Rural Proposed Zone: Rural ( RUZ) Submission: Objects to proposed Rural Residential development at Bolinda. Requested Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: Council agreed to accept the submissions “objecting” to DPO 13 providing for rural residential development at Bolinda.

Strategic Proposal represents a defacto hamlet and would need to be Considerations and assessed against Ministerial Direction No. 6. Implications:

Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the Rural Residential Recommendation: development at Bolinda not be supported and that DPO 13 be removed from the planning scheme.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Panel Comment & The exhibited zoning would not allow the development anticipated by DPO13 Recommendations and a rezoning would be necessary. Details of the proposal or submissions supporting the proposal were not provided to the Panel which is responding only to material contained in DPO13. DPO 13 indicates a maximum of 21 lots between 3 and 10 hectares. The basis for the figures nominated in the DPO was not provided. The DPO indicates that an Environmental Management Plan, Landscape Plans and reports which may be required. The objectors raised the following key concerns: • The proposal would undermine amenity which is highly valued eg landscape, privacy, noise, traffic. • Adverse impacts on Bolinda Creek environment and water flows. • Traffic hazards at the Bolinda intersection with Lancefield Rd • Impacts on historic Avenue planting in Lancefield Rd • Infrastructure costs • Conflicts with agricultural enterprises such as ostrich farming • The capacity of septic tanks to deal with waste disposal particularly in winter months and due to the concentration of systems proposed. • Part of the land is within the floodplain • The proposal should be located on the fringe of an existing town with appropriate access to services. • Scholl enrolments have increased by 50% in the past 12 months without this development which negates arguments relating to supporting the school. Although the MSS indicates that that rural residential development “is now being confined to areas at the fringe of urban centres where there is good access to services and where the impact on the productivity of land can be prevented’ (Clause 21.3Key Issues and Trends), it provides only limited direction as to how rural living will be addressed in the remainder of the MSS. The proposal is relatively remote from an urban centre but does have excellent access to the primary school. The land appears to be within the high agricultural capability classification. The Panel notes that Rural Landscape Growth Strategy 1992 prepared for the former Shire of Romsey recommends to “ Facilitate limited hamlet development at Bolinda and Monegeeta.” The encouragement of further subdivision in rural areas in that document appears to be at odds with PP No8 and policies of some other former Shires in the new Macedon Ranges Shire. These potentially conflicting strategic direction illustrate the need for a strategic review to address the planning objectives for the municipality as a whole. The Panel was advised that part of the subject land is also within EPA buffer requirements for a piggery (see EPA submission). More intensive use of land within a buffer is likely to promote land use conflict. Although the lot sizes proposed do not mean that the requirements of Ministerial Direction 6 are mandatory, the matters identified in the direction are relevant and have not been addressed. The Panel has limited information about the proposal but has significant reservations about the location of the proposed rural living development. The DPO should be considered at the same time as the rezoning after the recommended strategic review of rural living has been undertaken. The Panel recommends that DPO13 be deleted from the Scheme and the land remain in the RUZ.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 7 Submitter Name and (Keith Jenkins Principal) Bolinda Primary School Mullalys Address: Rd Bolinda

Location and Map Reference Bolinda Primary School Map 40 No: Current Zone: N/a Exhibited Zone: N/a Requested Zone: N/a Proposed Zone: N/a Submission: Requested Advised school numbers have increased 50% in the last 12 Changes/Issues Raised: months

Council Comment: Advice acknowledged Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Rural Residential development at Bolinda not be supported. Panel Comment and See response to submission number 6. Recommendations: The Panel recommends that DPO13 be deleted from the Scheme and the land remain in the RUZ.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 8-17 Submitter Name and 8. Gayle Cosgriff, 5 Martin Court, Bolinda 9.Ron Address: Cosgriff 5 Martin Court, Bolinda 9.Lavinia Sinclair Bolinda 9.E.M. Sloan “Hollyburton Park” Lot 1 12. N. F. Boschma Lot 4, Mullalys Road, Bolinda 13. R.A. & L. Brown Lot 2, Melbourne-Lancefield Road, Bolinda 13. M. Duggan “Connemara”, Yaamba Road, Riddells Creek 13.C. R. McDougal Lot 6, Martin Court, Bolinda 13.Mr A. Kelly 199 Tunnell Creek Road, Cherokee 13.Mrs A. Kelly 199 Tunnell Creek Road, Cherokee Bolinda Location and Map Reference Bolinda Map 28, 30, 38 & 40 No: Current Zone: General Farming Exhibited Zone: Rural (RUZ) with DPO 13 Overlay Requested Zone: Rural Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Objects to proposed Rural Residential development at Changes/Issues Raised: Bolinda under DPO 13.

Council Comment: Council agreed to accept the submissions “objecting” to DPO 13 providing for rural residential development at Bolinda. Strategic Considerations Proposal represents a defacto hamlet and would need to and Implications: be assessed against Ministerial Direction No. 6. Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Rural Residential development at Bolinda not be supported and that DPO 13 be removed from the planning scheme. Panel Comment and See response to submission number 6. Recommendations: The Panel recommends that DPO13 be deleted from the Scheme and the land remain in the RUZ.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 18 Submitter Name and Gascor (2 Letters) 196 Flinders Street Melbourne 3000 Address:

Location and Map Reference Cnr. Mitchell, Ebden & Beauchamp Streets Kyneton Map No: 13 Current Zone: PU-GFC Public Use Gas And Fuel Corporation of Victoria Exhibited Zone: Public Use Service & Utility (PUZ1), affected by a Heritage Overlay ( HO) Requested Zone: Public Use Local Government ( PUZ6) for some blocks & Residential 1 Zone ( R1Z) for the balance. Proposed Zone: Public Use Local Government ( PUZ6) & Residential One Zone (R1Z) Submission: Requested Site no longer required by Gascor. They wish for part of Changes/Issues Raised: the land to be zoned Residential with the balance (to be handed over to Council) to be zoned for public use.

Council Comment: Agree with submission to zone CA 7, 8 & 13 Residential (R1Z) on basis environmental audits prepared. Agree with submission to zone CA 9, 10, 11 & 12 Public Use Zone (PUZ 6) . Consider using Environmental Audit Overlay

Strategic Considerations Surrounding land is zoned Residential and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that Crown Allotments 7, 8 & 13 be rezoned Residential (R1Z) provided Environmental Audits are received and that Crown Allotments, 9, 10, 11 & 12 be zoned Public Use Zone (PUZ6).

Panel Comment and The Panel was advised that the Certificate of Environmental Recommendations: Audit for the site has been issued. The proposed zonings are an improvement to the existing spot zonings, but as discussed at the hearing PPRZ is the more appropriate zone for the public land. The Panel recommends that Crown Allotments 7, 8 & 13 be zoned R1 and that Crown Allotments 10, 11 & 12 be zoned PPRZ.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 19 Submitter Name and John Dudley 28 Park Street Richmond 3121 Address:

Location and Map Reference Falloons Road / Ashbourne Road Ashbourne Map 22 No:

Current Zone: Environmental Protection (E1) Exhibited Zone: Environmental Rural Zone ( ERZ) Requested Zone: Rural Zone (RUZ) Proposed Zone: Environmental Rural Zone ( ERZ) Submission: Requested Requests that land be zoned Rural. Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: The land currently is zoned Environmental Protection, which was adopted based on the land capability study prepared for the Shire of Newham and Woodend. This study identified that the land has environmental values Previous objections to the environmental zoning of this land have been dismissed by panels. The important environmental values applying to the land include fossils. In the preparation of the new scheme existing zones were translated to the VPP zones with the closest match in terms of objectives and controls.

Strategic Considerations The MSS includes objectives relating to the protection of and Implications: the environment and landscape Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Environmental Rural Zoning remain, however that Council provide a further basis for application of the Environmental Rural Zone. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The area is the site of geologically significant fossils and Recommendations: the environmental reservation has been incorporated in previous planning schemes. A previous Panel determined that the zoning has validity. The submitter is concerned that the new ERZ is unjustified and will be onerous in that a permit will be required for agricultural activity. The Panel considers that the requirements for preservation will be met if an Environment Significance Overlay is placed over the land. The Panel recommends that the ERZ be removed from the land at Ashbourne Road and the land zoned Rural with an ESO.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 20 Submitter Name and Bannon Consultants o/a E Constantino RMB 630 Mt Address: William Road Lancefield 3435 Location and Map Reference Crown Allotment 4, Section D, Parish of Macedon, 622 No: Calder Highway Macedon Map 25 Current Zone: Rural Exhibited Zone: Rural Zone ( RUZ) and Environmental Significance Overlay ( ESO ) Requested Zone: Rural Zone (RUZ) Proposed Zone: Rural Zone ( RUZ) Submission: Requested Requests that the subject property be included in Clause Changes/Issues Raised: 22-14-1 (Rural Housing and Subdivision) to provide for its subdivision into two lots

Council Comment: Rural zoning was based on the Land Capability Study and is a translation of the existing zone. Application for excision of the existing dwelling may be made under the provisions of the Rural zone. Clause 22-14-1 is a translation of existing controls.

Strategic Considerations Adhoc subdivision of rural land is contrary to the and Implications: objectives of the MSS.

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that subdivision of the land is not consistent with the exhibited zoning, however the Panel be informed of the proposed residential review to be undertaken this year. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The submittors are seeking the option to create an Recommendations: additional lot for a house for their son. Although the submission recognised that the zone allows application for excision of an existing house, the certainty provided by inclusion in the table to 22.14-1 was sought. The submission noted that the 8ha site would accommodate a house site which would not be visible from the existing highway, and vegetation removal would not be necessary. The Panel has commented that the interpretation of the exhibited table referred to is unintelligible and should be redrafted. However, it appears to be directed at providing for subdivision which maintains average lot yields while clustering secondary lots to achieve a larger, more productive secondary lot. The Panel does not support inclusion of the site in the table which would amount to a mechanism for ad hoc subdivision without achieving the apparent objectives of the mechanism. The merits of the proposal could be assessed as part of an application under 35.01-4. The Panel recommends that the exhibited scheme provisions be maintained.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 21 Submitter Name and Palmer, Stevens & Rennick 8 Jennings Street Kyneton Address: 3444

Location and Map Reference 5 Welsh Street, Lot 3 on Plan of Subdivision 26584 No: Kyneton Map 13

Current Zone: Public Use- Various Exhibited Zone: Business One Zone ( B1Z), affected by a Heritage Overlay Requested Zone: Residential One Zone ( R1Z) Proposed Zone: Residential One Zone ( R1Z) Submission: Requested Request land be zoned Residential rather than Public Use Changes/Issues Raised: given the land contains a house and is used for residential purposes.

Council Comment: Shire of Kyneton had inadvertently zoned a private house Public Use. The adjoining land to the north is proposed to be zoned Business and the adjoining land to the south is proposed to be zoned Residential. Residential would appear to be the most appropriate zoning for the land

Strategic Considerations N/a and Implications: Council Recommendation: That 5 Welsh Street , Lot 3 on Plan of Subdivision 26584 Kyneton be zoned Residential 1 Panel Comment and This is a mapping error. The R1Z is the most appropriate Recommendations: zone given the nature of the land use and the proposed zoning of land to the south. The Panel recommends that Lot 3 PS26584 be zoned R1Z.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 22 Submitter Name and Palmer Stevens & Rennick 8 Jennings Street Kyneton Address: 3444

Location and Map Reference General No: Current Zone: N/a Exhibited Zone: N/a Requested Zone: N/a Proposed Zone: N/a Submission: Requested Raise queries over tenements and plans of subdivision Changes/Issues Raised: approved by Council and the Registrar General/Registrar of Titles

Council Comment: Clause 22.14-2 refers to lots existing before 1 February 1993 from subdivisions “approved by the Registrar of Titles”. Subdivisions under General Law were approved by Council and only lodged with the Registrar of Titles. These lots constitute a separate lot under the definition given in the planning scheme and the Subdivision Act. To amend this clause to include reference to lots on a plan of subdivision approved by Council does not change the intention of this provision of the planning scheme.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that Clause 22.14- include amended wording as the intent of the Planning Scheme is not changed. Panel Comment and The Panel has recommended that this policy needs Recommendations: complete review and redrafting with matters already addressed by the zone provisions being deleted. Submission noted.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 23 Submitter Name and Isabel White RMB 4455 Kyneton 3444 Address:

Location and Map Reference Bald Hill / Mt St Mary Area McPherson Lane, Fords No: Lane ( Railway St, Blackhill Road) Kyneton Baynton Road, Kyneton Map 7 Current Zone: Rural Residential / Rural General Farming B Exhibited Zone: Rural Living Zone / Rural ( RUZ) Requested Zone: Rural Living Zone ( RLZ) Proposed Zone: Rural ( RUZ) Submission: Requested Requests that all the land be zoned for rural residential Changes/Issues Raised: development rather than rural.

Council Comment: The zoning of the land is based on the Shire of Kyneton Land Capability Study and the existing zoning.

Strategic Considerations There is sufficient land zoned for Rural Living and Implications: development in this area for the planning period. Proposals for additional rural residential land must be assessed against Ministerial Direction No.6.

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the land retain a Rural zoning. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The submission included very limited information to on Recommendations: which to assess the proposal. Indicative estimates of supply indicate that Kyneton has 130 years supply as opposed to the 10 year recommended supply. Agree with Council assessment. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 24 Submitter Name and Eric Buttler Rangal Pty Ltd 152 Northbourne Rd Address: Campbellfield 3061

Location and Map Reference Baynton Rd ( property assessment no: 1/0255/01250/0) No: Map 19 Current Zone: Light Industrial Exhibited Zone: Rural ( RUZ) Requested Zone: Industrial Zone ( INZ) Proposed Zone: Industrial 3 Zone ( INZ3) Submission: Requested Requests that his land retain its current Light Industrial Changes/Issues Raised: zoning rather than being zoned Rural.

Council Comment: • The Committee were informed that the land was currently zoned Light Industrial and the exhibition Scheme proposed to zone the land rural. • The Committee agreed the land should be zoned Industrial 3.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the land be zoned Industrial 3 in lieu of the current Rural Zone. However the need for further strategic planning work in relation to industrial land be considered by Council. Panel Comment and The IN3Z proposed by Council is to apply only to this Recommendations: allotment with the surrounding land being RUZ. It appears to reflect the existing zone. Although there is little strategic justification for an industrial zone on this property, the Panel is reluctant to ‘back zone’ the land to the underlying zone (RUZ) given that the site is currently being used for industrial purposes in accordance with the existing zone. The Panel recommends that the property in Baynton Road Lancefield currently zoned Industrial, be zoned IN3.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 25 Submitter Name and S. Custance & Assoc. 20 Collins Street Melbourne 3000 Address:

Location and Map Reference Lot 42, North East Corner Panorama Drive & McGregors No: Road, Gisborne. Map 37 Current Zone: Special Rural Farmlet Precinct Exhibited Zone: Rural Living Zone ( RLZ) with DPO3 Overlay Requested Zone: Rural Living Zone ( RLZ) with reduced minimum lot sizes Proposed Zone: Rural Living Zone (RLZ) Submission: Requested Requests land be zoned to allow for 0.4 ha lots Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: The schedule to the zone requires a minimum lot size of 1ha and the DPO requires a minimum of 1ha for a dwelling The zoning is based on the Shire of Gisborne Land Capability Study and is a translation of the existing control. Reticulated services are not scheduled to be provided to this site within the next 10 years.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the request for a zoning to allow subdivision to .4 hectare lots not be supported. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The subject site is within the Emmaline Vale estate which Recommendations: consists of lots generally in the vicinity of 2ha. The schedule to the RLZ AreaD provides for a 1ha minimum lot size with a maximum of 2 lot subdivision. DPO3 also applies which recognises the potential for more intensive “farmlet” development and provides for 2 lot subdivision of lots of 4ha+ subject to approval of a development plan for the site. Mr. Custance argued that the properties can hardly be considered farmlets but rather represents low density residential development. Further, the maintenance obligations of larger lots are generally unwanted. The Panel was not provided with land capability data relating to effluent disposal and believes that any such proposal affecting the whole estate would require exhibition as part of a separate amendment.. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 26 Submitter Name and Charlie-Albert Buttler Knights Track Springfield 3435 Address:

Location and Map Reference Baynton Road Lancefield No: Lot 2 on Lodged Plan 140634 Map 19

Current Zone: General Farming Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Residential Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Requests land to rezoned from Rural to Residential Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: The property is a rural property and the land is currently zoned General Farming. This zone was based on the Land Capability Study. Current strategic work recommends that the township not grow in the direction of this land. Need to maintain integrity of agricultural areas.

Strategic Considerations There is presently sufficient residential zoned land to and Implications: cater for growth in this area for the current planning period.

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Rural zoning be retained. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The request for a residential zone has no strategic support Recommendations: in the Scheme. The land is outside the township boundary of Lancefield and is unlikely to be required for residential use in the short term. Plans to sewer Lancefield will increase the development potential of land already zoned for residential development. Residential development would contribute to the disintegration of Lancefield. The Panel recommends the submission not be supported.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 27 Submitter Name and Education Victoria Rialto South Tower 525 Collins Address: Street, Melbourne vic 3001 Location and Map Reference Edgecome Street Kyneton, (Site of formerly proposed No: Kyneton East Primary School) Map 13

Current Zone: SU- PS Special Use Primary School Exhibited Zone: Public Use 2 Education- ( PUZ2) Requested Zone: Residential 1 zone (R1Z) Proposed Zone: Residential 1 zone ( R1Z) Submission: Requested Land is surplus to their needs and request it be zoned Changes/Issues Raised: Residential rather than for Public Use.

Council Comment: Land should be zoned Residential (R1Z) with a development plan overlay (having special regard to open space provision). The Residential zone is consistent with nearby and surrounding land. Residential zoning reflects underlying zoning.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the land be zoned Residential with a Development Plan Overlay included. Panel Comment and This land is vacant and has never been used as a school. Recommendations: TAFE is using part of the site and this institution’s future is unclear. Surrounding land is predominantly in a residential zone. A residential zone would not be inconsistent with the Kyneton Structure Plan. Change of zoning to facilitate the sale of the land needs to be subjected to a public process. The Panel recommends the submission not be supported and the request be pursued by separate amendment.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 28 Submitter Name and Tylden Equipment & Sales P/L (Ian J Lee) PO Box 614 Address: Kyneton 3444

Location and Map Reference Tylden Road ( Mollison Street) Kyneton, (Pioneer No: Concrete & Tylden Equipment) Map 13

Current Zone: Industrial / Future Urban Exhibited Zone: Industrial One Zone( INZ1) / Rural Zone (RUZ) Requested Zone: Industrial / Commercial Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested Wish for the site to be zoned to allow for commercial use. Changes/Issues Raised: Requests whole area used by Tylden Equipment & Sales be placed in a more suitable industrial zone

Council Comment: That Council recommend to the Panel that the land retain its current exhibited zoning until the review of industrial land in Kyneton proposed in the forthcoming year is undertaken.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the land retain it’s current exhibited zoning until the review of industrial land in Kyneton proposed in the forthcoming year is undertaken. Panel Comment and The request has some merit due to the favourable location Recommendations: of the existing industry. The site is within the Kyneton township boundary although not within the preferred industrial area shown on the Structure Plan. The land occupied by the existing industry is zoned IN1 whereas the land onto which the expansion is ought, is zoned RU. The area requested to be rezoned is in two parcels (lots 1 & 2 LP222645) and is in the same ownership as the existing industry. The Panel supports the rezoning but because the change involves the the IN1Z, a public process is considered warranted ie. separate amendment. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zone remain.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 29 Submitter Name and John Wilton PO Box 44 Macedon 3440 Address: Location and Map Lots 1 & 2 of Crown Allotment 3B , Section 12, Parish of Reference No: Woodend (off Fingerpost Road Woodend) Map 25 Current Zone: Landscape Interest Exhibited Zone: Environmental Rural Zone ( ERZ) Requested Zone: Low Density Residential Area ( LDRZ) Proposed Zone: Environmental Rural Zone ( ERZ) Submission: Wishes land to be in a Low Density Residential zone. Wants to Requested establish further houses on the land for grandchildren Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: The Council agreed not to accept the submission. This was on the basis that the land currently has an environmental based zone as does the land to the east and west of the site and small lot subdivision of this land would prejudice this. Strategic Council’s MSS includes environmental protection objectives. To Considerations and provide for development of land with environmentally sensitive Implications: values would be contrary to these objectives. Proposals for additional rural residential land must be assessed against Ministerial Direction No.6.

Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the proposed zoning Recommendation: remain. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and Mr and Mrs Wilton presented this submission to the Panel. The site Recommendations: consists of 16ha in two titles. Three houses accommodating family members have been built on the property, one as a pensioner relative unit which was not entitled to subdivided at the time of construction. The land consists of approximately 25% forested land, with the remainder developed as a chestnut grove and grazing. The land is registered Land For Wildlife. It was clarified at the hearing that the submittors only seek the opportunity to secure titles for the existing houses on the property. The land has been subject to an environmentally based zone for many years and the Panel was advised that the Biosis study for the Calder Freeway EES rated the area as being of high environmental value. The land adjoins LDRZ to the north but is surrounded by PCRZ to the east, west and south which supports the ERZ applied. Part of this ERZ is subject to timber harvesting which has raised land management concerns for the Wiltons. Extension of the LDRZ would require evaluation in terms of Ministerial Direction No.6, including reference to NRE given the k land’s location adjoining PCRZ. The Panel recognises that the intensity of the existing use and development of the land would not be altered by the subdivision of the third house but believes that the ERZ applied is well founded and should not be varied. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zone be maintained.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 30 Submitter Name and Brian Gedge Ryelands & Lambidgee Farms, Tylden Road Address: Woodend Location and Map Ryeland CA 121&122 Tylden Road Lambridge Crown Reference No: Portion 1 & Part 123 Tylden Road Map 23 & 24 Current Zone: General Farming, Rural Lowlands, Environmental Protection and Water Course Exhibited Zone: RUZ, ERZ, RFO, LSIO, VPO, SMO Requested Zone: Remove ERZ, Correction to LSIO, Correction to VPO Proposed Zone: As Above Submission: Requested Requests that ERZ be converted to RUZ so that grazing would Changes/Issues Raised: not be restricted. Believed that there are some inaccuracies in the overlays as applicable to the property Council Comment: The Council agreed to change the MSS to reflect that open space/walkways along creeks, rivers and watercourses are sought on public land only and not private land. The Council agreed that LSIO be reassessed to ensure it is accurate. VPO also to be corrected in accordance with the submission. The Council agreed to retain the Environmental Rural Zone as applicable to this property. Strategic Considerations: Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the MSS be Recommendation: changed to reflect consideration of open space and walkways along creeks; that the Rural Floodway Overlay and Landscape Significance Overlay be redrafted so as no overlap occurs, however that the Environmental Rural Zone be retained. Panel Comment and Mr Gedge requested to be heard but withdrew. The Panel notes Recommendations: that reference to 'networks of paths and walkways along creeks, rivers and waterways' has been removed from the amended MSS. The submitter has highlighted the shortcomings of the overlays and the inaccuracy of their application. The application of the ERZ has resulted from the translation of the existing Environmental Protection zone. The submitter is “generally in agreement” with the application of the ERZ although he is concerned as to restrictions the zone may place on farming activities. Mr. Gedge’s submission noted that existing use rights would apply to his farming operation but is concerned regarding the administration of the provision. The Panel does not believe the ERZ necessarily hinders the use of rural land for traditional broad acre farming activities because most of the land is currently being used for such purpose and will continue as such. However, in this instance the Panel is of the opinion that the appropriate mechanism is an overlay (ESO) rather than the ERZ. The Panel recommends that the LSIO and RFO at the property of B.S. & S.W. Gedge be amended to correct the anomalies as noted in the submission and the land be rezoned RUZ with an ESO applied.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 31 Submitter Name and Unknown Bolitho Road Riddells Creek Address: Location and Map Reference N/A No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested Wants restriction on home occupations Changes/Issues Raised: Council Comment: In many instances “home occupation” is allowed as-of- right subject to certain conditions. Council officers do monitor these occupations and follow up if complaints received.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that no further action be taken in respect to home occupation. Panel Comment and The Panel agrees with Council’s assessment and Recommendations: recommendation. Submission noted

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 32 Submitter Name and John & Helen Laird 13 Spencer Road Woodend Address: Location and Map Reference Map 25 No: Current Zone: Forest Residential Exhibited Zone: Low Density Residential Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: Low Density Residential Submission: Requested Concerned minimum lot size going from 1.5 ha to 0.4 ha Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: Although this land is zoned Low Density Residential with a minimum lot size of 0.4ha, Policy No. 22.23 Bushland Living Areas requires a minimum lot size for land in this area of 1.5ha.

Strategic Considerations A larger lot size is required for this area to protect its and Implications: unique environmental values which is consistent with the objectives of the MSS Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the proposed zoning remain, however a Strategic review of all Rural Living areas be undertaken. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and This submission probably stems from a misinterpretation Recommendations: of the subdivision provisions of the LDRZ. The Local Policy ensures that lot sizes are retained at 1.5 hectares. Submission noted.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 33 Submitter Name and F W Baker Lauriston Res. Rd. Kyneton Address: Location and Map Reference N/A No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested Requests that vacant railway land to be used for a park. Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: The Council agreed not to accept the submission.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: Refer to panel Panel Comment and Ms Baker presented her submission to the Panel including Recommendations: an envelope of confidential documents. The land to which Ms Baker refers is zoned PUZ4 and in the ownership of the PTC. Rezoning of the land to open space would need to be subjected to a public process. Consequently, the submitter would need to pursue her request via a separate amendment. Submission noted.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 34 Submitter Name and F W Baker Lauriston Res Rd. Kyneton Address: Location and Map Reference Lauriston Reserve Road, Kyneton Map 13 No: Current Zone: Industrial Exhibited Zone: Industrial Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested Wants land used as a park. Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: The Council agreed not to accept the submission.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The land to which Ms Baker refers is proposed to be Recommendations: IN1Z and is on the southern side of the railway line. The request for a park is based on the premise that the land is not serviced and therefore should not be developed. Ms Baker does not own this land. Rezoning of the land to open space would need to be subjected to a public process. Consequently, the submitter would need to pursue her request via the owner of the land and a separate amendment. Submission noted.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 35 Submitter Name and F Baker “Fairview” Harpers Lane Kyneton Address: Location and Map Reference Crown Portion 130 & 131 Harpers Lane , South Kyneton No: Map 13 Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/a Requested Zone: N/a Proposed Zone: N/a Submission: Requested Refers to concerns with previous rezonings Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: The Committee agreed not to accept the submission. The submission has no relationship to the current Scheme review.

Strategic Considerations WITHDRAWN NOVEMBER1998 and Implications: Council Recommendation: Refer to Panel Panel Comment and Withdrawal of submission noted. Recommendations:

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 36 Submitter Name and G M & M C Harrison RMB 1690 Main Road Romsey Address:

Location and Map Reference Cnr. Ochiltrees Road and Melbourne-Lancefield Road No: Romsey Map 29 Current Zone: Rural Living Exhibited Zone: Rural Living Zone Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: Rural Living Zone Submission: Requested Would like opportunity to subdivide up to 4 lots Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: The minimum lot size is currently 40 ha and is proposed to be 40 ha under new Scheme. This figure was set by the Shire of Romsey as part of a major strategic review. This controlled was translated into the new scheme. Council agreed not to accept the submission.

Strategic Considerations The MSS includes objectives to protect rural land. and Implications: Minium lot sizes are one means of implementing this objective. Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited zoning remain. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The submission seeks to either create 4 lots or two lots by Recommendations: excising off the existing house. The submission indicated that maintenance responsibilities of the existing block are too great. It is noted that the latter option could be considered under the RUZ. The land consists of 17.5 acres and is located in the very high agricultural productivity class north of Romsey which is subject to ESO 3. The MSS does not support further fragmentation of this resource. The requirements of Ministerial Direction have not been addressed but the Panel notes that indicative RLZ supply estimates suggest that the existing zoning provides approximately 30 years. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zone be maintained.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 37 Submitter Name and I J Londish 2 Kathryn Street Woodend Address:

Location and Map Mt. Macedon Road Woodend Reference No: Map 24 Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: Extension of RFO Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested Provided plan of area he believes subject to flooding. Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: Detailed information about flooding Shire wide is subject to the studies being undertaken by DNRE for all Shires across the State. Macedon Ranges Shire is low priority and is unlikely to be completed within two years. Best available information will have to be relied on at this stage. Detailed information is available for Woodend has been used as a basis for the RFO.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that following detailed information from the Department of Natural Resources & Environment in relation to flooding that all mapping of flood areas be rechecked. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and Mr Londish provided a verbal submission, the substance of Recommendations: which was the desire to subdivide his property and objection to the RFO through his property. The area is zoned RUZ and strategies as outlined in the structure plan do not project any development in the foreseeable future. The Woodend Bypass will sever the property and have a significant effect on any future development. The Panel has made recommendations elsewhere that the impacts on land use caused by the new freeway needs to be studied. Mr Londish’s land would qualify for inclusion in such a study. Mr Londish does not argue that his property is not subject to flooding but queries the extent of the Overlay. Detailed flood mapping has not been undertaken but sufficient information was bought before the Panel to confirm that flooding is a problem in the area and would significantly affect the property. The EES for the Calder Highway Woodened Bypass relies on the 1974 Scott & Furphy report on flooding and it appears this has also formed the basis of the RFO in the Scheme. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zone and RFO be maintained.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 38 Submitter Name and Michael Moloney 11 Jennings Street Kyneton Address: Location and Map Reference 11 Jennings Street Part CA 5, Sec 6, Parish of Lauriston No: Map 13 Current Zone: Commercial Exhibited Zone: Business One Zone Requested Zone: Residential Proposed Zone: Business One Zone Submission: Requested Requests property be rezoned residential instead of Changes/Issues Raised: commercial.

Council Comment: A recent review of the Kyneton Retail Strategy supported retaining the zone as exhibited

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the land retain it’s Commercial zoning, given the support of this in the review of the Kyneton Retail Strategy. Panel Comment and The site for the second supermarket in Kyneton has been Recommendations: an issue for some time. A recent permit application for a supermarket on the site that incorporates this submitter’s land was approved by Council. The proposal plans to retain Mr Maloney’s dwelling. The proposal is supported by the Kyneton Retail Strategy and the Kyneton Supermarket Site Options Report. The Panel recommends the exhibited zone be maintained.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 39 Submitter Name and M.A. & D. Ryan, Lot 10 Donalds Road Woodend (land Address: bordered by Ashbourne, Harpers & Mahoneys Road Woodend) Location and Map Reference Land Bordered by Ashbourne, Harpers and Mahoneys No: Road, Woodend Map 23 Current Zone: Forest Residential Exhibited Zone: Rural / Low Density Residential Requested Zone: Objects to lot sizes on LDRZ Proposed Zone: Rural / Low density Residential Development Submission: Requested Objects to LDRZ zoning re lot size. Suggests overlay re 4 Changes/Issues Raised: acre minimum and that all development require a planning permit in this zone.

Council Comment: Although this land is zoned Low Density Residential with a minimum lot size of 0.4ha, Policy No. 22.23 Bushland Living Areas requires a minimum lot size of 1.5ha for land in this area. Changes to VPP’s can only be made by the Minister

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited zoning should be retained, pending a strategic review of Rural Living areas. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and This submission probably stems from a misinterpretation Recommendations: of the subdivision provisions of the LDRZ. The Bushland Living Areas Local Policy ensures that lot sizes are retained at 1.5 hectares which is commensurate with the current minimum subdivision size. Changes to the land use tables of a zone would require an amendment to the VPP’s and is therefore beyond the Panel’s terms of reference. Submission noted.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 40 Submitter Name and D. & T. Bibby “The Pines” Lauriston Address:

Location and Map Reference The Pines , Lauriston Road, Kyneton CA D & E Sec 69, No: Parish of Lauriston Map 12 Current Zone: Rural Water Catchment Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Requests permission to be able to build on a 30 acre lot Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: Property consists on two 30 acres lots, one of which supports a dwelling. Construction of a dwelling on the vacant lot would be subject to an application for planning approval

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that although tenement controls are not included in the new Scheme any application for subdivision will be considered on it’s merits and consistency with Local Policy. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and This is essentially a permit matter and beyond the scope of Recommendations: the Panel. The submitter was advised to consult with Council on this matter. It was noted at the hearing that existing tenement provisions have been removed in the new scheme. Agree with Council assessment. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zone be maintained.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 41 Submitter Name R. H. & J. Lacey, Fiddlers Green Road Kyneton and Address: Location and Map Lots K & L , Sec 47 , Lavenders Lane North Kyneton Map 13 & Map Reference No: 13HO Current Zone: Rural General Farming B Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Deletion of HO 110 and Review of RFO and exclusion of property from HO7. Submission: Requests deletion of HO110 (Rock House) from Planning Scheme. Requested RFO considered incorrect and requests exclusion of property from Changes/Issues HO7. Raised: Also requests that Kyneton heritage study not be included as a reference document. Council Comment: Boundary of RFO will be checked against existing documentation. Only if a property or areas has been identified in a heritage study as being significant should it be included in the heritage overlay Considerations: Protection of heritage places is an objective of the MSS. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that given no citation exists for Recommendation: this property it be excluded from the heritage overlay at this time. Panel Comment See introduction to Section 4 of this Report. and Deferred pending receipt of further submission. Recommendations:

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

ADDENDUM 29/3/99 PANEL REPORT MACEDON RANGES NEW FORMAT PLANNING SCHEME

Panel Comment The Panel was advised at the beginning of March 1999, after the Panel and hearing, that Mr. And Mrs. Lacey did not receive a request to be heard Recommendations: form and therefore had not been able to support their submission at the Panel hearing. The Panel contacted Mr. Lacey and advised him that the Panel was unable to reconvene but he could make a further written submission within two weeks form contact ie by 22 March 1999. The Panel did not receive a further submission but was satisfied that the original submission clearly expressed the Lacey’s concerns.

HO7 applies to an extensive area of the Campaspe River Valley on the western side of Kyneton. It was noted at the hearing that the Panel report relating to L4 indicated that there was insufficient justification for heritage controls applicable to this area. Until such time as detailed information is available to justify the application of the overlay to this area the Panel believes it is not warranted.

HO110 applies to the “Rock House”. The Shire of Kyneton Heritage Study 1990 citation for this building and out buildings recommended local planning control and listing on the Register of the National Estate. The Panel notes that the property is currently subject to heritage planning provisions under Part 3 Clause 27 of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme and supports the inclusion of this building in the Heritage Overlay. However, it is understood that the heritage

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

values do not extend to the whole of the property. To avoid unnecessary requirements for planning approvals, the area subject to the HO should be limited to the part(s) of the property which has been documented as having heritage value.

The Kyneton Heritage is a valuable document providing significant information to assist in the administration of the Planning Scheme. The Panel supports its inclusion as a reference document. However, the Panel has recommended elsewhere that where heritage provisions derived from the report are proposed for the first time in the new scheme, they should only be included if the owner does not object. In other circumstances, the new heritage provisions should be the subject of a separate amendment.

The Panel has received substantial evidence from submitters claiming that the boundaries of flooding overlays are incorrect. Council has advised the Panel that the Shire is not a priority by DNRE to map flooding. As the Panel has only anecdotal evidence as to the actual flood levels, it cannot with confidence recommend extensivechange as part of this Scheme preparation. The Panel does support however, the Council checking the Lacey’s claim and adjusting the boundary of the RFO if necessary. It is unfortunate that this did not occur in the 12 month period between the submission and the Panel hearing. The Panel recommends that the: HO7 be removed from the property; HO110 be retained but confined to the part of the property with documented heritage value; and RFO be reviewed by Council to confirm the submitters claims with appropriate revisions made prior to adoption of the scheme..

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 42

Submitter Name and Woodend & District Heritage Society PO BOX 124 Address: Woodend 3442

Location and Map Reference General ( Shire) Map 15, 26 & 27 No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested Incorrect roads and lines on maps Heritage sites omitted or Changes/Issues Raised: incorrectly mapped

Council Comment: Mistakes in the heritage mapping would be corrected prior to adoption of the Scheme

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the corrections indicated at the time of the Panel hearing be adopted within the Scheme. Panel Comment and The Council has acknowledged that errors have occurred in Recommendations: preparation of the Overlay maps and have undertaken to correct the errors prior to adoption. A revised set of HO maps were provided to the Panel after the hearing. The Panel is wary of recommending that the amended maps be adopted on the basis that new heritage controls have been introduced without notification of individual properties or inclusion of specific reference to the new controls in the new format Scheme explanatory report. Council was given interim advice after the hearing that where, new heritage controls are proposed, property owners should be advised individually. The Panel recommends that: • those items in the HO that have correctly identified and subjected to heritage controls under the existing planning scheme should be included in the Scheme; • all other items will need to be the subject of a separate amendment, except where the written consent of the owner of the item has been obtained; and • Council carefully review all claims of errors and omissions made by local conservation groups and the National Trust prior to adoption of the Scheme.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 43 Submitter Name and C Morganella 17 Mulga Street Thomastown 3074 Address: Location and Map Reference Lot 45 Princess Street LP 1514 Riddells Creek (Riddell No: Ranges Estate), Parish of Kerrie Map 39 Current Zone: Macedon Ranges Landscape Protection Zone Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Remove RO Proposed Zone: Rural retain RO Submission: Requested Objects to consolidation proposal of restructure overlay Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: The land is in an “old and inappropriate subdivision” consisting of approximately 160 lots. Houses have been prohibited on the land for many years. For many years Councils has been working towards restructure of these areas.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) should reflect Council’s intention in respect to land subject to restructure. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and Mr. Morganella purchased his 1 acre lot in 1971 and Recommendations: restructure requirements were imposed 16 years ago due to landscape significance, erosion risk, and inability to absorb effluent. The Panel was advised that a recent report to Council recommended that a scheme be developed and implemented by Council whereby the lots would be consolidated, re-subdivided and resold. Letters to owners outlining the scheme were to be posted shortly after the Panel hearing. The proceeds, less Council’s direct costs, would be distributed to the owners. It is recognised that these proceeds are unlikely to meet owners’ expectations. The Panel believes that given, the nature of the old subdivision and the fragmentation of lot ownership this is a positive response to resolve a long standing problem. The Panel endorses Council’s proposal to consolidate and re-subdivide Restructure Area 7.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 44 Submitter Name and D & M Walpole 455 Wattle Tree Road East Malvern Address: Location and Map Reference CA 78/92 Falloons Road Woodend Map 22 No: Current Zone: Environment Protection Exhibited Zone: Environmental Rural Zone Requested Zone: Rural Proposed Zone: Environmental Rural Zone Submission: Requested Objects to ERZ re removal of grazing and agriculture Changes/Issues Raised: rights Objects to minimum subdivision (40 ha) suggest 8 ha.

Council Comment: The current minimum lot size is 40ha and this is proposed to remain the same. The former Shire of Newham and Woodend undertook strategic work in 1974 (Scott and Furphy) which led to the land having an environmental based zone. Translation of the zoning will not remove existing use rights on the land

Strategic Considerations The MSS includes objectives to protect the environmental and Implications: values of the Shire. Use of the Environmental Rural zone is one method of implementing this objective Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Environmental Rural Zone remain, however given the strategy for this works dates back to 1974 that a review of this area is required. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and See Submission No 19. Recommendations: The Panel recommends that the ERZ be removed from the land at Ashbourne Road and the land be zoned Rural with an ESO.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 45 Submitter Name and Richard Grace 110 High Street Kyneton Address:

Location and Map Reference 88 Wedge Street Kyneton CA 28, Sec 50 Parish of No: Lauriston Map 13 Current Zone: Industrial Exhibited Zone: Industrial One Zone, RFO Overlay Requested Zone: Residential One Zone Proposed Zone: IN1 Submission: Requested Objects to INIZ from Post Office Creek to Latrobe Street Changes/Issues Raised: along Wedge Street - suggest Residential zoning.

Council Comment: Exhibited zoning based on existing zoning. Industrial land review required in Kyneton.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Industrial zoning remain, however a review of Industrial land in Kyneton be undertaken over the next year. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The application of the IN1Z to this land is the result of Recommendations: translation of the existing zone. Council advised the Panel that Council was “committed” to an industrial land study in Kyneton. This area is apparently the source of many complaints due to the proximity of residences. The Panel has an expectation that a responsible planning solution will arise out of this study. The Panel recommends that Council complete the industrial study of Kyneton in time for its recommendations to be included in the first scheduled review of the Scheme.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 46 Submitter Name Jean Philipps RMB 260 Bacchus Marsh Road Bulllengarook and Address: Location and Map General Reference No: Submission: Concerns re forest and rural areas and the Scheme. Concerned re Requested potential for subdivision including in rural areas and water Changes/Issues catchment. Need more than one VPO. Other issues relating to Raised: Overlay and policies Council Comment: The VPO is based on the information currently available about the areas of significant vegetation. Future work to assess other areas of significant vegetation could be incorporated into future scheme amendments. MSS to be strengthened in relation to water catchments. Scheme includes ESO over proclaimed catchments. This provides for consideration of the impact on development on water quality. Catchment Management Policy should refer to proclaimed catchments. Should also provide for referral to North Central CMA. ESO 4 should include reference to relevant Catchment Strategy and comments of the CMA in decision guidelines. Issues raise need for rural review. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the Municipal Strategic Recommendation: Statement (MSS) as presented which is strengthened with relation to Water Catchment be adopted. That the catchment management policy relating to proclaimed catchments and that appropriate referral be catered for to the North Central Catchment Management Authority. Further that the Environmental Significant Overlay ESO4 include reference to relevant catchment strategy and that only one (1) Vegetation Protection Overlay is warranted. Refer other matters to Panel Panel Comment “Specialty farms” on smaller lots are a legitimate land use in rural areas and however, the Panel has commented that the review of rural areas should Recommendations: result in a clearer expression of planning objectives for non-urban areas. The Panel has recommended that Council prepare an Urban Growth Strategy, part of which will require the consideration of the availability of resources, such as water. The MSS requires Council to adopt the provision of land zoned for urban purposes based upon demand and supply for the various types. The MSS acknowledges the need for an urban growth strategy to identify areas for future urban growth. The Panel has been noted that water supply issues should be taken in account in establishing strategies for urban development. The VPO is just one mechanism in the VPP’s to introduce more onerous land use controls over zones to address specific issues. Many of the overlays overlap and achieve the same purpose, thus negating the need for multiple overlays that unnecessarily complicate the implementation of the Scheme. The Panel has recommended that an addition VPO be prepared for roadside vegetation and wildlife corridors where adequate documentation of vegatation values exists. Council does have a local policy for vegetation removal (cl.22.08-2). The Panel has identified the issue of water catchments as one that needs

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

review by Council. The Panel’s position is that all proclaimed catchments should reflect the ERZ combined with the ESO4. The ESO4 requires referral to the DNRE and water authority of all applications. Clause 66.04-04 requires all applications for use or development in a proclaimed catchment must be referred to the relevant water board or water supply authority. The Panel is confident that Council and its officers have sufficient skills to determine when an consultation with DNRE is also desirable. Submission noted.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 47 Submitter Name and H. Kneebone & R. Dixon Lots 6 & 7/120 Bacchus Marsh Road Address: Gisborne 27 McGregor Road Gisborne 27 Nolan Road Riddells Creek Location and Map Lots 6 & 7/120 Bacchus Marsh Road Gisborne 27 McGregor Road Reference No: Gisborne 27 Nolan Road Riddells Creek, 131 Hamilton Street, Gisborne Map 37 & 39 Current Zone: Rural Exhibited Zone: Rural / RFO Requested Zone: Rural Living Zone Proposed Zone: As exhibited Submission: Objects to RUZ suggests Rural Living Zone Requested Also requests review of SMO Changes/Issues Raised: Council Comment: Zone is based on strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Gisborne for its rural areas. The proposal is contrary to the strategic work. SMO based on DNRE mapping. Strategic Amendment to provide for rural living must be assessed against Considerations and Ministerial Direction No. 6 Implications: Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the Rural zone remain, Recommendation: however the Salinity Management Overlay be reassessed following further work by the Department of Natural Resources & Environment. Refer to Panel

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Panel Comment and The submission relates to three separate parcels of land: Recommendations: 1. Dunbarton- 131 Bacchus Marsh Rd, Gisborne It was established at the hearing that the SMO has been applied to this land in error. The Panel recommends that the SMO be removed from Lots 6 & 7/120 Bacchus Marsh Road, Gisborne and Council obtain more accurate data on salinity for the purposes of applying this overlay in the Shire. 2. Nolan – 27 Nolan Rd, Riddells Creek This land consists of 86ha and the exhibited scheme is intended to maintain existing rights to a 5 lot subdivision consisting of 1 primary lot of 73.27ha plus 4 secondary lots of approximately 3.2 ha each through the table to policy 22.14. The exhibited scheme included a RFO over the land which Council has proposed for deletion. It was argued that the property is too small for traditional farming, even prior to acting on existing rights and urbanisation is making farming increasingly difficult eg dog attacks on stock. It was suggested that there is a strong case for rezoning to RLZ given the lands proximity to Gisborne. The land adjoins the Emmaline Vale Estate which is only approximately 20% developed raising questions regarding immediate demand for small lots in the locality. On the basis of the argument presented the vast majority of rural land in the municipality is not suitable for the RUZ as this is one of the larger holdings. The Panel has taken the view that any rezoning to RLZ should take place within the context of the recommended strategic review. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained. 3. McGregor – 27 McGregor Rd, Gisborne This land consists of 61.99 ha and the exhibited scheme is intended to maintain existing rights to a 6 lot subdivision consisting of 1 primary lot of 52.69 ha plus 5 secondary lots of approximately 1.86 ha each through the table to policy 22.14. It was also submitted that the site is fragmented by steep gullies which create 5 separate components. It was put to the Panel that the current subdivision right is inappropriate because it does not take account of the landform and a more flexible approach under the RLZ with appropriate scheduling was suggested. The Panel has recommended that existing site-specific primary secondary lot provisions should be translated to permits. This translation process is only intended to maintain existing rights rather than providing for revision, however, an amendment of the permit could be considered at a later date. Otherwise, the same arguments and Panel comments as apply to Nolan are also relevant to this property. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

100

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 48 Submitter Name and Malcolm Colquhoun 41 Govans Lane New Gisborne Address:

Location and Map Reference 41 Govans Lane and south along Govans Lane Lot 1 on No: LP 96073 Map 35 Current Zone: Rural Exhibited Zone: Rural / RFO Requested Zone: remove RFO Proposed Zone: - Submission: Requested Requests removal of Rural Floodway Overlay Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: Council agreed to reassess the accuracy of the inundation overlay .

101

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 49 Submitter Name and Heather Gee 24 Douglas Road Mt. Macedon Address: Location: General Submission: Requests more VPO’s Overlay for Fauna Protection Requests more Requested Incorporated Documents States maps are full of mistakes Heritage Changes/Issues section incomplete Raised: Council Comment: Layering of sites and areas with overlays (VPO’s and ESO’s) is not appropriate if they do not serve additional purpose. There is a need to ensure the overlays are adequate - in general these need to be reduced in length and made more specific. Heritage sites have detailed citations and should be included in heritage overlays. The submission did not nominate what additional documents should be incorporated into the scheme. The scheme includes an extensive list of reference documents. To use an overlay there needs to be sufficient documentation to justify its use. Further studies may be required to provides for additional flora and fauna protection. DNRE have requested that an ESO be used to protect some significant flora, fauna and habitat sites. MSS should be strengthened in relation to reference to significant indigenous flora and fauna. It should also reference the need for further studies. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that given the intent is to Recommendation: minimise the number of Overlays, then any Overlays that are to be provided need to be substantiated. No further Overlays are recommended however the strengthened Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) in relation to Significant Indigenous Flora and Fauna be adopted. Panel Comment and The Panel shares the general concerns expressed that the planning scheme Recommendations: fails to meet strategic objectives (including the SPPF) and has commented on these issues. In addition the Panel has made numerous recommendations aimed at addressing these deficiencies. Provision of VPO. - The Panel has made recommendations regarding extending VPO's to documented roadside vegetation and wildlife corridors. Some other overlays such as ESO’s and SLO’s address similar issues. The Panel would expect some adjustments to these overlays when Council’s Environment Strategy is completed. Council has opted to nominate background documents and reports as reference material rather than incorporated. The Panel supports this approach as incorporated documents are to be applied rigidly and many background reports are dated in parts or with the passing of time irrelevant in parts. The Panel has already noted the extensive mapping errors in the Scheme and their incompleteness. Council has provided the Panel with a revised list of items in the HO and those that can be included prior to adoption of the Scheme will be. Mt Macedon. - See discussion on land use planning Mt Macedon in the body of the report. Submission noted.

102

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 50 Submitter Name and Brenda Carroll Grandview” Romsey Address: Location and Map Reference No: Current Zone: General Farming Exhibited Zone: Rural / SMO Requested Zone: Remove SMO Proposed Zone: Rural / SMO Submission: Requests SMO to be removed Requested Changes/ Issues Raised: Council Comment: SMO based on DNRE information Strategic Considerations Use of the SMO is consistent with Councils environmental and Implications: management objectives Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Salinity Management Overlay should be retained but it’s boundaries rechecked after further discussion with the Department of Natural Resources & Environment. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The DNRE have advised Council that the salinity mapping Recommendations: upon which the SMO is applied in the new Scheme is the latest and best information available. Council has met with the submitter to explain that operation of the SMO. The Panel recommends that the exhibited SMO be retained unless it is demonstrated that it has been applied in error.

103

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 51 Submitter Name and P. Jones & A. Shortland-Jones 10 Riverside Drive Address: Torquay Location and Map Reference Riddell Ranges Estate Riddells Creek Map 39 No:

Current Zone: Macedon Ranges Landscape Protection Zone Exhibited Zone: Rural and Restructure Overlay Requested Zone: Removal of Restructure Overlay Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Restructure overlay requires minimum lot area of 20ha for Changes/Issues Raised: construction of a dwelling

Council Comment: This is an “old and inappropriate subdivision” consisting of approximately 160 lots. Houses have been prohibited on the land for many years.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited zoning and restructure plan be retained. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and Mrs Jones purchased her 2 lots in 1971 and restructure Recommendations: requirements were imposed 16 years ago due to landscape significance, erosion risk, and inability to absorb effluent. It is noted that Mrs Jones did not consider previous offers for the land to be acceptable. The Panel was advised that a recent report to Council recommended that a scheme be developed and implemented by Council whereby the lots were consolidated, re-subdivided and resold. Letters to owners outlining the scheme were to be posted shortly after the Panel hearing. The proceeds, less Council’s direct costs, would be distributed to the owners. It is recognised that the revenue from this process may not meet owners’ expectations. The Panel believes that given the nature of the old subdivision and the fragmentation of lot ownership this is a positive response to resolve a long standing problem. The Panel endorses Council’s proposal to consolidate and re-subdivide Restructure Area 7.

104

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 52 Submitter Name and Mr. D. Kakris 17 Munro Street Ascot Vale 3037 Address: Location and Map Reference 46 Taylors Road Mt. Macedon N/A No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested Requests defined densities re residencies per acres in Low Changes/Issues Raised: Density Residential Zone

Council Comment: Only the Minister can amend VPPs This zone provides for minimum subdivision size of the 0.04 ha ( 1 acre) with no minimum lots size for construction of dwelling.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: Refer to Panel Panel Comment and This submission was withdrawn and then reinstated by the Recommendations: submitter. The Panel was advised that his property is within an LDRZ and is subject to SLO2, ESO4 and RO10. The application of the RO10 to the submitter’s land will determine the lot size despite the zone provisions. The exhibited RO schedule does not does not identify any development options for the subject site which highlights the problems associated with the format adopted relying only on the schedule without the support of a plan. On that basis the effect of the overly is debateable as all development must be in accordance with the restructure plan. One interpretation would be that the restructure plan does not envisage any development, although specific instances where this is the clear intention are identified, or alternatively that the omission would mean that other scheme provisions would apply. The planning intensions for this land should be clarified and included in the first amendment to the Planning Scheme The Panel recommends that: the planning provisions applicable to 46 Taylors Rd, Mt. Macedon be clarified with any substantive changes from existing planning controls exhibited as part of the first amendment to the new Scheme; and Restructure Plans be prepared for RO 10 and RO 11.

105

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 53 Submitter Name and Ms H Sanders Lot 3 Forbes Road Mount Macedon 3440 Address:

Location and Map Reference Lot 3 on LP 94435, Parish of Gisborne Cnr. Lawson & No: Forbes Roads Macedon Map 33 Current Zone: Landscape Protection C Exhibited Zone: Environmental Rural Zone Requested Zone: N/a Proposed Zone: Environmental Rural Zone Submission: Requested Wants to subdivide into one 20 acre and two 10 acre lots Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: Zoning based on the Land Capability Study and the existing zone

Strategic Considerations Environmental Rural zone used to implement Councils and Implications: objectives for environmental management Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited zoning be retained. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and This land is within the catchment of the Rosslynne Recommendations: Reservoir to which the Panel supports the application of the ERZ. The schedule to the ERZ only allows for the realignment of boundaries, not subdivision. The subject land is surrounded by the ERZ. Creation of additional lots at this density is not supported by the Panel. The proposed zone is no more onerous than the existing zone which does not entitle the land to any subdivision. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

106

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 54 Submitter Name and R. & A. Fookes Lauriston Reservoir Road Kyneton Address:

Location and Map Reference CA 1-5 Sec B, Parish of Malmsbury Map 13 No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested Concerned Planning Scheme does not recognise each Changes/Issues Raised: existing lot can be built on. Considers 0.4 ha lots are appropriate on the land.

Council Comment: That Council recommend to the Panel that the currently exhibited zone remain however a Strategic review of rural living areas be initiated.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: Panel Comment and This is a well researched submission that provides good Recommendations: commentary on the Malmsbury Structure Plan and other issues in the Scheme. The Panel is of the view that much of Mr Fookes comments on the inadequacies of the exhibited MSS in addressing small towns (in particular Malmsbury) are correct. However the revised MSS provides much more detail and provides excellent basis for structure plans for towns. The Panel disagrees with the submitters assertions that towns should not be constrained by sewer districts and the definition of the sewerage scheme/districts are important issues currently being defined which founded on planning objectives expressed in the policy/ structure plan for the area. However, the Panel agrees with the submission that the structure plan could be developed further to acknowledge important local features such as bluestone buildings, the viaduct, the mill etc. to reinforce the application of the HO. The refinement of structure plans will be an ongoing process. Restrictions on building design in heritage areas is supported by the Panel and indeed the HO requires these matters to be considered. There is sufficient flexibility in the controls for Council to exercise discretion in this regard. The VPP’s provide for home occupations in rural zones which would accommodate the type of small business/cottage industry the submitter desires. Submission noted.

107

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 55 Submitter Name and Pat De Moulpied 50 Prince Street Gisbourne 3437 Address: Location and Map General N/A Reference No: Submission: Concerned about provisions for subdivision down to 0.4ha in Rural areas. Requested ESO 3 could be expanded. Changes/Issues Additional environmental overlays could be included. Raised: Concerned about provisions for medium density housing in Gisborne. Council Comment: ESO3 areas (good quality agricultural land) was based on land capability studies completed over parts of the Shire. VPO based on available information. Medium density housing provisions are based on State policy. MSS needs reworking in relation to character statements for townships. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the boundaries of the Recommendation: Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3) be rechecked and that the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) as strengthened be adopted. Panel Comment and The comments regarding opportunities to apply for permits to excise an Recommendations: existing house or resubdivide lots which result in lots down to 0.4 ha are VPP provisions which have been addressed by the VPP Advisory Committee process. It is noted that the extent of this form of subdivision in rural areas is an issue which should be included in monitoring provisions to be included in the Scheme. With regard to protection of high quality agricultural land, ESO3 has only been applied to some of the Class 1 land and there is a strong strategic basis for extending the overlay to all Class1 land prior to adoption of the scheme. The Panel agrees that protection of land within Productivity Class 2 should also be taken into account in planning decisions but accepts Council’s decision to focus specific controls only on the highest classification. Council is currently preparing an Environment Strategy for the Shire and the Panel expects a review of the application of environment overlays as a result. The revised LPPF removes the prescriptive lots size provisions included in the exhibited Scheme which were the basis of some concerns in the submission. It is an objective of the Scheme that the Shire provide a range of housing choices for its residents, including medium density housing. This type of development is undesirable in rural or low density residential areas but is appropriate in urban areas to provide housing choice and meet changing community needs. By applying local policies applicable to townships, Council can control inappropriate medium density development. The Panel recommends that: • subdivision in rural zones be monitored • ESO3 be extended to all land within the productivity Class 1 prior to adoption of the scheme. • high priority be given to the completion of the Environment Strategy.

108

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 56 Submitter Name and Vincent Tallarida 278 Bentons Road Mornington 3931 Address: Location and Map Reference Lot 43 Websters Lane Riddells Creek Map 38 No: Current Zone: Rural Living Exhibited Zone: Rural / Rural Living Requested Zone: N/a Proposed Zone: Rural / Rural Living Zone Submission: Requested Requests provision to allow minimum 10 acres and Changes/Issues Raised: average 30 acre lot subdivision

Council Comment: The current minimum lot size is 40 ha. This figure was a result of strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Romsey and a translation of existing control.

Strategic Considerations Protection of land parcels in Rural areas is an objective of and Implications: the MSS.

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited zoning remain and that there is no need for a Development Plan Overlay. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The land is zoned RLZ Area “A” which provides for Recommendations: applications for “clustered” subdivision with an average lot size of 16 ha subject to a 40ha balance lot. This Panel has commented that any additional provision for rural living opportunities should be made within the context of a strategic review of rural areas. The issue of appropriate lot sizes and the potential to extend potential land use conflicts by dispersing rural residential clusters throughout the rural zones should be addressed as part of the recommended strategic review. The Panel recommends that the issues of lot size and dispersed clusters of small lots be addressed as part of the strategic review of rural living.

109

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 57 Submitter Name and Vincent Tallarida Lot (No 11) Devonshire Lane Mt. Address: Macedon Location and Map Reference Part CA 1, Sec 3 Parish of Macedon No: Current Zone: Landscape Protection B Exhibited Zone: Low Density Residential Zone / Restructure Overlay Requested Zone: Proposed Zone: Low density Residential Zone Restructure Overlay Submission: Requested Requests zoning to allow subdivision into 3 lots of 1 acre Changes/Issues Raised: each

Council Comment: Extensive work was done by the Shire of Gisborne to rationalise/consolidate lots at Mt. Macedon. ¼ acre is too small for waste disposal and development at this density would be contrary to preservation of the amenity of the area. The land has maximum potential for 1 house and this is proposed to remain.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited zoning and the Restructure Overlay that exists on this land be retained. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The land is within the sensitive Mt. Macedon area which Recommendations: is reflected by the application of the RO, SLO1 Ranges and ESO4- Water Quality catchment. The prevention of further subdivision has been long established State and local policy which has been maintained in the new format scheme. PP No8. Specifically precludes further urban subdivision in the Mount Macedon settlement as is the intention of the RO except in nominated circumstances. Effluent disposal has been a problem in the locality which is being addressed under the state program. The issue of further development, including small scale incremental proposals such as this submission, within the catchment would also require evaluation by the water authority to consider implications for water quality. The Panel recommends that the exhibited planning provisions be maintained.

110

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 58 Submitter Name and F & A D’Andrea & S & C D D’Andrea 46 Melvins Road Address: Riddells Creek Location and Map Reference Lot 1 Melvins Road, Riddels Creek Map 39 No: Current Zone: Town Fringe- Residential Exhibited Zone: Low Density Residential Zone Requested Zone: Proposed Zone: Low Density Residential Zone Submission: Requested Requests overlay to allow for small lot subdivision down Changes/Issues Raised: to 1/4 acre (1,000m2).

Council Comment: Melvins Road forms the boundary of “higher density residential development” in Riddells Creek. There is a need to clearly define the urban edge.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Rural zoning remain. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The LDRZ allows subdivision down to 4,000m2. This is a Recommendations: substantially greater density than the current Structure Plan which restricts the subject land to lots of 2 ha (20,000m2). The submitters land is approximately two hectares in area which would allow an application for five lots under the LDRZ. The submitters land is within the town boundary of Riddells Creek. The Structure Plan for the town is unclear as to the preferred use of the subject land although it is part of a large area of land zoned LDRZ on the north western side of the town. The Council’s recommendation is presumably an error in reference to the Rural zone. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zone and subdivision provisions be maintained.

111

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 59 Submitter Name and Vincent Tallarida on behalf of Aquila Constructions 278 Address: Bentons Road Mornington 3931 Location and Map Reference Lot 14 Hamilton Street Macedon Map 27 No: Current Zone: Village Conservation Exhibited Zone: Low Density Residential Zone Restructure Overlay Requested Zone: - Proposed Zone: Low Density Residential Zone Submission: Requested Objects to need to consolidate 3 lots of 1/4 acre for one Changes/Issues Raised: dwelling house lot.

Council Comment: Extensive work was done by the Shire of Gisborne to rationalise/consolidate lots at Mt. Macedon. ¼ acre is too small for waste disposal and development at this density would be contrary to preservation of the amenity of the area.. The land has maximum potential for 1 house and this is proposed to remain. .

112

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 60 Submitter Name and Vincent Tallarida on behalf of Talmar Holdings 278 Address: Bentons Road Mornington 3931 Location and Map Reference Lots 15 & 16 (No. 5) Hamilton Street Macedon Map 27 No: Current Zone: Village Conservation Exhibited Zone: Low Density Residential Zone Restructure Overlay Requested Zone: Proposed Zone: Low Density Residential Zone Restructure Overlay Submission: Requested Objects to need to consolidate 3 lots of 1/4 acre for one Changes/Issues Raised: dwelling house lot.

113

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 61 Submitter Name and S & P Krichauff 249 Bacchus Marsh Road Bullengarook Address: Location and Map Reference CA 7C, 249 Bacchus Marsh Road, Bullengarook Map 33 No: Current Zone: Rural Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: - Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Requests provisions to allow land (30 acres) to be Changes/Issues Raised: allowed to be further subdivided

Council Comment: Significant strategic work was undertaken by the Shire of Gisborne relating to the rural areas. The proposal is considered contrary to the recommendations of this work. Minimum subdivision sizes have been set to protect viability and amenity of rural areas. There is sufficient land zoned for rural living for predicted growth for the planning period

114

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 62 Submitter Name and S & P Krichauff Lot 3 LP 200999P Campbells Road Address: Riddells Creek Location and Map Reference Lot 3 LP 200999P Campbells Road Riddells Creek Map No: 37 & 39 Current Zone: Rural Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Rural Living Zone Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Wants opportunity to subdivide their 39.8 ha lot. Changes/Issues Raised: Objects to land in being zoned Rural

Strategic Considerations Protection of rural land and environmental values are and Implications: primary objectives of the MSS Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current Rural Zoning remain. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The land consists of 39.8 ha and adjoins 5 rural residential Recommendations: lots fronting Campbells Rd with RLZ opposite on the northern side of Campbells Rd. The subject site is within the Rural Zone policy area “A” which provides for primary secondary lot development. The Panel was advised that there may be several typographical errors in the exhibited scheme and the average lot yield (100ha) appeared to be incorrect. The form of the existing lots suggests that this site may well have been subject to a primary- secondary lot subdivision in the past. The submittors emphasised the site’s proximity to Riddells Creek and other RLZ, together with the limited agricultural productivity of the land due to extensive rocky outcrops. The Panel has commented that any decisions to provide additional rural living opportunities should be made within the context of the recommended Rural Living strategic review. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

115

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 63 Submitter Name and David Francis National Trust of Aust. (Vic) Macedon Address: Ranges Branch General F. Marson National Trust of Aust. (Vic) Macedon Ranges Branch Location and Map Reference General N/A No: Submission: Requested Post Office and Shops 125 – 127 Mollison St should be Changes/Issues Raised: included in HO. Include buffer zones around environmental areas. HO 33 Pain t control should be applied in Piper St. HO99 Wards’ Mill managers house should be included separately. Identifies a number of clerical errors relating to HO. Recomends that a number of sites with National Trust citations be included in HO. Requests some additional sites with National Trust classification be included. Council Comment: Heritage places can be included if there has been a detailed citation prepared for them. Wards Mill property is included in HO Council Recommendation: Make corrections to Heritage Overlay as requested That Council recommend to the Panel that the rechecking of all Heritage Overlay controls be undertaken to ensure their accuracy. Refer other matters to panel Panel Comment and Mr Francis presented to the Panel and raised a number Recommendations: of issues. How population growth is to accommodated in the Shire is also a concern to the Panel. The Panel has recommended that Council undertake an Urban Growth Strategy to address this issue. Council has used other tools such as overlays to provide protection to the environment, in addition to the ERZ. The VPO is for general protection of vegetation whereas the HO can be utilised to protect individual trees. Issues pertaining to the Kyneton Airfield are addressed in Submission No 208. The Lancefield Swamp is addressed in the National Trust’s submission following. The Panel recommends: Council review the HO again prior to adoption to ensure all claims of inclusions, exclusions, errors and the like, have been assessed. Council complete an Urban Growth Strategy prior to the first review of the Scheme.

116

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 64 Submitter Name National Trust of Australia (Vic) 23 Mabel Cresent Mt Macedon and Address: Submission: Requests that Heritage Policy be amended to include requirement to Requested seek National Trust advice for applications that may impact on Changes/Issues Heritage Trust classified property; Requests that vegetation policy Raised: be amended ESO to apply to waterways VPO to apply to roadsides Raise a range of issues in relation to heritage matters; Requests addition of a number of sites classified by the National Trust to the Heritage Overlay Council Comment: Heritage places can be included if there has been a detailed citation prepared for them. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the rechecking of all Recommendation: Heritage Overlay controls be undertaken to ensure their accuracy. Amend heritage overlay as requested Refer other matters to Panel Panel Comment The Trust proposes that additional studies be required to properly and identify the cultural and natural heritage of the Shire. Studies Recommendations: suggested are • Rural Character (Natural and Cultural Landscape) Study • Remnant indigenous Vegetation Study • Gaps in the heritage survey of the Shire. The proposals are complimentary to the Council position as outlined in the MSS and Council can determine the priority of such action. The Panel recommends that the following studies be undertaken: • Rural Character (Natural and Cultural Landscape) Study for the area of the Shire not contained within the “Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage & Landscape Study”. • Remnant Indigenous Vegetation Study. • Gaps in the Heritage Study. The Trust have sought to be notified of planning applications. However, the general provision 67.02 in the VPP’s already requires notification of the National Trust where an application relates to land with a classified building. The Panel recommends that the following notation be added to the Heritage Policy – “Comment be sought from the National Trust on all planning applications which may have a significant impact on a place classified by the National Trust.” Precincts: The Trust has suggested that a number of precincts (Deep Creek, Northwest Rail Corridor, Kyneton Botanical Gardens) have not been mapped. Heritage Places: The Trust recommends a number of additional sites for inclusion (see submission 16Nov 98) • 25 Sites from previous planning controls not listed • 11 National Trust Sites with citations • 7 Garden Precincts • 85 Significant Trees with citations • 12 Heritage Timber Bridges • Unlisted sites and precincts on the Register of the National Estate

117

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

places as listed in the Trust submission to the Panel(16 Nov 98) plus the Lancefield Swamp • LCC recommended historic places • 7 Gold Mining Sites from North Central Goldfields Project Historic Mining Sites in the Taradale Division • Hutton Street Baby Health Centre from the The History of the Baby Health Centre Movement in Victoria 1917-1976 • Monash Bridges from Monash Bridges: Typological Study of Reinforced Concrete Bridges in Victoria,1897-1917 • Motor Garages from The Motor Garage and Service Station in Victoria: A Survey The Panel recommends that: • Heritage precincts be assessed and included as part of the first amendment to the Scheme if citations justify their heritage significance. • Heritage sites from the above list with citations and on public land be included in the Heritage Overlay prior to adoption • Heritage Sites with adequate citations from the above list and for which owners approval has been obtained, be included in the Heritage Overlay prior to adoption. • Heritage Sites with citations from the above list and for which the owner's approval has not been obtained be included with the first amendment of the Scheme. Significant Landscapes and Environment Volcanic Landscapes - A number of sites are included in the SLO. The Trust suggests additions in accordance with the Rosngren report. The Panel recommends the sites identified in the Rosngren report be considered for inclusion in the SLO at the next amendment. Vegetation Protection Overlay - The Trust recommend inclusion of VPO's in accordance with the Roadside Management Plans of the previous municipalities and this is supported by the Panel. Environmental Significance Overlay- Other Panels have recommended that the issue of ESO's over streams should be addressed at the State level by amending the VPP to require approval for works or removal of native vegetation within 30 metres of a stream. This would address the protection of watercourses without the need for routine application of an ESO to all watercourses. Significant Landscape Overlay- the Trust recommends further landscape protection for the Campaspe River District. The Trust believes that the schedule to the SLO should include a requirement for a subdivision permit and detail of the values to be preserved. The SLO does not regulate subdivision and amendment of the VPP would be necessary. The Panel was not presented with any reasons why the scope of the SLO should be extended to address subdivision. The Panel agrees that the landscape character objectives in the schedules to the SLO are very broad and should be revised to be more specific to the particular landscapes to be protected. A permit requirement for subdivision is not necessary as it requires one in any case. The Panel supports the inclusion of a requirement that applicants may be asked to analyse the impacts of the proposed development on the landscape values of the area.

118

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

The Panel recommends that schedules 1 and 2 to the SLO be revised to include landscape character objectives which are more specific to the particular areas and values to be protected and .to require the values of the landscape to be addressed under clause 4.0. Vegetation Clearance: Restriction of vegetation clearance to trees has been queried by the Trust. The Panel has reviewed this Overlay in section 3.5 and recommended that the Overlay cover all vegetation. Protection of vegetation is also offered in zones, other overlays and clause 52.17 of the VPP’s. The Trust also request that rural holdings be held in large parcels and prevented from fragmentation and consumption by urban growth. The Panel has recommended that the subdivision and dwelling provisions applicable to rural areas is unworkable in its current format and needs to be reviewed.

119

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 65 Submitter Name The Foreman Family “Mount Pleasant” Carlsruhe Station Road via and Address: Kyneton Location and Map Part CA 141, Parish of Lauriston Map 16 16 HO Current Zone: Rural General Farming B Exhibited Zone: HO 132/ Rural Requested Zone: Define HO 132 Proposed Zone: Rural / HO 132 Submission: Believes HO 132 should be reduced in size to cover their homestead only. Request opportunity for subdivision into smaller lots be provided. Council Comment: Minimum lot size is currently 40 ha. If a citation has been prepared for the property identifying it as being worthy of protection it should be included on the Heritage Overlay Strategic Protection of rural land and heritage places are objectives of the MSS Considerations: Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the current Rural zoning Recommendation: remain and that checking of the Heritage Overlay will be undertaken prior to the Panel hearing. Refer to Panel Panel Comment The Manual for the VPP’s recognises that there will be instances where the and heritage item is located within a large parcel of land, like a farm for Recommendations: example. This is the case with this item as the citation only applies to the dwelling. The Manual directs that in these circumstances, the extent to which the overlay applies should be described rather than based on the property boundary. For example, “the building and all land within 20 metres of its external walls”. Where driveways or other items on the property have heritage significance they should also be included by description. The Panel recommends that: • HO132 only apply to areas identified in the relevant citation as being of heritage value prior to adoption of the Scheme: and • in the future, Council review the mapping of heritage items on large parcels of land and their description in the HO. In regards to subdivision, the land consists of 162ha and is the exhibited Scheme, the ESO3 is applied in error (to be deleted) and a RFO is applied over the north eastern corner of the land. The Panel recommends that the ESO3 in the vicinity of Carlesruhe be deleted. The addition of a PAO along the Calder Highway frontage was shown in the schedule but not on the exhibited maps. As the acquisition process is already well underway for the Calder Freeway, it is unlikely any affected person would be ignorant of Vicroads intentions. The Panel recommends that the PAO be mapped prior to adoption of the Scheme to reflect the schedule to the overlay. It is noted that an application could be lodged to re-configure existing lots. However, the submission suggests lot sizes of 10 to 20 ha. The Panel has commented that any expansion of rural living opportunities should be in the context of the recommended strategic review of rural living in the Shire.

120

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 66 Submitter Name and Doug Henneberry (Shire Resident & Chairperson of Address: Cobaw Anti Shooting Range Assoc Inc.) PO BOX 35, Lancefield 3435 Location and Map Reference General N/A Submission: Requested Opportunity for subdivision between Romsey and Changes/Issues Raised: Lancefield should be allowed to generate economic activity Concerned subdivision near the Lancefield Golf Club may be inappropriate Cobaw Forest requires particular attention. Fire hazard protection needs attention Council Comment: The land capability study identified the land between Romsey and Lancefield as having good quality soil for agriculture. Extensive and ribbon development was inappropriate. The current scheme has an ODP for the land north of the Lancefield golf Course. The new Scheme proposes to keep this. The issue of the Cobaw Range is listed below. Council Recommendation: That the currently exhibited zones remain. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The submission argued that the land subject to ESO3 is Recommendations: already so fragmented that viable farming is not possible. Infrastructure costs would be born by developer/purchaser. Further subdivision would generate income which would support the towns of Romsey and Lancefield. The Panel notes the strong strategic commitment to protecting the areas of highest productivity classification and comments that it is a function of planning to achieve optimum, cost effective infrastructure provision. The community often bears the long term cost of infrastructure provision eg maintenance of unsealed roads. The Panel has recommended that there should be a strategic review of rural living opportunities in the Shire. The suitability of the LDRZ associated with the golf course development at Lancefield was questioned. This is the translation of an existing zoning and back zoning is not proposed. The Panel has recognised the importance of the Cobaws and recommended that it be included in the ERZ. Council indicated at the hearing that it would support such an amendment. With regard to management of fire hazard, the CFA fire intensity mapping is recommended to provide the basis for a WFMO (see discussion in report). Submission noted.

121

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 66, 102, 109, 118, 122 ( See Comments on above)

Submitter Name and numerous Address: Location and Map Reference Cobaw Range No: Map 9 & 18 Current Zone: Macedon Landscape Protection Exhibited Zone: Rural / SLO Requested Zone: ERZ Proposed Zone: ERZ / SLO Submission: Requested Changes/Issues Raised: Council Comment: The Council agreed that the zoning of the land should be Environmental Rural with a Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) rather than Rural with a SLO. This was on the basis of the environmental significance of the land which is a significant landscape feature and has significant tree cover and is generally a significant area for flora and fauna. An appropriate schedule will need to be developed in the Environmental Rural Zone detailing the “land/Environmental outcome” envisaged for the Range. This may include issues such as flora, fauna, landscape and ridgelines.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the land be rezoned Environmental Rural with a Significant Landscape Overlay rather than the exhibited Rural with an Significant Landscape Overlay Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The Panel has recognised the importance of the Cobaws Recommendations: and recommended that it be included in the ERZ. Council indicated at the hearing that it would agree to such an amendment. The Panel recommends that Council apply the ERZ and the ESO to the Cobaw Ranges prior to adoption of the Scheme.

122

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 67 Submitter Name and John O’Sullivan PO BOX 350 Gisborne 3437 Address: Location and Map Reference Brookings Road Gisborne ( SW of Brookings road where No: Brandy Road meet) Map 36 Current Zone: Rural Farmlet Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: RLZ Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Wishes to subdivide into lots of approximately 3 acres Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: A residential review was undertaken by the Shire of Gisborne and the proposal is contrary to the review recommendations. The land has been set aside for the long term urban expansion of Gisborne and will be so designated on the Structure Plan.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current proposed Outline Development Plan for this area be retained, but may alter in light of the residential review proposed this year. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The land is within the township boundary defined in the Recommendations: Gisborne Structure Plan and identified as “future residential”. Allowing for rural living sized allotments would prejudice the ability of the land to be ‘converted’ to urban in the future. No strategic basis provided with the submission to justify the requested change in zoning. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

123

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 68 Submitter Name and D. O’Sullivan Cnr. James Road & Calder Highway Address: Woodend

Location and Map Reference CA 77 & Lot 1 on LP 220452 Map 15 No: Current Zone: Rural B Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: - Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Does not want CSL land (Calder Highway Carlsruhue) to Changes/Issues Raised: be exempt from Planning controls.

Council Comment: There were no exemptions provided for under the new Scheme.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The submission expressed alarm that CSLLtd (which has Recommendations: been privatised) should be exempt from planning controls. Exemptions under the existing scheme has allowed the establishment of a small poultry farm without a planning permit, but subject to building control and satisfying EPA buffer requirements. The exhibited scheme has not carried over the site specific exemption for the site but existing use rights apply and cannot be altered. The Panel accepts that the CSL site should be subject to normal planning provisions applicable in the RUZ as exhibited in the scheme. The Panel recommends that the exhibited planning provisions be maintained.

124

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 69 Submitter Name and W. Davey, Imbebor Investments Pty. Ltd Bryces Lane Address: Newham

Location and Map Reference Crown Allotment 5, and Part Crown Allotment 7, Section No: 3,Bryces Lane, Newham. Map 17 Current Zone: Environment Protection Exhibited Zone: Environmental Rural Zone Requested Zone: Urban / ERZ Proposed Zone: Environmental Rural Zone Submission: Requested Does not want one of his crown allotments (CA 7) zoned Changes/Issues Raised: entirely Environmental Rural

Council Comment: The current zoning of the land is part Rural B and part Environment Protection.. The new Planning Scheme proposes to undertake a direct translation of these zones. The land is located in the Monument Creek Catchment

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The Panel supports retention of the ERZ, noting that the Recommendations: land forms part of the Monument Creek Catchment. See discussion on catchments in the Report. Submission noted.

125

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 70 Submitter Name and Eilleen & Mick Seric 2 Andrew Road St Albans 3021 Address: Location and Map Reference Lot 12 on LP 204696 M, Parish of Kerrie 16 Argent Court No: Riddells Creek Map 39 Current Zone: Restricted Development Exhibited Zone: Low Density Residential Requested Zone: Further Subdivision Rights. Proposed Zone: Low Density Residential Submission: Requested Wish to subdivide their 13.5 acre lot into 2 lots Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: In the Low Density Residential zone an application can be made for a second house and the minimum subdivision size is 0.4 ha. Such as development as proposed would be assessed on its merits.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited zoning remain. Panel Comment and At the hearing the Panel was advised the existing scheme Recommendations: prohibits further development in this locality via plan P426427 which has not been reflected in the exhibited scheme. In the case of the subject site, which is 13.5 acres, development potential would be increased by 13 lots. This increased development potential would apply throughout the area previously subject to the aforementioned plan. The basis of the requirements of the existing scheme should be evaluated with a view to applying a DPO to ensure that appropriate planning criteria apply to the area. The specific features of the subject site and any basis for the lot sizes adopted in the subdivision under existing scheme provisions were not available to the Panel but should be addressed in the criteria included if a DPO is applied. The Panel recommends that the need for additional mechanisms to manage development in the vicinity of Argent Court Riddells Creek be evaluated with a view to applying a DPO.

126

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 71 Submitter Name and R. A. Leopold 2 Hillview Rise Gisborne South Address: Location and Map Reference 2 Hillview Rise Gisborne South Map 44 No: Current Zone: Rural Farmlet Exhibited Zone: Rural Living Zone Requested Zone: - Proposed Zone: Rural Living Zone Submission: Requested Wish to subdivide their 10 acre lot into 2 lots Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: The Committee were advised of the strategic work done by the Shire of Gisborne and that the subdivision is prohibited under the existing Planning Scheme. The Committee agreed not to accept the submission. Agree.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited zoning be retained. Panel Comment and The land is within the RLZ “B” policy area which Recommendations: effectively prevents further subdivision (100ha min) but provides for as of right house development on lots of 1ha+. The submission highlighted the area’s proximity to urban services and the freeway, improved road safety associated with VicRoads works, the availability of power, the need to provide adequate water for fire fighting and excellent views from the elevated site. The Panel has consistently indicated that the provision of additional rural living opportunities should be within the context of the recommended strategic review. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

127

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 72 Submitter Name and D. & J. Gibney 10 Baynton Road Kyneton Address:

Location and Map Reference 6-8 Baynton Street - CA 6, Sec 6 11 Jennings Street Map No: 13 Current Zone: Residential Exhibited Zone: Business One Zone Requested Zone: Residential One Zone Proposed Zone: Defer consideration Submission: Requested Request adjoining land (6-8 Baynton Street and 11 Changes/Issues Raised: Jennings Street) be rezoned from Commercial to Residential

Council Comment: The Committee were advised that this submission should be dealt with in a similar manner to submission no. 38 (Michael Moloney). The Committee agreed to defer consideration of this submission pending the outcome of the review of the Kyneton Retail Strategy.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited Residential zoning remain. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and See also submissions 38 and 141. Recommendations: This submitter is referring to their neighbours property. The second supermarket site in Kyneton has now been determined. The subject property is not required for the development and accordingly should be zoned residential. The Panel recommends that the exhibited R1Z remain.

ADDENDUM 10/4/99

After the release of the report on the new format Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme, Council advised the Panel that the land referred to in submission no. 72 as 6-8 Baynton Street, Kyneton is currently zoned Commercial and not Residential as indicated in Council’s report to the Panel. Further, the Council’s recommendation to the Panel was that the residential zoning remain but should have been that the exhibited B1Z should remain. As the Panel’s response to Submission No. 38 indicates, the site for a second supermarket in Kyneton has been an issue for some time. Council has recently issued a notice of decision to grant a planning permit for the development of 6-8 Baynton Street for the second supermarket. The Panel is satisfied that the Kyneton Retail Strategy and more recently the Kyneton Supermarket Site Options Report, identify the subject land as suitable for a supermarket and provide the strategic justification for the application of the proposed Business 1 zone. The Panel recognises both these documents as having strategic influence over the future development of the Kyneton central area and Council’s revised recommendation is consistent with the exhibited new format Planning Scheme. Based on Council’s advice, the Panel’s recommendation in regards to Submission No. 72 is changed as follows. The Panel recommends that land at 6-8 Baynton Street, Kyneton be zoned Business 1 as exhibited.

128

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 73 Submitter Name and Les Bennett PO BOX 159 Woodend 3442 Address: Location and Map Reference CA 124 & 126 Crows Road Woodend Lot 2 on Plan of No: Subdivision 4004800, Map 23 Current Zone: Rural B Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: regarding Overlays Proposed Zone: review overlays Submission: Requested Raises questions regarding Overlays Raises issue of Changes/Issues Raised: existing house lots in rural areas Would like Scheme re- exhibited after changes made

Council Comment: The Committee were advised that the Flood Overlay areas were to be rechecked. The land subject to Inundation Overlay and Rural Floodway Overlay be reassessed following an on site inspection. The Submitter is also to be advised of the background to the Salinity Management Overlay. See previous comments on flooding (submission No. 37).

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that following detailed information from the Department of Natural Resources & Environment in relation to flooding that all mapping of flood areas be rechecked. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and Mr Bennet raises a number of issues. This is a good Recommendations: example of the inadequacies of the overlay maps where boundaries don’t continue across maps (see maps 15 and 23). • SMO - The SMO refers to the land as a recharge area. See discussion on salinity in the Report. • RFO & LSIO - The zones and overlays will be reassessed after detailed flood analysis and mapping have been completed by the Catchment Management Authorities. • Subdivision - See discussion The RUZ does provide for applications to excise existing houses as suggested in the submission but such an application would be assessed on it merits with regard to the MSS, Local Policies and zone provisions. The issues raised by the submitter have already been addressed by the Panel. Submission noted.

129

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 74 Submitter Name and Address: Lois Gordon (Woodend Landcare) PO BOX 297 Woodend 3442 Location and Map Reference No: General Submission: Requested Wants additional areas included in the VPO. Changes/Issues Raised: Wants areas currently zoned Macedon Ranges Landscape Protection zoned Environmental Rural rather than Rural. Council Comment: The Committee agreed to do further work to assess if further vegetation protection overlays and Environmental Significance Overlays are required. The Committee agreed to recommend to Council to allocate money in the budget to undertake further study on the need for additional ESO’s & VPO’s. The Committee has already agreed to change the zoning of the Cobaw Range from a Rural Zone to an Environmental Rural Zone (Submissions 66,102, 109, 118 and 122). Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that further work be undertaken to establish the need for additional Environmental Significance Overlays and Vegetation Protection Overlays. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The submission raises matters that match Council's Recommendations: environmental objectives as set out in the MSS. The Panel notes that Council are also in the process of preparing an Environment Strategy for the whole Shire which will address many of the issues raised by the submitter. The Panel has recommended that the VPO be applied in accordance with the previous Shires roadside management plans. In relation to the other areas listed and recognised by the Land Protection Council, the Panel supports application of the VPO. The Panel recommends that the VPO be applied without re-exhibition: • to the native grass area at the old Woodend racecourse land; • to the grassland at the Carlsruhe Cemetery; • to stands of Yarra Gums as referred to in the Environment Effects Statement for the Woodend section of the Calder Freeway; and • to the stand of Narrow Leafed Peppermint trees north of the Five Mile Creek as identified by the Land Conservation Council.

130

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 75 Submitter Name and Jenny Perrett 163 Main Road Riddells Creek (Cnr. Amess Address: Road)

Location and Map Reference 163 Main Road cnr Amess Road Riddells Creek Map 39 No: Current Zone: Rural Living Exhibited Zone: Rural Living Zone Requested Zone: Greater Subdivision Opportunities Proposed Zone: Rural Living Zone Submission: Requested Wants opportunity to subdivide 12 1/2 acre block Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: The committee were advised the land is in a Rural Living Zone as a result of strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Romsey. The Committee agreed not to accept the submission.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited zoning be retained. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The property is in the RLZ Policy Area “A” which does Recommendations: not provide for subdivision of properties such as the subject site. The Shire of Romsey Strategy Plan 1992 referred to in the MSS in relation to Riddells Creek suggests that development of the subject site should be at a density of 5 – 20 acres lots which is not reflected in the exhibited scheme policies of zone provisions. This illustrates the problems of conflicting information within reference documents and the absence of a strategic planning basis for the exhibited Scheme. However, the Panel has commented that decisions relating to the provision for additional rural living opportunity should be made in the context of the recommended strategic review. In this instance the exhibited scheme and past strategic planning work appear to be in conflict which should be addressed in that review. The Panel recommends that exhibited planning provisions be maintained pending a strategic review of rural living opportunities throughout the Shire.

131

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 76 Submitter Name and R. & R. Van Loon 17 Gap Road Riddells Creek Riddell Address: township Location and Map 17 Gap Road Riddells Creek Lot 18 on LP 80586 Map 39 Current Zone: Township / Residential B Zone Exhibited Zone: Residential One Zone Requested Zone: Low Density Residential Zone Proposed Zone: Low Density Residential Zone Submission: Requested Concerned re new subdivision opportunities that may be Changes/Issues Raised: created in Riddells Creek - suggests increased use of the Low Density Residential Zone Suggests a Flood Overlay within part of the Riddells Creek township Suggests Salinity Overlay in an area to the north of the Riddells Creek township Wishes for Strategic Plan for Riddells Creek commercial centre to be reinforced. Council Comment: The Committee agreed to strengthen the MSS/Township Policy to reinforce the preferred subdivision density. Flood Overlay - this has been identified as an area that needs further work done (particularly the main drain). Salinity Management Overlay - it was agreed to review the Salinity boundaries. The Committee were advised of the existence of the Riddells Creek Structure Plan and this is to be referenced in the new Scheme. Council That Council recommend to the Panel to adopt the Recommendation: strengthened Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) with respect to Township Policies and to review the accuracy of Salinity Management Overlays in conjunction with the Department of Natural Resources & Environment. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and Mr Van Loon presented this submission to the Panel. He Recommendations: suggested that Riddells Creek has a semi-rural character and that this should be maintained and reflected in the Planning Scheme. The Panel notes that the Riddells Creek Structure Plan has been revised since the exhibited Scheme. The land demand and supply analysis data provided to the Panel at the hearing shows that there is a 37 year supply of residential land and 27 years of low density residential. Flood Overlay. - An overlay for the drainage reserve from Whittakers Lane through to the town has been suggested. An overlay is highly desirable to provide protection for where experience indicates that flooding problems exist, however the Council advise that insufficient information is available and the matter is listed for the CMA to investigate. (See discussion on flooding overlays in the Report) The Panel also notes the shortcomings of the application of the SMO based on broad scale mapping but acknowledges that at this stage it is the best information available. Submission noted.

132

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 77 Submitter Name and I.J. , A.S., M.J. Reihler & M. Govett 48 Piper Street Address: Kyneton 3444

Location and Map Reference CA 4, SEC 18, Parish of Woodend Blackmore Road No: Woodend Map 24 & 25 Current Zone: Rural B Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Further Subdivision Rights Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Questions “cluster” subdivision provisions Wishes to Changes/Issues Raised: have opportunity to subdivide

Council Comment: The Committee were advised that the proposed zone is a direct translation from the existing Scheme. The Committee agreed not to accept the submission in this regard. The Committee agreed that consideration of Environmental Significance be referred to Council for further consideration.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the currently exhibited zoning be retained. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and Mr. Rheiher advised that the 79 acre property is not viable Recommendations: farming land due to the size of the site and a significant proportion of the property is treed. The only option for subdivision under the exhibited scheme is to apply to excise the existing house. The Panel has commented that decisions relating to the provision for additional rural living opportunities (by clusters or freehold title) should be made in the context of the recommended strategic review. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

133

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 78 Submitter Name and Daryl & Rosemary Moait Lot 16 Marsh Court Woodend Address:

Location and Map Reference Lot 16 on Plan of Subdivision LP 132439 Marsh Court No: Crown Portion 118, Parish of Tylden Map 23 Current Zone: Rural B Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Further Subdivision Rights Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Request they be allowed to subdivide their 15.92 ha lot Changes/Issues Raised: into 2.

Council Comment: The Committee were advised that the proposed zone was a direct translation of the current Scheme. Christine Pruneau advised the committee a water channel passes through the site. The Committee agreed not to accept the submission.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the currently exhibited zoning be retained Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The submission documents a long history of delays in Recommendations: consideration of an initial request for the two lot subdivision dating back to 1988. These delays were apparently due to staff shortages, strategic planning reviews, amalgamation and the current process. The submitters indicated that others in the subdivision do not oppose their proposed subdivision. At the hearing Council advised the Council would not want to recognise existing rural residential development in the locality and was unlikely to support further rural living subdivision. The owners have the opportunity to apply to excise the house under the provisions of the RUZ but this is likely to be rejected by Council. There is no strategic justification for the submitters request. The Panel recognises in its recommendations that consideration of additional opportunities for rural living in the Shire should be in the context of a strategic review and this is likely to add to the submitters frustration. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

134

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 79 Submitter Name and E & B Lester-Smith 7 Pyke Street Woodend Address:

Location and Map Reference General N/A No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested Raised concerns over accuracy of Maps, Salinity Overlay Changes/Issues Raised: on their land at Carlsruhe Raised concerns over heritage recognition of their land at Pyke Street Woodend

Council Comment: The Committee agreed that assessment is to be made as to whether the historic house still is sited on the land. (if not the heritage overlay is to be deleted). The Submitter is to be advised of the background of the SMO.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the accuracy of the Salinity Management Overlay will be checked. Refer Panel Panel Comment and The Heritage Overlay has the appropriate certification Recommendations: (Ref: page 615 Vol. 4 Part 4 of Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study) and should be retained. The Owner claims not to have been notified of proposed inclusion in HO. Council confirmed that individual properties were not advised of new heritage controls and that the explanatory report and consultative process. The Panel recommends that where heritage controls are proposed for the first time and owners have not been notified, they should be notified. Those oppose the inclusion in the HO should have the item removed from the HO prior to adoption and the HO should be included in the first amendment to the new Scheme. The accuracy of the SMO should be checked against CLPR maps. The Panel recommends that the accuracy of the application of the SMO over 7 Pyke Street Woodend should be checked.

135

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 80 Submitter Name and M & B. Thompson (Henty Park P/L) “Henty Park” Crows Road Address: Woodend Location and Map CA 127 L Sec 65, Parish of Woodend Map 15 Reference No: Current Zone: Rural B Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Review of zones and overlays Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Concerned regarding the restrictions that the Rural zone imposes Requested Concerned over the accuracy and need of Overlays being Salinity Changes/Issues Management, Environmental Significance, Rural Flooding and Land Raised: Subject to Inundation. Queries on Heritage and Significant Landscape Overlays Concerned that walkway networks should apply to public land not private land. Wants Scheme re-exhibited after changes. Council Comment: The Committee were advised that the proposed zone is a translation from the existing Scheme. The Committee agreed not to make any change in this regard. The Committee were advised that the Flood Overlays were to be re-assessed, in particular the RFO/LSIO should not overlap and this needs to be re-assessed in regards to accuracy. The Heritage Overlay and Significant Landscape Overlay (Redhill) are to be re-assessed in regards to accuracy. The public land walkway issue has already been addressed by the Committee, refer submission no. 30. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited zone Recommendation: be retained and that following detailed information from the Department of Natural Resources & Environment in relation to flooding that all mapping of flood areas be rechecked. The Heritage Overlay and Significance Overlay will be rechecked for their accuracy. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The submission indicated that the 40 ha minimum lot size proposed Recommendations: bears no relationship to viable farming and should be increased (perhaps to 150ha) with development opportunities of those larger parcels related to infrastructure provision services etc. The Panel notes that this submission confirms other submissions that the 40 ha minimum lot size has significant limitations as a tool to manage the Shire’s rural areas. The Panel has recommended that the lot sizes and management of development opportunities should be addressed in a strategic review of rural areas. The Rural Floodway and Land Subject to Inundation Overlays - The RFO should be in regard to the dwelling noted and amended if necessary. The LSIO is a translation from the previous scheme and the Panel accepts that until the CMA has assessed flood information the overlay should remain. The Panel recommends that the Rural Floodway at Henty Park be reassessed and amended if justified. The Panel is satisfied that the balance of the overlays have relevance and has made recommendations elsewhere that they be checked for accuracy.

136

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 81 Submitter Name and Keith Altmann 11 Hoburd Drive Woodend Address: Location General Submission: Requested Suggests all rural and rural residential subdivisions be Changes/Issues Raised: required to incorporate an Environmental Management plan. Existing under serviced areas need addressing Area boarded by Quarry Road, Washington Lane, South Road and Calder Highway (Woodend) should be allowed to be developed into lots 650 - 1000 square metres rather than 2000 square metres. Council Comment: The Committee were advised that the new Scheme already has a policy 22.11 Environmental Management Guidelines. This provides that Council may require an Environmental Management Plan. The committee agreed to alter the policy by deleting the words “on all non urban land” and adding “on all land”. Christine Pruneau indicated that she believes an area was previously rezoned to allow for 785 square metre lots some years ago. This is to be checked and if appropriate a change to the township plan is to be made. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that Policy 22.11 Recommendation: Environmental Management Guidelines allows for the provision of an Environmental Management Plan, however the wording be amended to reflect all land. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The Panel accepts that EMP’s are an appropriate means of Recommendations: presenting necessary information and analysis of applications in rural zones. The Panel recommends that Policy 22.11 Environmental Management Guidelines be revised to apply to all applications in rural zones. The area of land described by the submitter in Woodend is proposed to be LDRZ and is within the township boundary as shown on the Woodend Structure Plan. The land is also indicated on the Plan as being preferred for low density infill development. The proposed zoning is therefore consistent with the strategy. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zone remain.

137

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 82 Submitter Name and Ray Lodder for Vital Marketing 117 Sussex Street Coburg 3058 Address: Location and Map CA 102 Mt. Macedon Road Woodend Reference No: Map 27 Current Zone: Rural A Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Residential Proposed Zone: Part Rural / Part Residential Submission: Wishes land to be rezoned from Rural to Residential Requested Changes/Issues Raised: Council Comment: The Committee were advised of the background to the property and were advised of the outcomes of the Coomes Report assessing flooding on Five Mile Creek. The committee agreed to refer the matter to Council recommending that further development could be considered in this area (to apply to the south half of the block). Permit exists for retirement village, infrastructure support for residential development is in the ground. The proposed residential development would be less intensive than the permit which exists. The part of the land that is not subject to flooding should be zoned residential Council That Council recommend to the Panel that if the current permit Recommendation: was to lapse that the land would be zoned Rural and that a rezoning to Residential will be considered as part of the strategic work proposed on residential land in the Woodend township area. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The application of the LSIO to this land is clearly in error. The Recommendations: RFO is based on the Coomes Report and is considered to be justified. The land is within the township boundary of Woodend as shown on the Structure Plan. The submitter advised the Panel that if zoned residential, a 50 lot subdivision would be undertaken on the land. The Panel was also made aware that there is a current permit for a 40 bed hostel and 128 retirement units on the land. Significant investment occurred on the site prior to the former owner going into receivership, including extensive earthworks, construction of lakes, fully formed roads in the southern portion of the site, road widening of Mount Macedon Road. Council has previously supported the rezoning of the land to residential. Amendment L32 to the Newham and Woodend Planning Scheme did not proceed to a Panel hearing in 1994 due to flooding issues. The Panel has already identified a weakness in the proposed Scheme in that it does not strategically address the constraints and opportunities created by the realignment of the Calder Highway and in particular, the bypassing of towns. The Panel has recommended elsewhere that this work be undertaken and adjustments to the MSS (particularly township structure plans), Local Policies, zones and overlays be instigated accordingly. The Panel believes it is not in a position to recommend a change

138

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

to the proposed zoning of the subject land in the absence of this strategic work or an assessment of the impact of the bypass on the flow of floodwaters. This is despite confirming that the application of the LSIO over the land is wrong. The Panel acknowledges that residential development of the site, in the form of the retirement village, has been approved, However, relevant parties have not been notified or had an opportunity to respond to the requested rezoning. The Panel believes that such a site specific rezoning should be addressed as a separate amendment. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zone remain and the LSIO be removed from the subject land.

139

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 83 Submitter Name and John Randles & Associates for Kildrummie Pastoral Co 5 Address: Hamilton Street Gisborne

Location and Map Reference “Flint Hill” Woodend Wallan Road Woodend Land No: between Lancefield Rd & Boundary Rd Map 24 Current Zone: Rural B Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Rural Living Zone Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Each lot severed by the new freeway to be entitled to a Changes/Issues Raised: house Part of the land to be zoned Rural Living Concerned over the Heritage Overlay on the property

Council Comment: The Committee were advised of Council’s policy to request Vic Roads to ensure that no new lots are created as a result of By-pass works. The Committee were advised that the Heritage Overlay was being rechecked. The committee discussed the flooding and access problems at the site. The Committee agreed not to accept the proposal to rezone the land.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Panel should determine on a policy for land severed by new freeways. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The Panel notes Council’s recommendation and advises Recommendations: that it is not the Panel’s responsibility to draft policies. Council’s indecision on this issue reaffirms the Panel’s view that they have failed to strategically address the land use impacts of the Calder realignment on the Shire in the new Scheme. The Panel has recommended elsewhere that this work be undertaken and adjustments to the MSS (particularly township structure plans), Local Policies, zones and overlays be instigated accordingly. The Panel believes it is not in a position to recommend a change to the proposed zoning of the subject land in the absence of this strategic work or an assessment of the impact of the bypass on the flow of floodwaters. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zone and overlay remain until their modification is strategically justified.

140

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 84 Submitter Name and John Randles & Associates for P. Moon & J. Hopkins 5 Address: Hamilton Street Gisborne 3437

Location and Map Reference Lot 1 LP 303925 Lancefield Woodend Road Map 24 No:

Current Zone: Rural Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Residential / Low Density Residential Zone Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Wants the opportunity to subdivide into residential and Changes/Issues Raised: low density residential lots

Council Comment: The Committee were advised of the existing zone under the current planning scheme and that the proposed zone is a direct translation. The Committee agreed not to accept the submission, however agreed to refer the matter to Council for further consideration when developing a structure plan for the township. Study to be done west of Freeway. Need to relate area to township structure plan.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited zone remain. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and This area is identified in the Woodend Structure Plan to Recommendations: be investigated with regard to the environmental capacity for residential expansion. No figures were provided to the Panel regarding the demand and supply of low density residential land around Woodend. There is no strategic justification to support this submitter’s request until that information is available. The Panel has recommended elsewhere that land in the proximity of the realigned route of the Calder Highway studied and adjustments to the MSS (particularly township structure plans), Local Policies, zones and overlays be instigated accordingly. The Panel believes it is not in a position to recommend a change to the proposed zoning of the subject land in the absence of this strategic work or the required analysis under Ministerial Direction No.6.. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zone and overlay remain.

141

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 85 Submitter Name and John Randles & Associates for W. Weiss 5 Hamilton Address: Street Gisborne 3437

Location and Map Reference Lot 1 on LP 98306 65 Brougham Road Mt. Macedon Map No: 27

Current Zone: Landscape Protection C Exhibited Zone: Environmental Rural Zone Requested Zone: Opportunity to Subdivide Proposed Zone: Environmental Rural Zone Submission: Requested Wants opportunity to subdivide a 10.6 ha lot into 3 Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: The Committee were advised that the land is currently in a Landscape Protection Zone and has no opportunity to subdivide. The Committee agreed that this should continue to be the case. The Township Structure Plan needs to be reassessed to ensure that subdivision cannot take place.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited zone remain. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and At the hearing the Panel was advised that the land is Recommendations: within the Tucketts Road/Barringo area in the ERZ with a 4 ha minimum lot size. It was also evident that the SLO3 exhibited as applicable to the site is in fact the SLO1 Ranges. The ESO4 Water Quality Catchments also applies to the site. The existing zone provides no subdivision entitlements but the exhibited scheme would allow an application for a two lot subdivision to be considered on its merits taking into account the various constraints and overlay requirements. The Macedon/Mount Macedon Structure Plan shows the subject land as outside the township boundary. The Structure Plan states that any future development should be within these boundaries. The Panel believes there is insufficient strategic justification to support the request. The Panel recommends that: • the exhibited zoning be maintained; and • SLO3 be renumbered SLO1.

142

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 86 Submitter Name and John Randles & Associates for T. Quinlan 5 Hamilton Street Address: Gisborne 3437 Location and Map Lot 11 LP 146190 East Ahern Lane Woodend, SW of Reference No: Woodend & Pine Forest is to the South Map 23 Current Zone: Landscape Interest Exhibited Zone: Environmental Rural Zone Requested Zone: Low Density Residential Zone / Environmental Rural Zone Proposed Zone: Environmental Rural Zone Submission: Requested Requests part of the land be zoned Low Density Residential to Changes/Issues Raised: enable subdivision. Balance of land where trees located to be retained as Environmental Rural. Council Comment: The Committee were advised that this property is adjacent to land owned by Mr. Wilton (submission No. 29). The Committee were advised that the proposed zone is a direct translation from the existing scheme. Christine Pruneau advised the land has high environmental values. The Committee agreed not to accept the submission. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the current Recommendation: exhibited zone remain. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The subject site consists of 71.68 ha and is within the Recommendations: Ashbourne Rd area. The ERZ schedule nominates an 8ha minimum lot size which suggests a potential for up to 8 lots subject to environmental considerations. The Panel was advised that the Biodiversity Study for the Calder Freeway project identified the area as being of high environmental value and is also within the Rosslynne catchment. The proposal is to maintain the ERZ for the rear, timbered portion of the site and seek an LDRZ for the balance of the land. A lot size of the order of 1.5 –2 ha is suggested in recognition of waste disposal limitations. Ministerial Direction No 6A must apply to rural residential rezonings of this type but the requirements for analysis and consultation with relevant agencies have not been met. These requirements include close association with an existing town, buffers from Crown land, protection of significant flora and fauna, fire hazard rating, soil absorption testing to the satisfaction of the EPA and consideration of special area plans in declared catchments. A separate amendment with adequate documentation would be necessary to consider this request. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

143

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 87 Submittor Name and John Randles & Associates for J. Calleja Address: Hamilton House 5 Hamilton Street Gisborne 3437

Location and Map Woodland Drive, Gisborne South and on the Southern side of Mt Reference No: Gisborne Lot 20 LP 111376 Map 43 Current Zone: Rural Exhibited Zone: RUZ Requested Zone: Subdivision Opportunity Proposed Zone: RUZ Submission: Requested Wants the opportunity to subdivide 16 ha lot into 6 lots (2.5 ha Changes/Issues Raised: average) for rural residential use. Council Comment: The proposed zone is a direct translation from the existing Scheme. The zoning was a result of strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Gisborne. Strategic Considerations Planning Scheme amendment for rural residential must comply with and Implications: Ministerial Direction No. 6.

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the current exhibited zone remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The submission indicated that lots in the area range between 1.5-4ha. Recommendations: An average lot size of 2.5 ha was suggested to provide for effluent disposal, water catchment and planting amenity considerations. It was acknowledge that the length and alignment of Woodlands Dr would require alternative fire access which has been negotiated with a neighbouring property. The Panel was advised that the site is visually exposed and SLO2 adjoins, affecting the Mt. Gisborne summit. It was queried whether that SLO should extend further. Landscape impacts of an amendment to facilitate subdivision would need to be assessed. Ministerial Direction No 6A must apply to rural residential rezonings of this type but the requirements for analysis and consultation with relevant agencies have not been met. These requirements include close association with an existing town, buffers from crown land, protection of significant flora and fauna, fire hazard rating, soil absorption testing to the satisfaction of the EPA; consideration of special area plans in declared catchments. A separate amendment with adequate documentation would be necessary to consider the proposal. The Panel has also suggested that decisions to approve further rural living opportunities should be placed within the context of the recommended strategic review. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

144

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 88 Submittor Name Port Phillip Regional Catchment & Land Protection Board and Address: P O Box 4 Frankston 3199 Location: General Submission: Raise a range of issues regarding catchment/land protection. Made suggestions for modification to MSS and Local Policies to better affect Catchment Strategy. Council Comment: The Council agreed to add the suggested points as nominated by Port Phillip Regional Catchment & Land Protection Board. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the comments of the Port Phillip Recommendation: Regional Catchment & Land Protection Board be incorporated in the appropriate policy. Panel Comment and The Port Philip Regional Catchment and Land Protection Board have made a Recommendations: number of suggestions to improve the MSS, Local Policies and Overlays. These suggestions match State and Council strategic objectives and have been accepted by Council and are endorsed by the Panel. However some suggestions apply to a local policies that the Panel have recommended for deletion from the Scheme. The Panel recommends that the following amendments be incorporated in the Scheme: • MSS - definition of the two catchments and reference to "Port Philip and Westernport Regional Catchment Strategy”. • 22.08-1 Effluent Disposal and Water Quality - add reference to land capability assessments to identify areas capable of containing waste water management systems without threat of landslip • 22.08-2 Vegetation Clearance - policy to apply to all native vegetation and wording altered to read 'All native vegetation should be retained' • 22.08-5 Steep Land and Ridgelines add reference to land capability assessment to provide management criteria for areas prone to landslip (mass movement) and erosion. • 22.13Road Construction in Rural Areas - add additional objective 'to consider road design and construction with regard to drainage management and road side vegetation management' • Overlays ESO3 and ESO4 - add to objectives 'to minimise the threat of pest plants and pest animals to agricultural land and to water catchment areas.

145

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 89 Submittor Name and Russell Mowatt Address: 49 Stuart Drive Woodend 3442 Location and Map General Reference No: N/A Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested Raises areas of concern including mapping discrepancies, overlay Changes/Issues Raised: controls, restructure plans.

Council Comment: Errors will be corrected prior to adoption. Zones and overlays included in new scheme have been based on existing information and zones. It is recognised that further work is required and as a result of this new zones and overlays could be included in future amendments. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the list of corrections tabled be accepted. Panel Comment and Mr Mowatt raises a number of issues, which he believes are serious Recommendations: enough to warrant a total review and re-advertising of the Scheme. Whilst the Panel agree that the issue require attention, the Panel has endeavoured to address them by recommending amendments to the Scheme to cover the worst of the anomalies. The provision of overlays for water catchments, flood overlays, heritage overlay landscape overlays are addressed elsewhere in the report. The Panel recommends that claimed ‘technical’ errors listed in this submission be checked by Council and alterations made to the Scheme where appropriate prior to adoption. The submission highlighted the omission of the ESO4, SLO1 and RO from the LDRZ area north of Macedon township, east of the railway line. The Planning Scheme clearly indicates the planning objectives to protect Mt.Macedon from further urban development and Council’s submission indicated that the exhibited Scheme was intended to translate existing scheme provisions. The Panel recommends that the RO and other relevant overlay which were omitted in error be applied to the LDRZ north of Macedon township east of the railway line.

146

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 90 Submittor Name and A.A & H.B Hooppell Address: RMB 1780 Woodend 3442

Location and Map “Moorlands” Crows Road Woodend Reference No: Map 15 Current Zone: Rural A Exhibited Zone: RUZ / RFO Requested Zone: Concerns of LSIO / RFO Proposed Zone: RUZ Submission: Requested Concerns regarding the land subject to Inundation Overlay Changes/Issues Raised: Council Comment: Council agreed to reassess the accuracy of the RFO/LSIO.

147

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 91 Submittor Name and Environmental Protection Authority Address: 477 Olderfleet Building Collins Street Melbourne 3000 Location General Submission Raise various issues regarding environmental matters. Council Comment: Consider developing a policy re artificial wet lands and litter traps. Agree to map contaminated sites on the scheme maps in accordance with Council’s contaminated sites list (to include petrol station High Street Kyneton, former gas works site Kyneton). As the documents suggested for incorporation into the scheme are only guidelines it is considered more appropriate that they be listed as reference documents within the relevant sections of the scheme to provide background and guidance. The scheme includes a policy on erosion risk and an erosion management overlay which identifies that areas of the Shire that are documented to have a high erosion risk. Land Capability studies have been undertaken for the former Shires of Newham & Woodend, Kyneton and Romsey. These include information on erosion risk. These documents could be included as incorporated documents. Council Refer to Panel Recommendation: Panel Comment and The EPA have raised a number of recommendations which support and strengthen Recommendations: the MSS and the Panel response and recommendations are listed below. Malmsbury: Since exhibition of the Scheme, it has been confirmed that Malmsbury is to be provided with reticulated services and this will assist in defining the township boundary. The Panel recommends that the EMO apply to the Malmsbury township together with provision for sediment control and requirement for artificial wetlands for water discharge to Malmsbury Reservoir. Kyneton - Campaspe River water quality: The EPA suggests a policy containing provisions to minimise the impact of development on water quality. The Panel recommends that Policy 22.08-1 is extended to provide sediment and litter control, including litter traps and artificial wetlands to improve the quality of discharge from new developments prior to discharge to watercourses and that the Draft Campaspe Water Quality Strategy be included as a reference document. 22.15 Timber and Timber Processing Industries: The issues raised are matters for the Timber Code of Practice and do not need to be reiterated in the LPPF section of the Scheme. The Panel has recommended in its assessment of the Scheme that this local policy be deleted. 22.24 Intensive Animal Husbandry The Panel recommends that the policy be amended to: • highlight the need for EPA approval for various intensive animal husbandry proposals and that Council will consult with the EPA; • state that waste disposal should meet EPA requirements; and • refer to EPA publication Noise Control Guidelines in connection with kennels. Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 2 (ESO2):

148

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

The EPA have recommended that the buffer distance for the Monegeeta Piggery be 2,250 metres. The Panel recommends that the buffer distance recommended by the EPA be included in ESO2. Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 5 (ESO5): The Panel recommends that Council address the issue of noise impacts as part of its strategic assessment of the impacts of the Calder Highway bypass of Woodend and amend the ESO accordingly. Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 6 (ESO6) Mineral Springs, Kyneton: The EPA suggests that investigations should be undertaken to determine the source of the ground water at the springs. The overlay can then be expanded to provide more than immediate protection. The Panel recommends that the source of the Kyneton Mineral Springs be investigated and some recognition and protection be provided for the recharge area. Council did not address the issue of contaminated sites in its submission to the Panel or at the hearing. A list of potentially contaminated sites has since been submitted to the Panel. The Council’s position is that if the site is not intended to be used for “sensitive uses” than the EAO is not required. The EAO should apply to all known contaminated or potentially contaminated sites to ensure proper consideration is given (including Ministerial Direction No 1) to the issue when considering development or change of use. The Lancefield Golf Course is a good example since it is affected by the Lancefield landfill. The Panel recommends that the EAO should apply to all known contaminated or potentially contaminated sites in the Shire. The documents requested by the EPA to be included as incorporated documents in the Scheme are applicable on a State-wide basis. On this basis, inclusion is a matter to be decided at the State level and presumably the EPA had input in this regard during the preparation of the VPP’s and subsequent amendments. The Panel does not consider the documents warranted specifically for the Macedon Ranges Scheme although they are all useful reference documents and should be utilised in the day-to-day application of the Scheme where appropriate. The Panel notes that one of the six documents referred to (Sediment Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control) is already an incorporated document in all Schemes. The Panel recommends no additions to the list of incorporated documents.

149

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 92 Submittor Name and Address: John Robinson, C/- St Columbs Street Hawthorn 3122

Location and Map Reference CA84A 84B, parish of Bylands, Darraweit Guim, also CA 83A & No: lots 1 & 2 LP 96522. Map 31 Current Zone: F1 – General Farming Exhibited Zone: RUZ Requested Zone: RLZ Proposed Zone: RUZ Submission: Requested Objects to Rural zoning requests Rural living zone. Changes/Issues Raised: Council Comment: Currently zoned rural. Land is proposed to have an erosion management overlay and salinity management overlay Based on strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Romsey.

Strategic Considerations and Amendment for rural residential must comply with Ministerial Implications: Direction No. 6. Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Rural Zoning remain Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The submission sought a RLZ to apply to 5 existing lots which Recommendations: adjoin an existing RLZ to the south. The submission did not address any of the issues addressed by Ministerial Direction 6A providing a limited basis for assessment of the proposal. There is an extensive area zoned RLZ in Darraweit Guim and the area is remote from an urban centre, although a school and shop are located in the hamlet. The Panel has commented that decisions relating to the provision for additional rural living opportunities should be made in the context of the recommended strategic review. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

150

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 93 Submittor Name and Lachlan Milne, Address: P O Box 355 Clifton Hill 3068 Location and Map General Reference No: N/A Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested • Environmental concerns. Re. VPO → more than just blackgums. Changes/Issues Raised: • Suggest further environmental. Study & conservation officer. Council Comment: • Council would need to undertake further work in relation to environmental overlays. • Overlays must be based on documentation, future studies would provide for additional overlays to be included in scheme in later amendments.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the strengthened Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) be adopted. Further that the Panel be advised that an Environmental Planner is to be appointed. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The Council acknowledges the deficiencies of the Scheme. The Recommendations: Panel shares these concerns and has made a number of recommendations to add additional environmental overlays based on existing information and recommendations for further studies in areas of apparent deficiency, to allow additional overlays to be considered at a later date. Additional mapping CLPR is to be carried out. Submission noted.

151

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 94

Submittor Name and Graeme O’Brien, Address: P O Box 233, Kyneton 3444

Location and Map Old Lancefield Racecourse Reference No: Lancefield Racecourse – Racecourse Road, Lancefield Map 18 & 20 Current Zone: Rural Living

Exhibited Zone: RLZ

Requested Zone: LDRZ

Proposed Zone: RLZ

Submission: • Objects to Rural living zone. Requests low density residential zone to Requested enable subdivision Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: • Zone based on Strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Romsey.

• Lancefield development needs to be related to overall supply/demand of residential land in a planning period of ten years.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the currently exhibited zone Recommendation: remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The exhibited zoning of the land is RLZ and the submission seeks the Recommendations: opportunity to subdivide into lots of 2 –5ha. The submission did not provide any further information to evaluate the proposal or address the requirements of Ministerial Direction No.6. The Panel has commented that decisions relating to the provision for additional rural living opportunities should be made in the context of the recommended strategic review. The issue of lot sizes within areas identified for rural living should be addressed as part of that review. Council indicated there is 37 years supply of LDRZ land in Lancefield. The Panel recommends that: the exhibited zoning be maintained; and lot sizes within rural living areas be addressed as part of the strategic review.

152

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 95

Submittor Name and Tom Lockwood Address: Old Lancefield Racecourse, Racecourse Road Lancefield

Location and Map Racecourse Lane, Lancefield Reference No: Formally CA52D, Sec C, Parish of Lancefield Property No. 1/4460/00205-0 Map 18 and 20 Current Zone: Rural Living

Exhibited Zone: RLZ

Requested Zone: Subdivision opportunity

Proposed Zone: RLZ

Submission: Requested • Requests amendment to include allow 10 acre lots Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: • It would be inappropriate to allow further subdivision of the land given the surrounding land and lot sizes. • The land is on the foothill of Melbourne Hill and is quite exposed.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the currently exhibited zone remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The exhibited zoning of the land is RLZ and the submission seeks Recommendations: the opportunity to subdivide into lots of 4 ha. The submission did not provide any further information to evaluate the proposal. The Panel has commented that decisions relating to the provision for additional rural living opportunities should be made in the context of the recommended strategic review. The issue of lot sizes within areas identified for rural living should be addressed as part of that review. There is 37 years supply of LDRZ land in Lancefield. The Panel recommends that: the exhibited zoning be maintained; and lot sizes within rural living areas be addressed as part of the strategic review.

153

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 96

Submittor Name and Private Forestry Council Victoria, Address: 1/250 Victoria Parade East Melbourne

Location and Map General Reference No: N/A

Current Zone: N/A

Exhibited Zone: N/A

Requested Zone: N/A

Proposed Zone: N/A

Submission: Requested • Endorses tree planting as agricultural crop would like to present Changes/Issues Raised: view at panel hearing for format of scheme.

Council Comment: • Christine Pruneau suggested developing a policy designated areas where timber production is preferred. • 40ha schedule to apply to SLO. • The Council agreed to have the Private Forestry Council draft a policy addressing the issue for further consideration.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning and schedule remain unchanged. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and Despite indicating in their submission that they intended to appear at Recommendations: the hearing, this did not eventuate. Timber production is supported in both the SPPF and the LPPF as a Local Policy (cl.22.15) and is therefore consistent with the submitter’s request. The exhibited scheme did not provide for any requirements for approval of timber production but Council’s now proposes to introduce a permit requirement in areas covered by the SLO. The VPP only allow such approval for areas of 40ha or more which provides ample opportunity to circumvent the requirement through multiple smaller applications. In the case of volcanic features protected by an SLO the location rather than the area of the plantation is critical. Submission noted.

154

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 97 Submittor Name and Mrs Joan Drago, Address: Appleyard Cottage 4 Andrew Avenue Woodend 3442 Location: General Submission: Requested • Highlights errors in Heritage Overlay and Cadastral map base Changes/Issues Raised: suggests “High Tourist Profile Overlay” Council Comment: • Accuracy of the Heritage overlay is being reassessed. • Tourism overlay would require considerable substantiation. A Tourism Policy is included in the Local Planning Policy Framework. The significant aspects of these features are protected by other overlays. The significance of these features to the Shire should be discussed in the MSS. • Hanging Rock is included in the schedule to the Heritage Overlay, although the number has been omitted from the map. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council That Council recommend to the Panel no Tourism Overlay is necessary, Recommendation: however that the strengthened Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) be adopted. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and As with other submissions on the new Scheme claiming errors and Recommendations: omissions in the HO, Council needs to check each claim and adjust the HO either before adoption or after depending on the circumstances of the disputed item ie. ownership, notification and the like. Recommendation along these lines has been undertaken elsewhere in the Report (see discussion on heritage in Section 2). Mrs Drago also make reference to cultural and landscape values and suggests additional notation in the MSS noting their cultural and tourism value. The Panel refers these issues to Council for consideration in future amendments. The Panel considers that a “Tourism Overlay” is not necessary or appropriate. Promotion of these associations to visitors does not require Planning Scheme provisions. Submission noted.

155

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 98 Submittor Name and John McCarthy Address: Location and Map Beckermans Lane, Lancefield. Opposite Lancefield trotting club Reference No: Map 19 Current Zone: N/A – Reserved Residential / General Farming Exhibited Zone: Rural Submission: Requested • Requests 5 acre lots on south side of Beckermans Lane for trotting Changes/Issues Raised: track users. Council Comment: • Strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Romsey including the limits of the township boundary and the provision available to some farmers to create cluster developments. • Future strategic work to justify such an amendment would be required Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zone remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and This site (and the adjoining site which is the subject of submission Recommendations: 100) is directly south of the Lancefield trotting track and the submission highlights the strategic potential for rural living development to take advantage of the site’s proximity to the track. The submission did not provide any further information to evaluate the proposal. The Shire of Romsey Strategy Plan identified this land as long term residential but the revised MSS structure plan for the town does not extend to this land, focusing growth in the locality on infill of existing areas and to the west of the park. The Panel has commented that decisions relating to the provision for additional rural living opportunities should be made in the context of the recommended strategic review. The potential for a rural living development to target the horse industry in this locality should be addressed as part of that review. A further amendment would be necessary. The Panel recommends that: • the exhibited zoning be maintained; • the potential for a rural living area near the Lancefield Trotting track which would be developed to meet the needs of the trotting industry be addressed as part of the strategic review; and • that investigation of the potential for rural living opportunities in the vicinity of the trotting track be identified on the Lancefield Township Structure Plan in the MSS.

156

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 99

Submittor Name and Kilkenny Real Estate (Romsey) P/L, Address: 110 Main Street Romsey 3434

Location and Map Lancefield Township Reference No: N/A, Map 24 Current Zone: N/A

Exhibited Zone: N/A

Requested Zone: N/A

Proposed Zone: N/A

Submission: Requested • Considers opportunity for 5 acre lots should exist at Lancefield, Changes/Issues Raised: particularly to encourage the horse industry

Council Comment: • The findings of the land capability study undertaken by the Shire of Romsey identifies the land as being of good quality .

• Future strategic work to justify such an amendment would be required Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zone remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and This submission provides general support for rural living Recommendations: developments of 5 acres to meet the needs of the horse industry and take advantage of the trotting track. See discussion on submissions 98 and 101. Submission noted.

157

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 100 Submittor Name and (Ken Ryan) Address: Frank Notman Location and Map Land bordered by Millers Road, Berkermans Lane, Parks Road, Collivers Reference No: Road, Lancefield Map 19 Current Zone: Reserved Residential / General Farming Exhibited Zone: RUZ Requested Zone: Subdivision Opportunity Proposed Zone: RUZ Submission:: • Requests 5 acre lots on south side of Beckermans Lane for trotting track users. Council Comment: Future strategic work to justify such an amendment would be required Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zone Recommendation: remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and This submission was presented by Mr Bruce Lancashire of Planning Dynamics. Recommendations: This 54 hectare site (and the adjoining site which is the subject of submission 98) is directly south-west of the Lancefield trotting track and the submission highlights the strategic potential for rural living development to take advantage of the site’s proximity to the track. It was indicated that the site is not a viable farm and currently only grazes approximately 25 head of cattle. The land is in easy walking distance of all the town’s facilities and services. The site’s proximity to R1Z and LDRZ was emphasised in the submission. The presentation to the Panel indicated that approaches have been made to Mr. Notman over the past 5 years by Councillors and the trotting fraternity but an amendment has not proceeded due to local government amalgamation and the planning reform process. It was indicated that water, electricity and power are available to the site and the lot size proposed would allow appropriate waste disposal using septic tanks. The presentation to the Panel indicated that the development would provide an equestrian theme which specifically provided for horses. The Shire of Romsey Strategy Plan identified this land as long term residential but the revised MSS structure plan for the town does not extend to this land focusing growth in the locality infill of existing areas and to the west of the park. The Panel has commented that decisions relating to the provision for additional rural living opportunities should be made in the context of the recommended strategic review. The potential for a rural living development to target the horse industry in this locality should be addressed as part of that review. A further amendment would be necessary. The Panel recommends that: the exhibited zoning be maintained; the potential for a rural living area near the Lancefield Trotting track which would be developed to meet the needs of the trotting industry be addressed as part of the strategic review; and investigation of the potential for rural living opportunities in the vicinity of the trotting track be identified on the Lancefield Township Structure Plan in the MSS.

158

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 101

Submittor Name and Address: Mark Cruise

Location and Map Reference Lancefield Trotting Complex No: Beckermans Lane, Parks Road and Collivers Road

Map 19 Current Zone: Reserved Residential / General Farming

RUZ Exhibited Zone:

Requested Zone: RUZ

Proposed Zone: Rural

Submission: Requested • Requests 5 acre lots on south side of Beckermans Lane for Changes/Issues Raised: trotting track users.

Council Comment: • Future strategic work to justify such an amendment would be required Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zone remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The submission indicated that the trotting track is to be upgraded Recommendations: and there is strong demand for rural residential lots of 5 acres in close proximity to the track to avoid the need for floating, ready access etc. See discussion on similar submissions nos. 98, 99 and 100. Submission noted.

159

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 102

Submittor Name and George Reynolds Address:

Location and Map Area bounded by Baynton Rd/Lancefield Kyneton Road (Map 18) Reference No:

Current Zone: General Farming

Exhibited Zone: Rural

Requested Zone: ERZ

Proposed Zone: Further Investigation

Submission: Requested • Objects to Rural Zone suggest ERZ with ESO for fauna & Flora, Changes/Issues Raised: etc.

Council Comment: • Council to undertake further work to reassess the boundaries of environmental areas, taking account of corridors and special landscape values and the like.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zone remain, however further work be undertaken to delineate the extent of environmental areas. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and At the hearing the Council advised of their support for the Recommendations: introduction of an ERZ in the vicinity of the Cobaws and the Panel has supported this position. The subject land is covered by an LSIO, SLO and SMO, allowing consideration of environmental issues. The Panel recommends that the zoning over the Cobaw Range be amended to Environmental Rural prior to adoption of the Scheme.

160

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 103 Submittor Name and A.T. Cocks Consulting (Ron Oxley) on behalf of Barro Group Pty Ltd Address: Location and Map Barro Group land between Calder Freeway and Rosslyne Reservoir Reference No: Gisborne Map 34 and 36 Current Zone: Rural Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Rural Living Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested • Objects or Rural Zone suggests Rural Living to retain existing Changes/Issues Raised: subdivision rights

Council Comment: • Zone based on strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Gisborne. • The proposed zone has been translated into the new scheme as has the existing outline development plan and subdivision opportunity. • Land has long term residential potential, community has consistently opposed quarry development. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited Recommendation: zone remain. Refer to Panel.

Panel Comment and This submission was presented by Ms Megan Carew of A T Cocks. Recommendations: Council advised the Panel that the subject land contained a highly valuable stone resource (basalt). The presentation to the Panel sought only to ensure that existing subdivision rights are maintained. It was suggested that the zone schedule determines minimum land areas for which permits may be granted and reliance on cross referencing to the policy 22.14 created uncertainty regarding the statutory status of the policy provisions. The problems associated with the scheme provisions relating to subdivision of rural land are discussed in the body of the Report. The Panel has recommended that the RUZ and RLZ schedules be revised to include relevant aspects of the policy and site specific subdivision rights be addressed through permits. It is recognised time limits imposed on permits would be an issue to be addressed. The Panel recommends that site specific subdivision allowances provided for in 22.14 be addressed through planning permits.

161

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 104

Submittor Name and M. V. Deverall Address: Location and Map North/East corner of Aitken Street and Willowbank Road Gisborne Reference No: 159 Aitken Street Lot 2 LP69840 Parish of Gisborne Map 36 Current Zone: Residential Development

Exhibited Zone: RIZ

Requested Zone: LDRZ

Proposed Zone: RIZ

Submission: Requested • Seeks amendment to ODP to allow Low Density Residential Changes/Issues Raised: development along Aitken Street to buffer increases residential density Council Comment: • The ODP applies to the land and no development is allowed until reticulated water and sewage is provided. • The submitter wants the ODP altered to enable him to subdivide. • The applicant may currently apply for planning permit.

• Capacity to cope with septic tanks is limited.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the applicant should be Recommendation: advised of his opportunity to submit a planning permit application. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and This land consists of two 3,000m2 allotments located within the Recommendations: township boundary of Gisborne. The land is included in DPO6. The Gisborne Structure Plan shows the land as “residential expansion”. Allowing the subdivision of the land at LDRZ density would prejudice the ability of the land to be utilised efficiently for development at an urban density. The Panel also notes that under the current Planning Scheme the subdivision of the land is permissible with the consent of Council. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

162

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 105 Submittor Name Banon Consultants, and Address: RMB 630 Mt William Road Lancefield 3455 Location and Map Balance of property known as Chintin Grange - Woodend Wallan Road East of Reference No: Romsey Map 30 and 31 Current Zone: General Farming Exhibited Zone: RUZ Requested Zone: ODP for area Proposed Zone: RUZ Submission: • Create ODP to allow development of cluster option with four balance lots Requested of at least 75 ha - 48 lots, 40 of which would range 1 to 2 ha. Changes/Issues Raised: Council Comment: • Strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Romsey which had particular emphasis on restructuring farms to create cluster subdivision leaving the balance to be farmed on a permanent basis. • The proposal does not comply with the current cluster provisions in the existing scheme (ie does not meet the balance lot requirement) and does not comply with the proposed scheme and therefore the Council does not accept the submission. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning Recommendation: should remain without the creation of an Outline Development Plan. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment The property consists of 1,311ha with 28 existing lots and the submission and indicated that, given the site’s proximity to Melbourne, the price paid for the Recommendations: land (not a planning consideration) and the low capital return from farming, there is a strong possibility that the property will continue to be sold off in its existing allotments and/or 40ha parcels. The proposal in the submission is to incorporate an Outline Development Plan into the new scheme covering 888ha and 10 existing lots which would be subdivided into 4 balance lots each of 75ha plus 40 lots of 1-2 ha. Excision of four existing houses could increase the yield to 48 lots. The small lots would be located on the poorer quality land, with access to sealed roads and with water pumped from Deep Creek feeding into a common water supply. The site is within the Rural Policy “B” area which suggests a single balance lot of at least 75ha rather than 4 balance lots. The formula approach to deriving a yield has missed the purpose of the balance lot provision, which is to preserve a large lot for more viable agriculture. The establishment of an enclave of rural residential development in this location has not been addressed. This submission clearly illustrates the pressures on rural land in the Shire and the vulnerability of larger farming operations. This proposal would be subject to requirements of Ministerial Direction No.6 which have not been addressed. Therefore the Panel is not in a position to evaluate the proposal. The Panel has also commented that decisions to provide additional rural living opportunities should be in the context of the recommended strategic review. A separate amendment is clearly required. The Panel recommends that the DPO suggested in the submission not be included in the Scheme and that the exhibited zone remain.

163

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 106 Submittor Name and The Friends of Five Mile Creek Valley, Woodend Address: 5 Hendley Street, Woodend Location: General Submission: • Suggest ESO for native grasslands within the Woodend Racecourse Requested reserve & VPO Changes/Issues • Suggest some form of protection on north side of Five Mile Creek up to Raised: the south boundary of Woodend Golf Course for remnant narrow leafed peppermint community • Suggest VPO for Carlsruhe cemetery for significant grassland community • VPO should be over other areas of Shire for species such as the Yarra Gum. Council Comment: • The Council agreed to give the Woodend Racecourse Reserve a VPO or an ESO. This will be decided after the draft environmental significance overlay provided by Christine Pruneau has been considered by the Committee at a later meeting. • The Council agreed to include the Peppermint Gums under an overlay control. Care is to be taken to ensure the Management plan for the Racecourse which has recently been prepared is consistent with the planning controls • Cemetery Lane (PUZ5/map 15) The Council agreed to include this area with an overlay control if relevant supporting evidence can be found in the Vic Roads bypass report. If this is not available then the Committee recommends that Council undertake further work in this regard. • Yarra Gums. The Committee agreed that this should be included as an overlay if evidence and support can be found in Vic Roads bypass reports and if no evidence is available the Committee recommends to Council that further work be undertaken in this regard. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that a Environmental Significance Recommendation: Overlay (ESO) be provided to the Woodend Racecourse Reserve and that environmental features identified by the VicRoads By-pass report be included as overlays when this information is collated. Refer to panel Panel Comment and Council has recommended an ESO for the Racecourse Reserve which would Recommendations: appear to be inappropriate as the basis of this submission is vegetation, in which case a VPO is the appropriate overlay. The Panel is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to agree to the submitters request for the Racecourse Reserve and the smaller area of land across the other side of the Five Mile Creek. However, more information is needed on the Carlsruhe Cemetery to support a VPO. The cemetery is shown on maps included in the Vicroads Study for the Woodend Bypass but is at the northern extremity of the study area and does not seem to have been addressed. The Panel recommends that: the VPO be applied to the Woodend Racecourse Reserve and area bordering the Five Mile Creek (as shown on the map accompanying submission no. 106); and the VPO be applied to the Carlsruhe Cemetery.

164

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 107

Submittor Name and North Central Catchment Management Authority (2), Address: P O Box 401 Bendigo 3552

Location and Map General Reference No: N/A

Current Zone: N/A

Exhibited Zone: N/A

Requested Zone: N/A

Proposed Zone: N/A

Submission: Requested • Requests reference in Scheme to the Regional Catchment Changes/Issues Raised: Strategy

Council Comment: • Agree to include the references referred in the CMA submission.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the redrafted Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) that incorporates these details be adopted.

Panel Comment and The Catchment Management Authority has made Recommendations: recommendations for inclusions in the MSS and the Council has addressed this in presenting the revised MSS. The Panel agrees with Council’s assessment. The Panel recommends that references requested by the NCCMA be included in the MSS.

165

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 108 Submittor Name and Ivor Johnson, Address: 128 High Street Woodend 3444

Location and Map Johnsons 19th Hole Shopping Centre Reference No: Lot 1-4 6 Pt 7 LP58912 Lots 1-2 LP68451 Woodend Map 24 Current Zone: Commercial A Exhibited Zone: BIZ – Business Requested Zone: RFO Adjustments Proposed Zone: BIZ Submission: Requested • Seeks adjustment to RFO alignment Changes/Issues Raised: • Correction of Heritage Overlays to include No. 17 Templeton Street Woodend Council Comment: • The Committee were advised that existing rural flood overlay for their central part of Woodend Township was taken from the Coombes Report, Christine Pruneau tabled photographs of that area in flood in recent years. • The Committee agreed not to accept the submission in this regard. • The Committee were advised that the heritage overlay accuracy was being reassessed and this would be discussed with the submittor.

• See previous information on flooding (Submission No. 37).

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that following detailed information from the Department of Natural Resources & Environment in relation to flooding that all mapping of flood areas be rechecked. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and Flooding - Flood Zones are based on the Coomes Report, which is Recommendations: the most relevant report on flooding in this area. The Panel was advised by Council that there was evidence to suggest this land was floodprone. The CMA will review flood information in the future at which time the boundaries of overlays and zones should be reconsidered. In the interim the Panel is satisfied that the zone boundaries are appropriate. See also the discussion on flooding in Section 2 of this Report. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained. The Panel has made recommendations elsewhere regarding checking the HO for errors and omissions and the appropriate course of action. Submission noted.

166

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 109 Submittor Name Macedon Ranges Conservation Society Inc., and Address: P O Box 52 Macedon 3440 Location General Submission: • Suggests employment of person with Environmental Science background to Requested identify areas for protection Changes/Issues • Recommends additions/alterations to policies, zones and overlays Raised: throughout Scheme to enhance Environmental Protection.

Council Comment: • The Committee agreed that there needs to be further work in identifying natural habitats and reflecting this in overlay controls in the scheme. • The issue of subdivision was discussed at length, the Committee was advised that the subdivision controls are intended to be a direct translation of existing subdivision controls and this would be rechecked to ensure accuracy has been achieved. • It was agreed that a 40ha provision would be included in the schedule for timber production in the rural zone. • The issue of potential conflict between rural residential development and key habitat areas would need further work. Marcus Ward will provide a copy of the Macedon Ranges Conservation Society Environmental Report and the Committee will assess this. • It was agreed that the roadside management plans would be referenced in the new scheme. • Bushland Living Policy (Woodend) is to have a map included as outlined in the policy. • Christine Pruneau produced a plan identifying Yarra Gum areas and wildlife corridors, documented as part of the Woodend Bypass Study. • MSS requires strengthening in respect to a number of environmental matters. • The scheme includes a policy on erosion risk and an erosion management overlay which identifies that areas of the Shire that are documented to have a high erosion risk. • Land Capability studies have been undertaken for the former Shires of Newham & Woodend, Kyneton and Romsey. These include information on erosion risk. These documents could be included as incorporated documents. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the strengthened Municipal Strategic Recommendation: Statement (MSS) be adopted and that the Land Capability Studies be included as incorporated documents. Make amendments as per Council comment. Refer other matters to panel. Panel Comment and This submission was presented to the Panel by Mr Marcus Ward. Mr. Ward Recommendations: advised that Council’s response in preparing a new Scheme had “missed the point” and a more comprehensive analysis of environmental issues should have occurred as the foundation of the scheme. He highlighted the resources which are available in the community to assist in improving the Scheme. The Flora and Fauna Protection Policy tabled by Ms. Pruneau was endorsed as an effective interim measure while comprehensive environmental strategies are developed. Mr Ward also does not agree with the translation of zones and is concerned that the new Scheme will create opportunities for subdivision in rural areas when it

167

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

should be restricting this form of development. The Society has provided a detailed and valuable submission on environmental issues. The Society's position generally supports the revised MSS and the majority of issues raised are suggested improvements to the detailed policies and overlays. 22.07 Rural Residential The Panel recommends that an objective be included in the Local Policy 22.07 discouraging development from documented key habitat areas. 22.08-02 Vegetation Clearance The Panel has recommended alterations to the clearance provisions of this policy to remove the height exemption. The Panel recommends, subject to a Council evaluation, inclusion in the Vegetation Policy [22.08-2] references to: Macedon Range Conservation Society Environmental Report Macedon Ranges Shire Roadside Management Plan Environmental Effects Statements for the Calder Highway North Central Catchment Management Authority relevant documentation on vegetation. Exotic Vegetation - The MSS provides support for preservation of exotic vegetation in terms of cultural and landscape objectives. The Panel recommends that reference to exotic vegetation be included in the policy with the objective of preservation of significant stands and specimens. 22.14 Rural Housing and Subdivision – See discussion in Section 2 of the Report. 22.18 Revegetation of Rural Areas The Panel has made recommendations elsewhere on provision of VPO's for wildlife corridors. 22.19 Visual Outlook The society has made the point that the proposal to limit small-scale development to the foothills conflicts with policies of protecting native forests. The Panel supports this view however the MSS is ambivalent on this issue The Panel has recommended elsewhere that this policy be deleted (see discussion on Local Policies). 22.23 Bushland Living Areas The Panel has recommended elsewhere that this policy be deleted and replaced with a DPO (see discussion on Local Policies). 35.02 Environmental Rural Zone and ESO, VPO and SLO. The Panel has considered the application of the ERZ and overlays in the new Scheme and although many of the key areas have been allocated the zone there are other areas that require consideration. The decision to apply the ERZ in particular, should not be taken lightly and therefore detailed information is required to demonstrate the need for the zone before it is used. The Panel has commented that DOI should provide further guidance regarding the use of the ERZ. The Panel notes that Council is in the process of preparing an Environment Study and adjustments to zones and overlays would be an expected result of this process to reflect the outcomes. 35.03 Rural Living Zone The Panel has already noted that clause 22.14 is unworkable in its current format and needs to be re-written and expressed in a manner that is understandable.

168

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Key Habitat - recommending that key habit be identified and protected. The Panel has made recommendations that listed areas be included. The Panel supports proposals that key habitat be monitored and be include in an ERZ. The Panel recommends that: key habitat areas be included for consideration in Council’s Environment Strategy; key habitat areas on private land be included in the monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of retention measures; and place documented areas of key habitat in the ESO at the next amendment. 22.08-02 Vegetation Clearance - the Panel has recommended amendment of this Policy to include all vegetation. 22.08-09 Erosion Risk - The Panel has recommend reference to the Kyneton high erosion areas. 22.15 - Timber and Timber Processing Industries - this Policy is recommended for deletion on the basis that the issues are adequately addreessed in other areas of the Scheme such as the SPPF. 22.19 Visual outlook - Criticising 'Limiting development to the foothills', which may tend to encourage development in forested areas. The Panel has recommended elsewhere that this policy be deleted. 35.01 Rural Zone - Objecting to timber harvesting of native forests. Clause 17.07 of the SPPF clearly sets out the requirements for timber harvesting. Incorporated Documents – The Panel does not support the inclusion of the listed references as incorporated documents in the new Scheme. However, they are worthy of inclusion as reference documents in those parts of the LPPF where they are relevant and will assist in the day-to-day implementation of the Scheme. The Panel recommends that the documents referred to on page 11 of the submission be included as reference documents in the LPPF.

169

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 110 Submittor Name: Ms Christine Pruneau Location: General Submission: • Objects to all aspects of New Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme for various reasons Council Comment: • The Committee agreed that all drafting issues raised by Christine Pruneau would be rechecked for accuracy. These include correction of any known errors in Road naming, policy maps are to correlate with zone maps by way of layout etc. Overlays are to be listed on the cover sheet to assist in interpretation. Correlation of zoning from one sheet to another needs to be checked for accuracy, translation of zones adjacent to the Kyneton Reservoirs to be checked for accuracy. The status of the Lancefield Woodend Road to be referred back to Alex Evans (Vic Roads), the Kyneton Township Policy Plan is to be rechecked for accuracy including zone and translation from residential zoning to residential zoning. • The Committee agreed to the following: ⇒ Map 5 (Malmsbury Township) is to be updated in light of the approval of amendment L15. ⇒ Map 6 (INI zone Calder Highway Kyneton) to be checked to ensure a correct translation of existing zone (Appendix 2/page 2).. ⇒ Map 8 (Cobaw) the Committee has agreed to rezone existing environment protection land to environmental rural zone. ⇒ Map 9 (Lancefield) check correlation of zoning with Map 19 for consistency. ⇒ Map 10 (Woodvale Crescent and Parkville Drive Lancefield) zone Rural Living instead of LDRZ as exhibited. ⇒ Map 13 (Kyneton) check zone translation in light of the approval of amendment of L19. ⇒ Map 13 (Burke Street Kyneton) refer to Council as part of the review of industrial land in Kyneton ⇒ Map 13 (Lennox Street, Kyneton) check translation of zone to ensure accuracy. ⇒ The Committee agreed to put the words “Woodend Racecourse” on the cadastral Plan for the Woodend Racecourse Reserve as a reference. ⇒ Map 13 (Kyneton) check translation of zone in light of approval of amendment L5. ⇒ Map 15 (Carlsruhe) add Significant Landscape Overlay over Byrells Bush. ⇒ Map 17 (The Jim Jim, Newham) the Committee agreed to develop a separate SLO3 recognising the geological and environment values of the land as well as its significance as a landscape. The Committee agree to refer the issue to Council to consider whether or not to consider rezoning Environmental Rural. ⇒ Map 17 (Sheltons Road/Bolgers Rd, Newham) SLO2 to be placed over the Johnston residence located on a prominent ridgeline. Recommend to Council to investigate placing

170

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Environmental Significance Overlay over the land at a later time. ⇒ Map 17 (Hanging Rock) the Committee agreed to place the land west of the internal road in the site to PCRZ zone leaving the balance PPR Z zone. ⇒ Map 19 (Lancefield) check translation of zones particularly on the northern edge of the residential area of town. ⇒ Map 23 (Woodend) area between Ashbourne Road and old Ashbourne Road (PCRZ Zone) the Committee recommends to Council that it be rezoned from Rural to PCRZ. ⇒ Map 23 The Committee agreed to place a vegetation protection overlay over the land on the north side of Spencer Road (Appendix 2/page 10). ⇒ The accuracy of a subdivision shown in Mahoneys Road north of Jason Drive is to be checked (Appendix 2/page 10). ⇒ Map 23 (Woodend) the Committee agreed to rezone land zoned LDRZ east of Ashbourne Road to Rural with a flood overlay (Appendix 2/page 10/point 14). ⇒ The Committee agreed that the table attached to the Mt Macedon Restructure Overlay needs to have a key. ⇒ Map 24 (Woodend). The Committee agreed to request the panel to change the zoning from IN21 to IN23 in that area north and south of Urquhart Street, Woodend. ⇒ Map 24 translation of the zoning the former CFA site in Urquhart Street to be checked for accuracy (check amendment L34). ⇒ Map 23 (Woodend) triangular section of land in Ashbourne Road requires a zoning, to be a direct translation from the existing scheme. ⇒ Map 24 (Woodend) Buckland Street, Woodend check translation of zoning for accuracy (Appendix 2/page 12 point 23). Map 24 (Woodend) north of Ashbourne Road west of Barker Street, the Committee recommends this be referred to Council for further consideration as part of a development and structure plan for Woodend. ⇒ The Committee agreed to place a land subject to inundation overlay over this land in the interim given it’s flooding characteristics (Appendix 2/page 12 point 32). • The Committee did not complete consideration of this submission it will be dealt with further at a subsequent meeting. • It was agreed that any mapping issues would need to be rechecked taking into account the issues raised in the submission. • Page 6 (Zoning of non-sewered areas). The Committee agreed to refer this issue to Council for further investigation to further consider what future development should be allowed in unsewered towns until such time as sewerage services are available. TBA Detailed Policy needed on unsewered towns • The Committee agreed that effluent disposal and water quality policy (22.08.01) is to be reinforced in the Township Policies. • Page 6 - The Committee agreed to place an Environmental Significance

171

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Overlay (Water Catchment) over the Eppalock catchment. TBA - This change cannot be supported and is not appropriate, should be dealt with in MSS. • The Committee also agreed to improve in Schedule 4 to the ESO so as to reference each catchment in the Schedule. • The Committee also agreed that there was a need to improve and expand where appropriate on the permit exemptions in Schedule 4 in light of the fact that this Schedule covers a significant portion of the Shire. • Page 6 - The committee addressed the issue of the zoning of existing Low Density Residential areas that have high environmental conservation and amenity values with infrastructure constraints. The Committee agreed to refer this issue to Council with a view to possibly reviewing the situation as part of the strategic review to assess whether an Environmental Rural Zone should be placed over such land. • The Committee discussed the zoning of land generally between the Woodend Road and Riddells Creek within the former Shire of Romsey, in particular the land which currently has a zoning of Macedon Ranges Landscape Protection and Macedon Ranges Conservation. The Committee agreed that all this land should be in an Environmental Rural Zone. TBA - Agree but panel may recommend that this be subject to further exhibition. • The Committee agreed to zone all existing light industrial land and low density commercial land IN3Z. • Map 17 point 12 - The Committee agreed that there is a need to further consider whether to place an ESO over creeks within the Shire. It was agreed to consult with adjoining Shires to see how they have dealt with the issue. • Map 19 point 2 - The Committee agreed to rezone the land north of Lancefield to Rural Zone from Rural Living Zone, that is the zoning is to be a direct translation of the existing scheme. • The committee agreed to add the existing township policy for Mt. Macedon and Macedon that no further subdivision is to be allowed as per the existing scheme. It was agreed to have a map in place to support the policy. • The issue o the zoning of Gordon Cope-Williams land (page 6) was discussed and it was agreed that the zoning would stay as exhibited. • The Committee agreed that the Schedules to the overlays needs to be revisited in light of the State Government Amendment V3 which made alterations to the way the schedules are to be presented. • The Committee agreed to seek a fire hazard map from the CFA and refer the matter to Council to assess whether it is appropriate to have a wild fire management overlay. • Christine advised that in some instances the zone map and schedule maps do not match. It was agreed that these would need to be rechecked to ensure that they are correct. • It was agreed that the Salinity Management Overlay would be rechecked for accuracy. • David Johnston advised that Council could include a Significant Landscape Overlay over those areas identified by the national Trust (Landscapes rather than trees) and the Heritage Commission Register of

172

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

as the National Estate. • Strengthening of MSS will address a number of issues. • Township Structure Plans to be strengthened. • CFA Fire Hazard mapping to be resolved at the State Level. • Most of the detailed issues relate to mapping. • The Jim Jim is proposed to be zoned Rural with a Significant Landscape Overlay2 and a Heritage Overlay. These overlays will provide recognition and protection of the significance of this feature. • Land located at Sheltons Road / Bolgers Lane Newham should be subject to a Significant Landscape Overlay as the land includes a significant landscape feature. Unless there were additional matters that would not be addressed by including the land in an SLO 3 imposing an ESO on the land could not be justified. • A number of issues would be dealt with in a more comprehensive review of the Shire. Council That Council recommend to the Panel: Recommendation: • That the strengthened Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) be adopted. • That the Country Fire Authority fire hazard mapping issue be resolved at the State Level. • That all the corrections to mapping be included. • Refer other matters to Panel Panel Comment and Ms Pruneau presented a well-researched and detailed submission prior to the Recommendations: hearing and a further detailed submission at the hearing. The Panel places on record it's appreciation to Ms Pruneau for the assistance provided to the Panel and for the outstanding analysis and research of the Scheme. The Panel believes that the attention to detail in this submission will be invaluable to Council in finalising its Scheme for approval. The Panel recommends that prior to adoption, Council undertake a check of each error identified by Ms Preneau in her submission and correct all technical errors. accordingly. Water catchments: -see discussion in Section 1 of this Report. Ground water - Suggested that insufficient attention has been given to the Ground water resource. An ESO has been provided to manage recharge areas providing some measure of control. However the Panel supports the submission that this is a substantial area to further develop appropriate planning measures which extends beyond local government boundaries. Prior to further action the issue requires thorough assessment and is highlighted for consideration at a catchment or state level. The Panel recommends that consideration be given to investigating ground water resources to determine appropriate strategies by DoI, the CMA or other relevant agencies. Flora and Fauna. - Suggested that protection measures are required. The Panel notes the efforts to provide appropriate planning measures in accordance with strong statements in the MSS. However the Panel considers the effect is somewhat disjointed and that this important matter should receive a total review to ensure a coordinated approach is provided. Significant strategic information has been compiled by the previous Shires and other bodies and a broader all embracing coordinated strategy is required. The Panel recommends that a review of environment, bio-diversity, habitat flora and fauna issues be carried out to allow a coordinated approach to planning measures at the next amendment Landscape, heritage and flooding issues are discussed in some detail in Section 2

173

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

of this report. Existing Environment protection and Landscape Zones - Ms Pruneau drew attention to a number of landscape and environment zones that had not been translated from the previous Schemes. Apart from the Cobaws, the Panel considers that the balance of the areas should be reconsidered at the next review. The Panel recommends those zone translations of environmental and landscape areas be reconsidered at the next review. Native Flora and Fauna Protection Policy - The submitter tabled a draft Native Flora and Fauna Protection Policy at the hearing in response to failure of the draft Scheme to adequately address this issue. The draft policy has been competently prepared and as noted in Section 2 of this report, would be an appropriate basis upon which Council could review its proposed controls applicable to the environment. The Panel recommends that consideration of a Native Flora and Fauna Protection Policy be given at the next review.

174

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 111 Submittor Name Department of Natural Resources & Environment and Address: (2 letters), 30 Prospect Street Locked Bag 3000 Box Hill 3128 Location and Map General & Floodplain Management Reference No: Submission: Suggests additions to MSS and policies to encourage sustainable practices and Requested address land degradation in rural areas. Amendment to zoning of Crown Land, Changes/Issues additional overlays and also requests that overlays should not be included on Raised: crown land Council Comment: The committee discussed this submission at length. • The Committee noted the introduction of the Urban Floodway Zone under Amendment V3. It was agreed that this would possibly need to be placed in Woodend, Gisborne and Kyneton. This issue will require more detailed consideration by Council. • The Committee agreed to recommend to Council that the overall thrust and content of Department’s submission be adopted by Council. • There is suitable information on flooding in Woodend and Kyneton to justify use of the Urban Floodway zone in certain areas. Additional ESO could only be included if there is suitable documentation to justify its inclusion. Council • That Council recommend to the Panel that the Municipal Strategic Recommendation: Statement (MSS) as strengthened be adopted. • Suggestions for amendment to MSS and local policies be adopted. • Corrections to crown land zones be made as appropriate. • Other matters to be referred to Panel. Panel Comment This submission was presented to the Panel by DNRE (Port Phillip Region) and officers Ms Jude Miller and Ms Amanda Hills. Recommendations: The DNRE original submission has been discussed with Council and a number of the recommendations have been included in the revised MSS. Matters raised in the submission to the Panel hearing are addressed here. Flooding - See discussion Flooding in Section 1 of this Report. MSS - Natural Resource Management - DNRE have recommended that a specific policy be inserted to provide for recognition and protection of valuable stone resources. The SPPF provides 'to - protect stone resources accessible to major markets…' and DNRE advise that likely stone resources have been identified in the Shire. The LPPF is silent on the issue except for the strong statements on preservation of the landscape and the rural lifestyle of the community. Whilst it is extremely desirable that existing significant assets be preserved this does not necessarily imply that extractive industry is precluded rather that any proposed development receive careful consideration in terms of the strategies of the Shire. A plan of the Extractive Industry Interest Areas was tabled at the hearing and should be included with the policy. The areas involved do not include the most valuable landscape assets of the Shire. The Panel recommends that a Local Policy on Extractive Industries be included as suggested by DNRE in their submission to the Panel hearing. Flora and Fauna - MSS and Local Policies At the hearing DNRE submitted a number of suggested improvements to the MSS and Local Policies. The Council supported the modifications. The Panel recommends that the amendments on Flora and Fauna referring to

175

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

the MSS and Local Policies as submitted to the Panel at the hearing and in the initial submission, be incorporated in the Scheme. Overlays – The DNRE have recommended that the VPO1 be converted to an ESO as the latter is applied more broadly applied and includes flora and fauna. The submitters advised that has been the Department’s approach to issues such as this across the State. The Panel believes that if an area is identified as significant for a specific reason then the appropriate overlay should be introduced. In this case the issue in question is the Blackgum Areas which is significant for its vegetation characteristics. The Panel believes the VPO is the appropriate overlay in this instance. The Panel recommends that the Blackgum Areas remain as a VPO. Crown Land - DNRE has suggested that management plans of Committees of Management be included in the scheme as reference documents. The Panel did not review any management plans and is therefore believes each plan should be evaluated by DNRE and Council for inclusion. The Department has detailed a number of corrections in respect to Crown land. The Panel recommends that the map corrections on Crown Land detailed by DNRE be undertaken prior to adoption. Catchment and Agriculture - DNRE have suggested a number of improvements to Local Policies aimed at decreasing off-site impacts and supporting sound environmental management. The Panel has recommended that the policy for catchment management be deleted as it does not add to the State Policy, the MSS or the provisions of the ERZ and ESO. Parks and Reserves - DNRE have recommended that a number of parks controlled by other authorities be zoned PCRZ and that PUZ1 within PCRZ be removed. The Panel agrees with this request. The Panel recommends that parks controlled by Melbourne West and Victoria West Regions of Parks Victoria be zoned PCRZ and that allotments zoned PUZ1 within the Mt Macedon PCRZ be zoned PCRZ. The submission presented to the Panel at the hearing included two appendices. These were entitled “comments not fully addressed in the redrafted MSS” and “additional comments to the redrafted MSS”. The content of the appendices are to make minor adjustments to various components of the MSS. The Panel has considered the content of these appendices an agrees with the requests that have been made. The Panel recommends that the requests contained within the two appendices attached to the DNRE’s submission at the hearing, be implemented by Council prior to adoption of the Scheme.

176

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 112

Submittor Name and Southern Rural Water, Address: P O Box 153 Maffra 3860

Location and Map General Reference No: N/A

Current Zone: N/A

Exhibited Zone: N/A

Requested Zone: N/A

Proposed Zone: N/A

Submission: Requested • Endorse comments of Western Water Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: • The Committee agreed that no action was required on this submission. The issues raised have been dealt with when considering earlier submissions from other Water Authorities.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the comments made by Southern Rural Water were noted. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The primary interest of Southern Water is the operation of reservoirs Recommendations: and the protection of the catchment from factors, which may effect water quality. At the hearing, wording for a catchment based Local Policy was submitted. This submission is in contrast to that from Western Water who argued for the use of the ERZ and ESO in the catchments. The Panel has recommended elsewhere that the Local Policy for Catchment Management should be deleted because it does not add to the State Policy, MSS, ERZ or overlays. See also the catchment discussion in Section 1 of this Report. Submission noted.

177

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 113

Submittor Name and Geoff Crapper, Address: Lot 1 Slatey Creek Road Woodend 3442

Location and Map General land subject to flooding Reference No:

Current Zone: N/A

Exhibited Zone: N/A

Requested Zone: N/A

Proposed Zone: N/A

Submission: Requested • Objects to RFO on properties south of Riddells Creek - Govans Changes/Issues Raised: Lane and other incorrectly mapped RFO designations • Suggests move RFO’s and LSIO’s and Special Building Overlays in flood areas etc. Council Comment: • The Committee noted the issues raised in this submission. The Committee agreed that further work was required on the sites identified in this submission. If information is currently available this is to be included in the mew Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme. Any areas that lack information will be referred to Council for possible further study. • See Submission No. 37.

Strategic Considerations Flooding information for Woodend is substantial and this has been and Implications: used on the basis for the overlay. Other areas of the Shire do not have as comprehensive flood information. Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that following detailed information from the Department of Natural Resources & Environment in relation to flooding that all mapping of flood areas be rechecked. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and Mr Crapper's submission details concerns at the lack of control over Recommendations: flood prone land. The Council acknowledges the concerns and proposes amendments to the Scheme when the CMA’s have completed investigations into flooding in the Shire. The Panel agrees with Mr Crapper that the interim control is required and has made recommendations to that effect in Section 1 of this Report which addresses the flooding issue. Submission noted.

178

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 114 Submittor Name Western Region Water Authority (2 letters), and Address: Robertson Street (Locked Bag 2) Gisborne 3437 Location General Submission: • Suggests additions to MSS, Policies, zones etc. to protect long term interests Requested and operations of water supply etc. Changes/Issues • Includes list of Western Water assets Raised: • Requests amendment to Public Use Schedule. Council Comment: • The Committee were advised that the new Scheme is designed to make things simpler and this should not initially involve identifying each site with appropriate public use zoning. The Committee were advised that minor utility installations are allowed as a right in most instances therefore by retaining the underlying zone for the less significant sites, the Servicing Authority is not being denied the opportunity to improve and develop the site • David Johnston advised that he considered that the panel would require any large scale rezoning to be re-exhibited. This was in reference to rezoning all water catchment areas to Environmental Rural. He advised that Council could work on establishing a policy on this now. The Committee requested to see a copy of the Policy titled Macedon Region Water Authority July 1994 for consideration before determining whether to include it as a reference document in this Scheme. • The Committee agreed not to adopt the revised schedule to Environmental Significance Overlays suggested by Western Water (Appendix C). The Committee were of the view that the existing schedule adequately dealt with the environmental issues. • The Committee agreed that there was a need to have a map of the defined catchment areas (Urban Water Supply). This is to be discussed with Western Water. • The Committee agreed to include in our policy the following points raised by Western Water (Policy No. 22-08-06): Objectives - First and second dot points Policy - Second and third dot points. • It was also agreed under Policy to have a further dot point stating to the effect that all applications for intensive animal husbandry are to be referred to the appropriate water supply authority for comment. This clause is go in Policy 22.24 (Intensive Animal Husbandry policy). • The Committee agreed not to rezone all the existing Western Water sites to public use (as set out in Appendix B). The Committee were advised that the major Western Water sites already have a public use zoning and these are being directly translated into new scheme. It was agreed that it was unnecessary to rezone the smaller less significant sites. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the strengthened Municipal Recommendation: Strategic Statement (MSS) be adopted. Refer to Panel.

179

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Panel Comment Mr John Glossop and Mr Robert Franklin presented Western Water’s and submission to the Panel. The submission made the following points- Recommendations: • Zoning and Overlay recommendations -See discussion on catchment in Section 1 of this Report and Zones Overlays and Schedules in Section 2. • Wastewater treatment plants -request PUZ and ESO. The Panel support the use of the ESO around plants to allow consideration of the issues involving the wastewater plant and development. The Panel recommends consideration of the use of an ESO around wastewater plants in conjunction with the next amendment. • Zoning assets PUZ. Zoning of minor utility installations to PUZ is considered unnecessary, as no permit is required in the underlying zone. Further assets not required for operations are best zoned in the underlying zone. The Panel recommends that Western Water and the Council confer and that the necessary assets are zoned PUZ, and an appropriate schedule be inserted. • Local Policy Catchment Management-22.08-06-request for additional wording. The Panel has recommended that this policy be deleted. • Local Policy -Effluent Disposal and Water Quality-22.08-01 -Western Water have suggested inclusions to strengthen this policy. The Panel notes that an overlay is not necessary to generate a permit for vegetation removal near streams. The Panel recommends that additions to local Policy 22.08-01 requiring septic tanks to be regularly maintained and upgraded when extensions to a dwelling take place. • The Intensive Animal Husbandry Policy now applies to all zones.

180

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 115 Submittor Name and Mr & Mrs Penny, Address: Lot 2 Raleigh Street Malmsbury 3446 Location and Map Lot 15, 30A Young Street Malmsbury Reference No: Lot 1 PS 301803H T/Malmsbury Map 5 Current Zone: Rural General Farming B Exhibited Zone: Residential 1 Requested Zone: - Proposed Zone: - Submission: Requested • Wants rezoning to be able to build on block in Malmsbury Changes/Issues Raised: Council Comment: • The Committee were advised that Malmsbury has recently been sewered and the subject land is just outside the sewered district yet has access to tap into the sewer facility. • Currently a house is prohibited on this site as the land is in a Rural Zone and a house is prohibited in less that .4 hectare. • The new Scheme also proposes to have the land in a Rural Zone, however the .4 ha minimum is not in the rural zone and therefore Mr Penny can make application for a house which will be considered on it’s merits. • Further development in town would be subject to managing effluent disposal. The Committee agreed to recommend to Council that it undertake a review of the strategy for Malmsbury in light of the fact that the township is now being sewered since the Shire of Kyneton adopted the strategy affecting Malmsbury.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain and that the proposed residential review of land within the Shire be undertaken over the coming year Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The Malmsbury Structure Plan in the revised MSS indicates that the Recommendations: subject lot is within the township boundary but is proposed to be zoned rural. This is the result of a direct zone translation from the existing Scheme. The lot is also outside the sewer district but is capable of connecting to the sewer if need be. The Panel is unable to support the submission until the strategic planning for the town indicates that development at an urban density is acceptable. Council needs to amend the Structure Plan and urban zones to reflect the fact that Malmsbury is now sewered and the constraints and opportunities for development have now changed. The Panel recommends that: the Malmsbury Structure Plan be reviewed prior to the first review of the Scheme with appropriate adjustments to zones and overlays if necessary; and in the interim, the exhibited zone remain.

181

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 116 Submittor Name and Phyllis I Boyd Address: Gisborne & Mt. Macedon Districts Historical Society Inc. Location and Map Various historical sites around the Shire Reference No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested • Identifies sites which should be included in the Scheme with Changes/Issues Raised: Heritage Overlay and properties where tree controls do not apply but all recognised by Significant Tree Register of National Trust Council Comment: • The Committee were advised that the mapping of heritage places was to be rechecked. • The Committee agreed that any buildings or places listed in the current scheme as having a heritage protection should be brought through into the new Planning Scheme. • The Committee were advised that whilst some buildings and places and trees are recognised as having some historical significance, not all have the background research to justify their inclusion in the current scheme, in these instances further study is required. • David Johnston indicated that those buildings, places and trees that were widely accepted as being having historical and heritage value could be included at this stage. • Marcus Ward raised the suggestion of introducing interim control to provide protection until further work is done. • The Committee agreed that heritage is a vital aspect to the Shire and it’s character. The MSS contains policy in this regard and this to be reinforced. • The Committee agreed that the significant tree register (National Trust) should be included in the new Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme. • The Committee agreed to recommend to Council to undertake further identification work in relation to buildings, significant landscapes and trees that do not currently have adequate background work and that Council consider undertaking further amendments to include these into the Scheme. Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the corrections required be made and that those buildings and places listed in the current Scheme as having heritage protection be brought through into the new Scheme. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The Council advised that a thorough check of heritage assets be to be Recommendations: undertaken for inclusion in the Scheme. Amended documentation was forwarded to the Panel after the hearing. The Panel recommends that heritage assets, with appropriate citations, identified by the Gisborne and Mt Macedon Districts Historical Society be assessed for inclusion in the Scheme prior to approval, subject to approval of the owners.

182

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 117

Submittor Name and J Richmond Address: 68 Main Road, Lancefield

Location and Map Lot 6 56984 Reference No: Map 19

Current Zone: PU10 – Public Use – Police

Exhibited Zone: R1Z

Requested Zone: BIZ

Proposed Zone: RIZ

Submission: Requested • Objects to Residential One Zone. Suggests Business One Zone Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: • The Committee were advised of the strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Romsey. • The Committee were concerned that approving the proposal would essentially fragment the commercial zone in Lancefield. • The issue of contamination of the previous DNRE Depot was raised. • The Committee agreed not to accept the submission and leave the zone as residential.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and This request is not supported by the Lancefield Structure Plan in the Recommendations: MSS. Allocating a business zone would only contribute to the fragmentation of the town’s small commercial centre. The Panel were also advised that the site is a former DNRE depot which raises the issue of potential contamination. It appears that the lot has been sold, in which case an environmental audit would have been conducted. The Panel recommends, the exhibited zone remain and the EAO be applied to 68 Main Road, Lancefield.

183

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 118

Submittor Name and Graeme Walker, Address: 13 Vine Street Moonee Ponds 3039

Location and Map CA 6B, Sec B Mooneys Lane Lancefield Reference No: Lot 2 LP 117597 Kyneton Road Lancefield Lot 2 LP 207210C Kyneton Road Lancefield Map 18 Current Zone: Macedon Ranges Landscape Protection Zone

Exhibited Zone: Rural

Requested Zone: N/a

Proposed Zone: Rural

Submission: Requested • Requests further clarification in definitions in zones and overlays Changes/Issues Raised: re timber production to avoid ambiguity

Council Comment: • The Committee noted the issues raised in this submission. • The Committee agreed that no action was required on this submission at this time. Under the new Planning Scheme the submittor can make application for timber production.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain.

No amendment required. Panel Comment and The Panel agrees with Council’s assessment and recommendation on Recommendations: this submission. See also submissions 66, 102, 109 and 122. The Panel recommends the exhibited zone remain.

184

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 119

Submittor Name and Paul Tomkinson, Address: 3rd Flood 141 Gisborne Street South Yarra 3141

Location and Map Macedon Range View Estate, Riddells Creek Reference No: Map 39

Current Zone: R3 – Town fringe, Residential

Exhibited Zone: LDRZ

Requested Zone: N/A

Proposed Zone: LDRZ

Submission: Requested • Requests change to preferred minimum lot size in this area from Changes/Issues Raised: 2000 square metres to 1000 square metres.

Council Comment: • The Committee were advised of the strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Romsey which nominated this area for 2000 square metre minimum subdivision. • The committee agreed not to accept the submission. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain.

Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and This submission was presented to the Panel by Mr Paul Tomkinson. Recommendations: The submitter requests that the minimum lot size for the subject land should be 850m2 instead of the 2,000m2 proposed in the Scheme. The land is within the town boundary of the Riddells Creek Structure Plan and indicated as “Future residential – direction for future residential expansion”. Property statistics provided to the Panel indicate a 37 year supply of residential land in Riddells Creek. However, the submitter highlighted the complete lack of vacant standard lots for sale in the area. The Panel questions the basis for arbitrary, prescriptive lot sizes adopted in the past and endorses their removal in the revised MSS. Thus the previous lot sizes no longer apply although, the weight which may be accorded to dated strategic studies cited as reference documents in the MSS is of concern. The Panel is not in a position to review consumer needs and appropriate planning responses but believes that this is an issue for the proposed strategic review of residential growth areas. The Panel recommends the exhibited zone remain.

185

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 120 Submittor Name and Michael Shield & Associates, Address: 13 Goulburn Street Hobard 7018 Location and Map Riddells Creek Airfield - Websters Road Riddells Creek Reference No: Map 38 Current Zone: Rural Living Exhibited Zone: RLZ Requested Zone: DPO Proposed Zone: RLZ Submission: Requested • Request for DPO to allow an air park in conjunction with current Changes/Issues Raised: operations of the airfield Council Comment: • The Committee were advised of the strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Romsey. • The Committee were advised that the proposed scheme is a direct translation of the existing scheme where the proposal is currently prohibited. • An amendment of this magnitude should be assessed as an independent planning scheme amendment and addressed on its merits, it should not be incorporated into this process • The Committee agreed not to accept the submission. Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The site consists approximately 30ha in two distinct landforms, the first Recommendations: is the flat (slopes less than 10%) plain on which the existing airstrip is located and residential development would occur. The second is the creek floodplain which is clearly defined. The land is located 2.5km north west of Riddells Creek township with access from Websters Road which is unsealed. The proposal relates to the development of an airpark based on similar concepts developed in North America. The proposal involves 36 house lots of approximately 2000 – 3000 m2 each with a taxi way and hanger and a condominium block of 1ha. The subdivision layout provides direct aircraft access to the airstrip. The Panel was advised that reticulated water and sewerage can be provided to the subdivision. The Panel was advised that the existing airstrip has been establish since World War 2 and is licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority. It was suggested that any increase in air traffic was likely to small based around recreational and commuter use of residents and their visitors. The suggested Comprehensive Development Zone appears to be the appropriate planning scheme mechanism. Consideration should also be given to the need for an AEO2 and a DDO (based on necessary building height limitations) over adjoining land. The Panel believes that a proposal of this type would require a separate amendment, supported by full details of the proposal, to provide for exhibition and detailed consideration of potential impacts. The Panel recommends that the exhibited scheme provisions be maintained.

186

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 121 Submittor Name and VicRoads (2 Letters), Address: 57 Lansell Street Bendigo 3552 Location General Submission: • Advises of roads which should/should not be RDZ1’s etc. Requested • Suggests roadworks be exempted from any permit requirements of Changes/Issues overlays Raised: • Suggests inclusion of Calder Highway policy. • Suggests addition to MSS. Council Comment: • The Committee agreed that if appropriate it is necessary to have overlays over public land. • Except for the above issue the Committee agreed to accept the other issues raised in this submission. • The Committee agreed to adopt the Calder Freeway/Highway Environs policy (marked attachment A in the submission) Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the policy be included. Recommendation: Refer other matters to Panel

Panel Comment and Council should ensure that the Scheme maps accurately plot declared roads Recommendations: as RDZ1 prior to adoption of the Scheme. The Panel recommends that Council check each of the mapping errors claimed by Vicroads in its submission and make corrections to the maps where necessary, prior to the adoption of the Scheme. Planning Panels have consistently resisted requests by public authorities to be exempted from various overlay requirements, including the need for permits. The Panel recommends that Vicroads not be exempted from requirements of overlays. The Calder Highway Policy is similar to policies requested by Vicroads for other major highways in the state, such as the Hume Highway. These policies have generally been accepted by other Panels. The Panel recommends that the “Calder Freeway and Calder Highway Environs Policy” as proposed in Vicroads submission, be included in the LPPF. The Panel notes that Vicroads has requested the inclusion of certain background documents as reference material in the Scheme. The Panel does not object to this but notes that Vicroads has not included the references in its draft Policy which is the appropriate place for them. The Panel recommends that background documents to the Calder Freeway pertinent to the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme be included as references.

187

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 122 Submittor Name and Steven Krstic, Address: 80 Main Street Romsey 3434 Location and Map General Reference No: Cobaw State Forest around 18, 9, 8, 17. Current Zone: Forest Reserve Exhibited Zone: RUZ Requested Zone: ERZ Proposed Zone: ERZ Submission: • Objects to Rural Zone around Cobaw Forest - suggests Environmental Requested Rural & ESO for wildlife Changes/Issues • Suggests VPO for grasslands and botanical significance of roadsides. Raised: • Suggests extension of SMO.

Council Comment: • The Committee agreed to deal with this submission after looking at Christine Pruneau’s suggested Environmental Significance Overlay. • The Committee noted that it has already recommended that the zone affecting the Cobaws be Environmental rural (rather than Rural as exhibited). • The Committee also agreed that the relevant ESO or VPO would apply over those areas already identified by the Committee as being of significance and worthy of protection. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the land be rezoned Recommendation: Environmental Rural with a Significant Landscape Overlay rather than the exhibited Rural with an Significant Landscape Overlay • Make changes as discussed. • Refer other matters to Panel. Panel Comment and See also submissions 66, 102, 109 and 118. Recommendations: The Panel notes the widespread support for the application of the ERZ over the Cobaws and supports this change to the exhibited Scheme. Discussion on this issue in contained in Section 1 of this Report. Documented and ratified evidence is necessary to support the application of the VPO over an area. The Panel has recommended elsewhere that the VPO be applied to wildlife corridors in the Shire where evidence exists. Dr. Kritic’s submission indicated that he has been undertaking research on wildlife corridors in the municipality for a Masters thesis which may now be completed and provide documentation for the application of an ESO. The Panel notes the submitter has sought extension of the SMO to all native vegetation within the Deep Creek catchment but the SMO is intended to apply specifically to high recharge areas rather than all vegetation in a catchment. The accuracy of mapping of recharge areas in the Cobaw area should be checked by Council prior to the adoption of the Scheme. The Panel recommends that documentation of environmental values identified in submission 122 be evaluated as the basis for the application of the ERZ and an ESO for wildlife corridors in the Cobaw area.

188

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 123 Submittor Name and Goulburn Murray Water Authority, Address: 40 Casey Street Tatura (P O Box 165 Tatura) 3616 Location and Map General Reference No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested • Suggests additions to local policies for effluent disposal and water Changes/Issues Raised: quality dams, intensive animal husbandry and rural zones Council Comment: • It was agreed that the issue of storm water had previously been dealt with by the Committee and the Committee has agreed to address the issue. • It was agreed to look at this issue further at a following meeting to see if any further changes were appropriate. • Schedule to Rural Zone to be addressed as part of Panel Submission. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the schedule for the Rural zone will form part of Council’s submission. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and Local Policy -22.08-01 The issues raised have been included in the Recommendations: policy. The Council has appointed an Environmental Health Officer, part of whose duties shall be to ensure satisfactory operation of effluent disposal systems. 22.08-04 - Dams - Suggestion that a notation be included that dams on declared waterways be referred to GMW as required by the Water Act is supported by the Panel. The Panel recommends that reference be included in Local Policy 22.08-04 that proposals for dams on waterway must be referred to the appropriate water authority for approval. 22.24 - Intensive Animal Husbandry - GMW is concerned that piggeries and cattle feedlots have been excluded and further that the Piggery Code of Practice is primarily odour related and does not sufficiently cover effluent issues. Section 17.06 requires consideration of the adopted Code of Practice on a state-wide basis. If the code is inadequate in a significant area such as effluent disposal, the relevant authorities should be working towards its improvement rather than introducing local provisions. Rural zones - Amended schedules submitted at the hearing now contain reference to earthworks, requiring a permit for all works. The Panel endorses this aspect of the new schedules. GMW proposes reference to the draft Campaspe Catchment Water Quality Strategy. The Panel has not seen this document and suggests its in inclusion, by way of amendment, when completed.

189

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 124

Submittor Name and Coliban Water Authority, Address: 2 Alder Street Golden Square 3555

Location and Map General Reference No:

Current Zone: N/A

Exhibited Zone: N/A

Requested Zone: N/A

Proposed Zone: N/A

Submission: Requested • Suggest additions to local policies on effluent disposal and water Changes/Issues Raised: quality. • Objects to zoning of land in Lauriston in process of purchase by Coliban Water. Suggests this land be zoned PUZ1 • Identified other zoning errors in relation to their land. Council Comment: • The Committee agreed to liaise with Coliban Water in particular in relation to the Lauriston Reservoir and the land adjacent to the Lauriston Reservoir. If this land has already been purchased it is appropriate to have the public use zoning otherwise an acquisition overlay would be appropriate.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that if the land has been purchased that a Public Use zone would be suitable, otherwise an Acquisition Overlay would be accepted. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and Local Policy 22.08-01 Coliban Water request refer of application for Recommendations: development in the vicinity of reservoirs be increases from 100 to 200 metres. Referral of applications to the relevant water authority in proclaimed catchments is required by 66.04 and the policy should be consistent with that requirement. Kyneton Wastewater Plant The Panel recommends that land being purchased for the Waste Treatment Plant be zoned PUZ if the purchase has been completed or a Public Acquisition Overlay be applied if the purchase is not complete. Coliban Water assets The Panel recommends that the Coliban -Kyneton Water Supply Basins and the Fernhill Reservoirs be zoned PUZ.

190

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 125

Submittor Name and Margaret Beverley, Address: RMB 3760 Calder Road Newham 3442

Location and Map General Reference No:

Current Zone: N/A

Exhibited Zone: N/A

Requested Zone: N/A

Proposed Zone: N/A

Submission: Requested • Requests alteration to ERZ to state what uses e.g. grazing Changes/Issues Raised: (existing use) do not require a permit.

Council Comment: • The Committee agreed to give a letter to the submittor advising that she can continue to farm the land under existing use rights.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The Panel agrees with Council’s assessment and recommendation. Recommendations: Submission noted.

191

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 126 Submittor Name and Victorian Plantations Corporation, Address: 243 Ring road Wendouree 3355

Location and Map General Reference No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested • Raises concerns re SMO covering rural land and therefore Changes/Issues Raised: requiring permits (restricting) plantation developments. Council Comment: • Request boundary of SMO be reviewed. • The Committee were advised that a permit is required for timber plantation land where a Salinity Management Overlay applies. • The Committee agreed not to change the scheme as suggested in the submission. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and This submission was presented to the Panel by Mr Warwick Recommendations: Williams, Operations Manager for VPC in Ballarat. SMO - 44.09 The Panel believes the application of the SMO based on CLPR mapping is acceptable. Unfortunately, the translation of the CLPR mapping to the overlay maps has not been undertaken accurately and there are many anomalies. These errors have been identified by many submitters and acknowledged by Council. The The purpose of the SMO is to identify, protect and rehabilitate areas of land affected by groundwater recharge and discharge. It is a “purpose” of the SMO to encourage “revegetation of areas which contribute to salinity”. Timber plantations would seem to be consistent with this objective and be a positive influence in controlling salinity. On this basis, the establishment and management of timber plantations in areas encumbered with the SMO should be exempt from the requirement for a permit. However, this does not exempt the need for a permit if required by another mechanism in the Scheme or for the harvesting of the timber. The Panel recommends that the establishment and management of timber plantations be exempt from the need for a permit in the SMO. The submitter also requests that Council re-write the Local Policy for Timber and Timber Processing Industries (clause 22.15) to place timber plantations as equal to other rural land uses and to avoid repetition of other provisions in the Scheme such as the SPPF. The Panel has recommended in Section 2 of this Report that this policy be deleted as it does not add to other provisions in the Scheme.

192

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 127 Submittor Name and Macedon Ranges Residents Association Inc, Address: PO Box 68 Mt Macedon 3441 Location and Map General Reference No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested • Planning Scheme does not comply with communities wishes as Changes/Issues Raised: per MSS • Identifies land where zoning is incorrect or overlay missing • Suggests Overlays for heritage and fire and flood for certain areas • Objects to overall draft scheme Council Comment: • Robert Van Loon addressed the Committee on this issue. • The Committee will further consider the issue at the conclusion of assessing all submissions in particular the MSS in relation to potential development at Mt Macedon and Macedon is to be addressed. John Courmadias tabled an addendum to this issue, this will be distributed with the minutes of the meeting for further Committee consideration. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the strengthened Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) be adopted. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and This submission was presented to the Panel by Ms Heather Gee on Recommendations: behalf of the Association. The Association provide an updated submission to the Panel and have withdrawn their request for the Scheme to be re-exhibited. The Panel has commented on the structure of the Scheme in Section 2 of this Report. Council has adopted a direct translation of existing zone provisions in the new Scheme. On this basis, there is no significant change to the opportunities for residential subdivision in the new Scheme. This has been achieved through Restructure Overlays, Development Plan Overlays, Local Policies and township structure plans. However, in some instances discretion is now available to consider applications as a result of VPP standard provisions (eg house excision) which cannot be varied by this Panel. The opportunity to apply for a permit does not indicate that a right is established but rather the merits of the proposal will be assessed with greater emphasis on the MSS and Local Policies. The strategic review of rural areas should result in a planning framework which clearly indicates how discretion will be exercised. The issue of catchment management has been addressed in Section 1 of this Report where the Panel has recommended that a consistent planning framework should apply to all proclaimed catchments. As stated elsewhere, the decision to apply the VPO must be based on

193

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

documented and ratified evidence that it is warranted. The Panel has made recommendations elsewhere to extend the use of the VPO in certain areas of the Shire based on the evidence presented to it. The Panel also notes that Council is preparing an Environment Strategy which should address this issue further. The application of the ESO over waterways is an issue applicable to all non-metropolitan municipalities and various Panels have recommended that the matter should be addressed at the State level to ensure a consistent approach. Submission noted.

194

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 128 Submittor Name and Bruce K Jones, Address: RMB 1790 Russells Road Woodend

Location and Map “Chevely” Lot 3 LP 2310 Woodend Reference No: Map 15 Calder Highway Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested • Requests review of overlays on this property (HO, RFO, ESO3, Changes/Issues Raised: SLO2) • Suggest amendment to mapping of these overlays • Request heritage overlay to be removed. Council Comment: • The Committee agreed that the site has heritage significance and the Heritage Overlay is to remain. • Council Officers will meet with the owner to inspect the accuracy of the overlay controls.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Heritage Overlay remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and See also submissions 90 and 197. Recommendations: The Manual for the VPP’s recognises that there will be instances where the heritage item is located within a large parcel of land, like a farm for example. This is the case with this item as the citation only applies to the dwelling. The Manual directs that in these circumstances, the extent to which the overlay applies should be described rather than based on the property boundary. For example, “the building and all land within 20 metres of its external walls”. Where driveways or other items on the property have heritage significance they should also be included by description. The Panel recommends that HO 308 be limited to the area identified as being of heritage value in the citation and in the longer term, Council review the mapping of heritage items on large parcels of land and their description in the HO. Rural Floodway Overlay: The floodway is to be reviewed in the future and should be amended at that time. SLO2: Unfortunately the review of the SLO did not occur in the extensive period between the submission and the hearing. The Panel endorses the minor alterations were suggested if the submission is substantiated during Council’s review.

195

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 129

Submittor Name and Ken Faulkner, Address: 178 Mollison Street Kyneton 3444

Location and Map Cnr (69) McBean Avenue & Norton Road Macedon Reference No: Lot 3 Map 34 Current Zone: Rural

Exhibited Zone: Rural

Requested Zone: LDRZ

Proposed Zone: Rural

Submission: Requested • Objects to rural zoning. Suggests Low Density Residential Changes/Issues Raised: Council Comment: • The Committee were advised the land is currently in a rural zone and were advised of the strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Gisborne. The Committee were advised that the land has already had a primary/secondary lot subdivision, creating 3 lots. • The Committee agreed not to accept the submission. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited Recommendation: zoning remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The subject site of 23.5 ha is located at the Macedon township entry. Recommendations: The submission suggests that there are extensive treed areas on the site. Lots 1 and 2 have been included in the RO with the apparent intention of limiting development. The land is also subject to an SMO. Exhibited planning strategies do not support rezoning. The exhibited Macedon-Mt.Macedon Town Structure Plan in the MSS places this land outside the Town boundary which is identified as the limit of future growth. The requested LDRZ would be subject to the requirements of Ministerial Direction No 6A. The brief submission does not provide address the requirements of the direction and does not provide sufficient information for detailed assessment of the proposal. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained

196

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 130 Submittor Name and Ms Lois Jean Gale, Address: RMB 1484 Lot 9 Harpers Road Woodend 3442

Location and Map General Reference No: Current Zone: N/A Exhibited Zone: N/A Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested • Requests maps to be amended to show roads that exist only and to Changes/Issues Raised: show creeks. • Requests minimum lot sizes remain in Woodend • Requests permits to be required for relocated dwellings • Other general statements re environment Council Comment: • Concerns of the submittor were noted by the Committee. • The issue of relocated houses was discussed. The Committee were advised that the building regulations have controls over the reinstatement of houses.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The Panel notes Council’s assessment but the recommendation does Recommendations: not make sense. Errors in Scheme maps are noted. The Panel supports the inclusion of streams on the plans and understands that together with road names these will be included, as information becomes available. It is an accepted planning principle that in most serviced urban areas, a variety of housing opportunities should be provided by way of lot size and dwelling type. The Panel does not agree that lot sizes in Woodend should be restricted to 785m2. Lot sizes in semi-rural and rural areas are controlled by zone, overlay and local policy provisions. The new Scheme does generally not create new opportunities for residential development in these areas because of a direct translation of existing provisions. The issue of land use and development in catchments is addressed in Section 1 of this Report. The absence of the WMO has been identified by the Panel as a major weakness in the Scheme and has directed Council to address this issue prior to adoption of the Scheme. A number of other issues have been raised some of which are not related to the planning scheme. Submission noted.

197

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 131

Submittor Name and Department of Treasury & Finance, Address: 10th Flood 1 Macarther Street Melbourne 3002

Location and Map CA 11 Parish of Woodend Reference No: Department of Treasury & Finance CA 11 Sec 19 Lyle/Robertson Street Gisborne CA11 Sec19 Township of Gisborne between Lyell and Robertson Street Gisborne Map 36 Current Zone: Residential

Exhibited Zone: RIZ

Requested Zone: PUZ4

Proposed Zone: RIZ

Submission: Requested • Requests rezoning from railway purposes to residential in view of Changes/Issues Raised: public sale

• The land is surplus to the Government requirements and they request it be rezoned residential from its current exhibited zoning of part Residential and Part Public Purposes Council Comment: • The Committee agreed to request details from Department of Treasury previous uses of the land. If there is any doubt as to the previous use Council can ask for a soil test/environmental audit before considering the matter further.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the request to the Department of Treasury be supported.. Panel Comment and The Panel agrees with Council’s assessment and recommendation. Recommendations: The Panel recommends that CA 11 Section 19 Township of Gisborne, between Lyell and Robertson Streets, Gisborne, be shown as R1Z in the adopted Scheme.

198

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 132

Submittor Name and A Milne, Address: 55 Egrement Place Brighton Sussex England

Location and Map Lot 151 Riddell Ranges Estate Riddells Creek Reference No: Prince of Wales Terrace Lot 151 LP1514 Map 39 Current Zone: Macedon Ranges Landscape Protection Zone

Exhibited Zone: Rural

Requested Zone: Res

Proposed Zone: Rural 1

Submission: Requested • Raises queries regarding the possibility of building on this land Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: • The Committee were advised on the long running history of the subdivision. it is an “old and inappropriate subdivision” consisting of approximately 160 lots. Houses have been prohibited on the land for many years. • The Committee agreed not to accept the submission.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning and Restructure Overlay remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and Restructure requirements were imposed 16 years ago due to Recommendations: landscape significance, erosion risk, and inability to absorb effluent. The Panel was advised that a recent report to Council recommended that a scheme be developed and implemented by Council whereby the lots were consolidated, re-subdivided and resold. Letters to owners outlining the scheme were to be posted shortly after the Panel hearing. The proceeds, less Council’s direct costs, would be distributed to the owners. It is recognised that the revenue raised may be less than owners expectations. The Panel believes that, given the nature of the old subdivision and the fragmentation of lot ownership, this is a positive response to resolve a long standing problem. The Panel endorses Council’s proposal to consolidate and re- subdivide Restructure Area 7

199

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 133

Submittor Name and B & MJ Nagl, Address: RSD 813 Sebastopol Road Kyneton 3444

Location and Map Lots 277 & 278 Lauriston Road Kyneton Reference No: Near Corner of Lauriston Road and Sebastopol Road Map 12 Current Zone: RWC – Rural Water Catchment Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Submission: Requested Requests whether there would be possibility to build on property. Changes/Issues Raised: Council Comment: • The Committee were advised that tenement controls were not included in the new Planning Scheme. • The Committee were advised that the submitter can potentially apply for permit once the new Planning Scheme is introduced. • Christine Pruneau raised the issue that the Committee should pursue these tenement controls further. It was agreed that issue of tenement controls will be dealt with on completion of review of the submissions. David Johnston will provide advise on this issue at that time. • The most appropriate interim measure would be to apply strict environmental management criteria which would have to be satisfied by an application. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that given Tenement Controls were not included as part of the new Scheme that Local Policies be used in assessment of any application. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The Panel agrees with Council’s assessment and notes that an Recommendations: application would be assessed on its merits. It was noted that tenement controls in the existing scheme do not apply in the exhibited scheme. The implications of this change should be addressed as part of the recommended review of rural living. The Panel recommends that the implications of removal of tenement controls and the construction of houses on existing rural lots be addressed as part of the rural living strategic review.

200

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 134 Submittor Name Friends of Bald Hill Reserve Location and Map Bald Hill Reserve (off Baynton Road, Mt St Mary’s Lane and Pipers Creek Reference No: road). Map 7 Submission: • Raises various environmental issues Council Comment: • Rob Bakes addressed the Committee in relation to the submission. • The Committee agreed that the land referred to in Edgecombe Road, Boundary Road, Fords Lane and Pipers Creek Road does have some environmental significance. The Committee agreed to place an ESO over this land and recommend to Council that it investigate the possibility having Environmental Rural zone over this area. • The Committee agreed to recommend to Council to place the Bald Hill Reserve (Council owned land) in a public purpose and recreation zone. • The Committee agreed that the issue of employing a Conservation Officer is a matter for Council. The Council are currently assessing the appropriateness of this. • The Committee agreed to place a vegetation protection overlay over all significant roadside vegetation as identified in the roadside management plans. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that a future amendment be prepared to Recommendation: provide the Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) and the Public Purpose zoning requested. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment This submission was presented to the Panel by Mr Rob Bakes on behalf of the and group. Recommendations: The submission seeking improvements to the environmental provisions of the scheme, which are in accord with the strategies in the MSS and the Panel endorses the following inclusions and improvements. Bald Hill Reserve The Panel recommends that Bald Hill Reserve be zoned PPRZ to recognise the continued use of the Gun Club. Environmental Rural Zone: Land enclosed by Edgecombe Road, Boundary Road, Fords Road and Pipers Creek Road has acknowledged environmental values and could possibly be justified as an ERZ. However given the lack of documentation and notification procedures the Panel considers a recommendation for rezoning or application of an ESO is inappropriate. The Panel recommends that the area bounded by Edgecombe Road, Boundary Road, Fords Lane and Pipers Creek Road be included in the Environmental Strategy to evaluate the basis for applying an ESO in a future amendment. Vegetation Protection Overlay: Information was provided of vegetation identified on previous roadside management plans which connects Bald Hill with other reserves. The Panel recommends that the Vegetation Protection Overlay be placed over those roads identified in the previous Shire of Kyneton Roadside Management Plan, and the environmental values of roads identified by the Friends of the Bald Hill Reserve leading to vegetation reserves in the Cobaws and Black Hill be evaluated as part of the Environmental Strategy.

201

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 135 Submittor Name and S. Custance & Associates, Address: 20 Collins Street Melbourne 3000 On behalf of Aquilina Location and Map Part CA 110A & CA 110L Ashbourne Road Woodend Reference No: Map 23 Current Zone: RU1 – Rural A Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: LDRZ Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested • Request land (13.93 ha) be rezoned from Rural to Low Density Changes/Issues Raised: Residential Council Comment: • The Committee were advised the land is currently zoned Rural A. • The Committee were advised that the proposed zone is a direct translation of the existing zone. The Committee agreed not to accept this submission. Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The subject site has an area of approximately 14 acres, is substantially Recommendations: cleared and is located approximately 1.5km west of Woodend town centre. A developed R1Z is located to the south east of the site, 4-5 acre lots adjoin to the west and to the north are 10 acre lots fronting Mahonys Rd. The adjoining property to the south is approximately 8 ha. Submission 39 seeks rezoning of the land to the north and east. Reticulated water is available to the site, as is power The whole of the land is covered by an LSIO and the RFO applies to a strip along the frontage. A VPO has been applied to the south east corner of the site. The submission indicated that the land will never be used for farming and asserted that the zoning of the land is an anomaly in the context of the surrounding landuse and zoning pattern. Development of the site The Panel agrees that this is an isolated pocket of rural land but suspects that this is a reflection of the flooding constraints reflected by the overlays applied. The submission suggested that the much of the land is relatively elevated and not located in the floodplain. Further the LSIO and RFO ensures that any development must take account of these issues. The submission did not substantiate the comments regarding flooding. A rezoning to LDRZ would be required to satisfy the requirements of Ministerial Direction No.6. The submission did not address the direction or provide agency comments required by the direction which limits the Panel’s ability to assess the proposal. However, it is noted that the direction indicates that “An amendment must only provide for rural residential use or development of land which:.. • Is not subject to flooding more frequently than once in 100 years.” This has not been demonstrated to the Panel. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

202

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 136

Submittor Name and VicRoads, Address: 57 Lansell Street Bendigo Location and Map Melbourne-Lancefield Road Clarkefield Reference No: Part CA 110A & CA 110L Ashbourne Road Woodend Land on Melbourne-Lancefield Road, South Konagaderra Road Map 40 Current Zone: N/a

Exhibited Zone: Rural

Requested Zone: PAO

Proposed Zone: N/a

Submission: Requested • Request notation be put on zoning map recognising an area Changes/Issues Raised: required for future roadworks.

Council Comment: • The Committee agreed not to accept this submission at this time but to seek clarification from Vic Roads in relation to the proposal in particular as to who owns the land.

• If VicRoads propose to acquire and have budgeted for this an acquisitions overlay is to be applied but this would require re- exhibition. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that no specific zoning be provided. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and This was a mapping error. Council’s ‘book of errors’ indicates that Recommendations: despite the PAO not being shown on the exhibited maps, all affected owners were notified in writing. The Panel was advised by Council that the Vicroads request would be complied with when the mapping error is rectified. Submission noted.

203

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 137 Submittor Name and Victorian National Parks Association Inc., Address: 10 Parliament Place East Melbourne 3002 Location and Map General Reference No: Submission: Requested • Raises issue regarding a range of environmental issues. Changes/Issues Raised: Council Comment: • The issues raised in this submission were noted. • The land forming issue in particular in the schedules to the zones requires further consideration of the Committee. Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that further consideration be undertaken on the issues raised through the work to be undertaken by the Environmental Planner. Refer to the Panel. Panel Comment and The Association has provided a detailed submission on a number of Recommendations: points aimed at improving the effectiveness of the municipalities environmental strategy and policies. MSS and Policies: The Panel supports the proposals to improve the MSS and Policies with specific reference to threats to native vegetation, species listed in the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act and lists or other indication of sites of significance including a map. The suggestions of the VNPA support proposals of the DNRE. The Panel does not support the inclusion of background material as incorporated documents. Environmental Rural Zone: The schedule to the ERZ is to be amended by Council to require a permit for all earthworks. The areas nominated in the schedule to the ERZ that have a minimum area of 4 ha are for restructuring of existing allotments rather than for the creation of new allotments. The Panel is satisfied that this does not prejudice the purpose of the ERZ. The Panel has recommended elsewhere that the ERZ be extended such as over the Cobaws. Council is currently preparing an Environment Strategy out of which should come recommendations for adjustments to the ERZ and related overlays. This strategy will not be completed prior to adoption of the Scheme and will therefore need to be taken account of either in a separate amendment or at the first review of the Scheme. The Manual for the VPP’s states that the ESO is intentionally broad- based and can be utilised in a variety of situations to achieve a desired planning outcome, such as a buffer ‘zone’ to certain land uses. Further discussion on the application of overlays in the Scheme is undertaken in Section 1 of this Report. Submission noted.

204

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 138

Submittor Name and P. Jewell & R. G. Harvey, Address: 422 Collins Street Melbourne 3000

Location and Map Range of Public Transport Corporation sites Reference No: Several Sites, Maps

Current Zone: N/a

Exhibited Zone: N/a

Requested Zone: N/a

Proposed Zone: N/a

Submission: Requested • Concerned re Salinity Management Overlay Changes/Issues Raised: • Wish to delete several overlays from Public Land • PUZ4 to include all rail land. Council Comment: • The Committee agreed that it was appropriate to have controls over public land where appropriate. • The Committee agreed not to accept this submission and that the Public Use Zoning and overlays should remain.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The PTC requests the removal of overlays from PTC land. The Panel Recommendations: does not support the removal of the overlays, the provisions of which require consideration in all cases except where the issue is the primary function of the authority. Railway land is not subject to restructuring and the Restructure Overlay should be reworded to remove the influence of the overlay on PTC lands. Public Use Zone The Panel recommends that existing land zoned Railway Reservation be PUZ4 in the new Scheme and the RO affecting Macedon township exempt railway land.

205

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 139 Submittor Name and Auric Properties P/L Address: 16 Molesworth Street Kew 3101 Location and Map Dons Road/Bolgers Lane Newham Reference No: Land near Yungaburra Map 17 Current Zone: Environment Protection / Rural B Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Removal SMO Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested • Requests Salinity Management Overlay be removed from Changes/Issues Raised: property. • Request ESO4 be removed as property not in catchment. • Requests amendment to Schedule to Rural Zone to allos house as of right on lots from 0.4ha. Council Comment: • The Salinity Management Overlay is to be rechecked for accuracy. • The Committee agreed not to change the table to the Rural Zone altering the requirements for a permit for a single house. • The Committee noted that it was agreed at the last meeting that the overlay control would be placed over the significant ridge on this property. • The Committee agreed to check the accuracy of the Heritage Overlay on the lot in particular in relation to an old dwelling on the site. The Overlay is to be checked to ensure that it has not been placed on the adjoining lot. The Committee also noted that Scott and Furphy report raised some issue of heritage apply to this land. Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zones and overlays remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The Panel accepts the Councils assessment and recommendation as the Recommendations: SMO in this case refers to a recharge area. The ESO4 only applies to a small portion of the subject land. The Panel does not agree with the submitter’s request to remove this overlay as the subject land is within a catchment. The Panel agrees that the development of houses on small lots in rural areas should be subject to a permit. Guidance regarding the way in which discretion will be exercised should be provided by policy. The Panel recommends that: • the circumstances of the inclusion of HO183 be investigated by Council for inclusion either prior to, or after adoption of the Scheme; • the exhibited zones and overlays applying to the subject land remain; and • Local Policies relating to the erection of dwellings in rural areas include guidelines for consideration of applications where scheduled lot sizes are not satisfied.

206

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 140

Submittor Name and RSL (Kyneton Sub-Branch) Address: 37-39 Mollison Street Kyneton 3444

Location and Map General Reference No:

Current Zone: N/A

Exhibited Zone: N/A

Requested Zone: N/A

Proposed Zone: N/A

Submission: Requested • Request that War Memorials have appropriate protection under Changes/Issues Raised: the Scheme.

Council Comment: • The Committee agreed to place Heritage Overlays over recognised War Memorials where they have been documented as being significant in a heritage study.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that if it citations exist Heritage Overlays be placed over the War Memorials Panel Comment and The Panel notes the Council commitment to provide Heritage Recommendations: Overlay Protection to memorials with citations. Submission noted.

207

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 141

Submittor Name and A T Cocks Consulting Address: 25 Flinders Lane Melbourne 3000

Location and Map Jennings St/Baynton Street Kyneton Reference No: Map 13

Current Zone: Commercial Zone (C)

Exhibited Zone: Business 1 Zone

Requested Zone: N/a

Proposed Zone: N/a

Submission: Requested • Support translation of commercial zone in the area Arthur Hayes Changes/Issues Raised: proposed to develop a supermarket.

Council Comment: • The Committee were advised that they had dealt with previously submissions from nearby residents in relation to the Hayes Supermarket site. (submissions 38 & 72) • That Council recommend to the Panel that in light of the review of the Kyneton Retail Strategy that the previously exhibited zoning remain.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that in light of the review of the Kyneton Retail Strategy that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Panel Comment and See submissions 38 and 72. Recommendations: The Panel was advised that the Kyneton Retail Strategy has now been reviewed and identifies the subject land as B1Z. The Panel was satisfied that the Strategy provides justification for Council’s recommendation. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning remain.

208

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 142 Submittor Name and Gisborne Rise Estate Residents Address: Location and Map Gisborne Rise Estate Gisborne Reference No: Map 36 Current Zone: Residential Exhibited Zone: RIZ Requested Zone: LDRZ / RLZ Proposed Zone: LDRZ Submission: Requested • Wish for subdivision at the Gisborne Rise Estate to be restricted Changes/Issues Raised: to 6000 square metres. Council Comment: Peter King and Darryl Brick addressed the Committee. • The Committee were advised of the content of the Corporate Plan and the Planning permit history relating to Gisborne Rise Estate. The Committee were advised that the residents sought to have minimum lot size restricted to 6000 square metres. Mr. King and Brick suggested to the Committee that they introduce a Design and Development Overlay plan restricting lot sizes to 6000 square metres. • The Committee agreed to placing the land in a Low Density Residential zone (that is removing it from a Residential zone), placing a Design and Development Overlay over the land restricting lot sizes to 6000 square metres and the Committee also agreed to transfer the precinct controls in the current planning scheme into the Gisborne Township Plan to give effect to the strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Gisborne. • It is consider that this major change would need to be subject to further re-exhibition. • LDRZ would enable application for additional house if sewer made available or effluent disposal possible. The DPO could not restrict this permissible Section 2 use occurring. I think the submission is seeking a restriction for additional housing in this area. This approach by Council will not achieve this and previous assessment by former Water Authority also indicated that the area would need sewering given that land to the south would be developed for higher density residential development. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that a future amendment be considered after the undertaking of the Residential Review proposed for all towns within the Shire during the forthcoming. Refer to Panel.

209

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Panel Comment and Mr Peter King presented this submission at the Panel hearing on Recommendations: behalf of the residents of Gisborne Rise. A large number of these residents were present in the gallery for the presentation. The crux of this submission is that the residents of this estate wish to prevent the re-subdivision of lots within the estate. The estate was proposed to be zoned R1Z in the new Scheme which would allow subdivision to a much higher density. The Council Committee considering submissions on the Scheme have recommended that the LDRZ be applied to the land (minimum subdivision size of 4,000m2 ) with the additional control of a DPO raising the minimum subdivision size to the 6,000m2 requested by residents. The estate is essentially fully developed and has no reticulated sewer although it is inevitable that it will be provided at some time in the future. The estate is within the township boundary indicated on the Gisborne Structure Plan in the revised MSS. Because the estate is almost completely developed, the Panel believes a DPO is not justified. However, the Panel expresses support for the retention at this stage for the lot sizes commensurate with the LDRZ (ie. 4,000m2 minimum). This position is appropriate for the moment but residents should be aware that the area will most likely be suitable for urban development once the appropriate infrastructure becomes available. It is likely that in future reviews of the Scheme, this land will again come under pressure for rezoning to allow development at an urban density. This situation highlights the problems caused by low density residential land being placed in the path of future urban development. The application of the LDRZ needs to be carefully considered in the future planning of townships to ensure that development at this scale does not prejudice urban growth or lead to inefficient use of infrastructure. Much of the catalyst for the submission stems from an application by the owner of a lot in the estate to subdivide. The permit was the subject of an appeal by the applicant at VCAT against Council’s refusal to grant a permit, the outcome of which was handed down just prior to the Panel hearing. The appeal was dismissed and the grounds given support the position adopted by the Panel. The Panel recommends that the residential estate known as Gisborne Rise be amended to LDRZ prior to adoption of the Scheme and without notification.

210

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 143

Submittor Name and Beverage Williams (Powercor Australia Ltd). Address: 107 High Street Armadale 3143

Location and Map General Reference No: Map 24 / 13 1. Kyneton Depot located corner of Redesdale Road and Knight Court in Kyneton. 2. Woodend Zone Substation corner Montgomery’s Lane and Parker Street in Woodend. Current Zone: 1. Offensive Industrial 2. PP4 – State Electricity Commission

Exhibited Zone: 1.INZ2 2.Rural Requested Zone: Special Use

Proposed Zone: Rural

Submission: Requested • Submission related to Powercor assets zoning. Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: • The Committee agreed to leave the land in Montgomery Lane Woodend as Rural as this would continue to allow the land to be used as a sub-station. • The Committee acknowledged the comments in relation to the land in Kyneton however no change was requested by the submittor, therefore no decision was made by the Committee.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and Kyneton Depot-corner Redesdale Road and Knight Court. The depot Recommendations: has been zoned IN2Z and Powercor have recommended SUZ or IN1Z. The Panel recommends that the Powercor Kyneton Depot at the corner of Redesdale Road and Knight Court be zoned IN1Z. Woodend substation-This substation is situated in the Rural Zone and Powercor have recommended SUZ. The Panel recommend that the Wooden substation at the corner of Montgomerys Lane and Parkers Street be zoned RUZ.

211

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 144 Submittor Name and Robert Van Loon Address: 17 Gap Road Riddells Creek Location and Map Riddells Creek Township Reference No: Map 39 – 38 Submission: • Request minimum density in R1 zone be 1000 square metres per lot, with Requested only exception being close to town centre. Changes/Issues • Requests extension of ODP Raised: Council Comment: • Robert Van Loon provided the Committee with a brief overview of the submission and the intent behind it. • The Committee agreed to place a Design and Development Overlay over the former duck farm in the Main Street of Riddells Creek (former Pullella Duck Farm). • The Committee agreed to have an appropriate schedule which is to spell out particular matters to be considered which would need to include the issues of drainage, design, relationship to the Riddells Creek Recreation Reserve etc. • The Committee agreed to include in the township policy section a statement to the effect that there is a need for well designed subdivision within the township and that there is generally a need for larger than usual fully serviced lots. • In relation to all land zoned Residential A within the township it was agreed to leave the minimum preferred lot size at 785 square metres but in the Township Policy that reference be made to a preference for larger lots of the periphery of the 785 square metre area and encouragement of a range of lot sizes. This reference is to provide some detail as to the values that will guide Council decision’s on subdivision applications. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zonings Recommendation: remain and that as part of the Residential Review Design and Development Overlay be considered for the land in Main Road Riddells Creek.

212

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Panel Comment and See also submissions 145 to 186. Recommendations: This submission was presented to the Panel by Mr Robert Van Loon on behalf of the Riddells Creek Residents Association. The state policy for housing (clause 16) has amongst its objectives that “subdivisions [should be] in locations with access to physical and community infrastructure and providing a range of lot sizes…” The policy also recommends that “maximum use should be made of the Victorian Code for Residential Development…to plan subdivisions for development of single houses on lots of between 300m2 and 4,000m2.” In short, urban areas should provide a variety of lot sizes and dwelling types commensurate with the types of services available. It is poor planning to impose a regime of low residential density in areas that can sustain much greater densities. Riddells Creek does offer a variety of lot sizes but is dysfunctional due the ad hoc nature of subdivision in the past. The land use controls imposed on Riddells Creek in the new Scheme stem largely from the translation of existing controls. It is the Panel’s view that there is much remedial work to be done on planning in Riddells Creek. Council has indicated it intends conducting a review of residential land in the Shire during 1999 and the Panel is hopeful that as a result of this process, a more performance based planning framework which is capable of responding to consumer needs will emerge for the town and surrounds. The Panel supports the use of DPO’s as a mechanism to achieve strategic objectives and to provide a development framework where planning considerations extend beyond individual land holdings although this should occur on a broader scale than a myriad of DPO’s that bear no relationship to each other. Where single land holdings are involved, most planning matters can be addressed through the subdivision approval process. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zones and overlays remain, together with the revised MSS until such time as the review of residential land is completed at which time the application of these tools should be reviewed.

213

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 145 - 186 Submittor Name and 145. W. & L. Beale, Address: 3 Bolithos Road Riddells Creek 146. C Maher, 44 Somerville Lane, Riddells Creek 147. T & S Zavattiero, 124 Main Road, Riddells Creek 148. Mr K Maher, 44 Somerville Lane, Riddells Creek 149. M Hannaford, Gibson Court, Riddells Creek 150. W & L Anderson, 58 Somerville Lane, Riddells Creek 151. CD & HM Simmonds, Riddells Creek 152. M Thom, 20 Gap Road, Riddells Creek 153. H Thom, 20 Gap Road, Riddells Creek 154. A Fraser, 54 Somerville Lane, Riddells Creek 155. Y Thomson, Riddells Creek 156. Unknown 157. Unknown 158. G & J Pettit, Lot 3, Boggy Gate Road, Clarkefield 159. G Haley, Mahoneys Road, Riddells Creek 160. T & D Lamplugh, 128 Main Road, Riddells Creek 161. M & M Pettit, 73 Mahoneys Road, Riddells Creek 162. C Campbell, 30A Station Street, Riddells Creek 163. D Davis, 63 Mahoneys Road, Riddells Creek 164. L Read, 46 Mahoneys Road, Riddells Creek 165. W & S Moore, Mahoneys Road, Riddells Creek 166. H Frith, 93 Somerville Lane, Riddells Creek 167. F & J Coleman, 130 Main Road, Riddells Creek 168. J Saunders, 48 Somerville Lane, Riddells Creek 169. G Hogg, Lot 73, Sandy Creek Road, Riddells Creek 170. M Poulton,

214

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

30 Gap Road, Riddells Creek 171. C Clark, 11 Gap Road, Riddells Creek 172. J Howard, 3 Ranoch Court, Riddells Creek 173. A Jeffs, 94 Main Road, Riddells Creek 174. P Simpson, 9 Gap Road, Riddells Creek 175. L Strehling, 56 Somerville Lane, Riddells Creek 176. D Hull & S Hanlon, 60 Somerville Lane, Riddells Creek 177. K Rolfe, 3 Cutevan Crescent, Riddells Creek 178. D & H Simmonds, Riddells Creek 179. Mr & Mrs G Cordell, 8 Ranoch Court, Riddells Creek 180. G & J Ford, 112 Main Road, Riddells Creek 181. P Barras, 3 Gap Road, Riddells Creek 182. M & B Cahill, Riddells Creek 183. R & I Bishop, 41 Somerville Lane, Riddells Creek 184. J E Gordon, 73 Somerville Lane, Riddells Creek 185. N & J Strawbridge, 8 Gap Road, Riddells Creek 186. J & M Saunders, 55 Mahoneys Road, Riddells Creek Location and Map Petition Reference No: Riddells Creek Townships and Duck Farm Main Road Riddells Creek Map 38 and 39 Submission: • Requests Council develop Outline Development Plans (ODP’s) for all Requested vacant land, particularly the former Duck farm site (Main Road, Riddells Changes/Issues Creek). Raised: • Requests minimum lot size of 1000m2 in Riddells Creek. Council Comment: • That Council recommend to the Panel that the review of residential land to be undertaken during the forthcoming year will resolve some of these issues, but in principle Outline Development Plans should be prepared for vacant land. • Agree that ODP’s should be prepared for vacant land. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the review of residential land to be Recommendation: undertaken during the forthcoming year will resolve some of these issues, but in principle Outline Development Plans should be prepared for vacant land. Panel Comment and See response to submission 144. Recommendations:

215

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 187 Submittor Name and Frank Caserta Address: Kurmara 624 Calder Highway Macedon Locaton and Map Reference 624 Calder Highway Macedon No: CA 5 Sec D Map 25 Current Zone: Rural Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Rural Living Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested • Wishes to have opportunity to subdivide into 2 lots Changes/Issues Raised: • Suggests possible change to Planning Scheme to allow for 2 lot subdivision Council Comment: • The Committee were advised of the strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Gisborne which resulted in the land being zoned Rural. • Christine Pruneau advised that the land should have an Environmental Significance Overlay as it is located within the water catchment. • The Committee were advised that the owner could apply to exercise a house in the Rural zone under the current provisions of the VPP’s. • In light of the above the Committee agreed not to accept the submission. Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The submittors are seeking the option to create an additional lot. Recommendations: Although the submission recognised that the zone allows application for excision of an existing house, the certainty provided by inclusion in the table to 22.14-1 was sought. The submission noted that the 7.2 ha site is bounded by three roads and access to the new house would be from Chritie Road. It would accommodate a house site which would not require vegetation removal. The Panel has commented that the interpretation of the exhibited table referred to is unintelligible and should be redrafted. However, it appears to be directed at providing for subdivision which maintains average lot yields while clustering secondary lots to achieve a larger, more productive secondary lot. The Panel does not support inclusion of the site in the table which would amount to a mechanism for ad hoc subdivision without achieving the apparent objectives of the mechanism. The merits of the proposal could be assessed as part of an application under 35.01-4. The Panel recommends that the exhibited scheme provisions be maintained.

216

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 188 Submittor Name and Banon Consulting Address: (for Geoff Keogh) 620 Calder Highway Macedon Location and Map CA 3, Section D, Parish of Macedon Reference No: Map 25 Current Zone: Rural Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Rural Living Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested • Wishes to have opportunity to subdivide into 2 lots and suggest Changes/Issues Raised: possible changes to planning scheme to allow for this. Council Comment: • The Committee were advised of the strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Gisborne which resulted in the land being zoned Rural. • Christine Pruneau advised that the land should have an Environmental Significance Overlay as it is located within the water catchment. • The Committee were advised that the owner could apply to exercise a house in the Rural zone under the current provisions of the VPP’s. • In light of the above the Committee agreed not to accept the submission.

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The submittors are seeking the option to create an additional lot. Recommendations: Although the submission recognised that the zone allows application for excision of an existing house, the certainty provided by inclusion in the table to 22.14-1 was sought. The submission noted that there is an existing cleared house site (burnt down on ash Wednesday) near the Calder Highway which would not require vegetation removal. The Panel has commented that the interpretation of the exhibited table referred to is unintelligible and should be redrafted. However, it appears to be directed at providing for subdivision which maintains average lot yields while clustering secondary lots to achieve a larger, more productive secondary lot. The Panel does not support inclusion of the site in the table which would amount to a mechanism for ad hoc subdivision without achieving the apparent objectives of the mechanism. The merits of the proposal could be assessed as part of an application under 35.01-4. The Panel recommends that the exhibited scheme provisions be maintained.

217

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 189 Submittor Name and Kearney & Tyrell (Regan) Address: Location and Map Crown Allotment 30 Greens Lane Romsey Reference No: Map 30 Current Zone: General Farming Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Subdivision Opportunity Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Wants opportunity to further subdivide Changes/Issues Raised: Council Comment: • The Committee were advised of the strategic work undertaken by the Shire of Romsey which resulted in the land being zoned General Farming. • The Committee were advised that the sewerage farm is located in close proximity to the land and it was agreed that there was insufficient separation between the sewerage farm and the subject land. • The Committee were advised that the land abuts a dirt road. • The Committee agreed that the development would constitute ribbon development and in light of the above facts it would be inappropriate. • The Committee agreed not to accept the submission. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The subject land consists of 65 ha located south west of the town of Recommendations: Romsey and is served by unsealed roads. The sewerage farm is approximately 400m from the property boundary but is not shown on the planning scheme maps and an ESO has not been applied to highlight buffer objectives. The submission provided limited information and did not address requirements of Ministerial Direction 6A. It is noted that indicative estimates of demand/supply for rural living suggest that there is a 30 year supply of zoned land in the Romsey locality. The Panel has commented that decisions regarding additional opportunities for rural living should be made in the context of the recommended strategic review. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

218

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 190

Submittor Name and St. Ambrose Parish School Woodend Address: St. Ambrose Primary School Woodend

Location and Map 14-17 Templeton Street Woodend Reference No: Map 24

Current Zone: Residential

Exhibited Zone: RIZ

Requested Zone: PU26 – Education

Proposed Zone: Residential

Submission: Requested • Requests that the School be rezoned to reflect its current use. Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: • The Committee were advised that the school had a permit to establish a school on the site and of the substantial history that was involved in achieving the permit. • The Committee were advised that the land is zoned Residential. • The Committee agreed that the land should be retained as Residential and the Committee also acknowledged that the school would have the right to continue to operate under the current permit. • This would be the underlying zone.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and Unless there are exceptional circumstances, schools should reflect the Recommendations: underlying zone in the Scheme. The area surrounding this site is residential in character. The Panel does not see any justification for zoning the school into a Public Use zone. The Panel recommends the exhibited zone remain.

219

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 191 Submittor Name and Phillip Hemphill and Merlyn Coulson Address: PO Box 41 Lancefield Location and Map Reference Land between Maloney’s Road and Woodend Lancefield Road No: Map 18 Current Zone: General Farming Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: LDRZ Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested • Requests that land be rezoned to provide for subdivision in to Changes/Issues Raised: 7ha lots

Council Comment: • The land is located outside the urban boundary. There is no strategic basis to allow for further subdivision of this land at this time. • Do not accept submission Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The subject site is located South west of Lancefield town on the Recommendations: south west corner of Maloney’s and Woodend – Lancefield Roads. It has an area of approximately 63ha. The submission suggested that both the Shire of Romsey Strategy Plan 1992 and the exhibited MSS Lancefield Town Structure Plan identified the property for long term residential development. The Panel’s review of both documents does not support the assertion as in both instances that growth is identified for land east of Park’s Lane. The agricultural mapping indicates that the land is in the highest classification and there is evidence of intensive agriculture eg vineyards, potato growing in the locality. Protection of high quality agricultural land is an important strategic objective. It is noted that ESO3 has not been applied to this land which should be reviewed. The submission argued that the land meets the MSS criteria of being on the fringe of the urban centre which is accepted by the Panel. However, other submissions seeking rezoning for rural living also meet the criteria and the evaluation of the relative merits should occur as part of a strategic review of the area and the Shire generally. The Panel has commented that decisions regarding additional opportunities for rural living should be made in the context of the recommended strategic review. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained

220

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 192

Submitter Name and HEP Steel for PM Steel Address: Ladye Place, Mount Macedon Road Woodend

Location and Map Reference No:

Current Zone:

Exhibited Zone:

Requested Zone:

Proposed Zone:

Submission: Requested • Requests that flood controls on the land be reviewed and that the Changes/Issues Raised: land be zoned residential

Council Comment: There is no strategic basis for a residential zoning on this land at this time. The flooding overlays are based on the flooding information prepared for the area.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain and that following detailed information from the Department of Natural Resources & Environment in relation to flooding that all mapping of flood areas be rechecked Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The Panel supports the Council position. The issue of flood Recommendations: zoning/overlay will be checked by the CMA in the future and the strategy does not propose residential zoning at this time. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

221

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 193

Submittor Name and Hansen Partnership for Rowant Gardens Pty Ltd Address:

Location and Map North west corner of Robertson Street and Aitken Road, Gisborne Reference No: Map 36

Current Zone: Industrial

Exhibited Zone: Business 1

Requested Zone: Business 2

Proposed Zone: Business 1

Submission: Requested • Requests that the land be zoned Business 2 Zone to provide for Changes/Issues Raised: use of the land for a supermarket.

Council Comment: • The request to include the land in the Business 2 zone is believed to be a typographical error. The submission appears to intend to request that the land remain in the Business 1 zone as exhibited. This is inferred by the reference in the submission to the “wish to protect this aspect of the planning scheme” and the reference in the submission to the appropriateness of the schedule to the Business 1 zone as exhibited. • The Business 1 zone is an appropriate zone for this land and will provide for its use for a supermarket. The surrounding land is zoned Business 1. • There is no change required as the exhibited scheme has zoned the land Business 1.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the land be zoned Business 1 zone. Panel Comment and The subject land is identified in the Central Business District Recommendations: Planning Strategy (1988) for Gisborne as “the centre of the retail area”. It is the Panel’s opinion that the proposed B1Z is appropriate for this land. Council advised the Panel that the request of the submitter would appear to be for the B1Z and not the B2Z. The Panel notes that Council is not proposing to use the B2Z in the Scheme. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained

222

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 194 Submittor Name and Robin Viney for Maxine Yates Address: 380 Bacchus Marsh Road, Bullengarook Location and Map CA 20 Parish of Bullengarook Reference No: Map 42 Current Zone: Rural Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: - Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested • Requests that the current subdivisional rights applicable to the Changes/Issues Raised: tenement comprised of CA 20 and 20A be transferred to CA 20.

Council Comment: • Clause 22.14-1 of the new Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme provides for subdivisions of tenements of lots into primary and secondary lots of less than 40ha under certain conditions. This is a transfer of existing development rights from the existing scheme. • The submitter has purchased one of the two lots that comprise a tenement listed in the table to clause 22.14-1 and requests that the development rights that applicable to the tenement be transferred to this one lot. This lot has a total area of 51ha. • The second lot of the tenement is 0.4ha and has a dwelling constructed on it. • The new scheme provides for this tenement to be subdivided into 1 primary and 2 secondary lots. • As this tenement of lots no longer exists it is considered appropriate that it be removed from the table to clause 22.14-1. • The larger lot (owned by the submitter) retains the right under the Rural zone to excise a lot for an existing dwelling subject to meeting certain criteria. • Do not accept submission. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The drafting deficiencies of the exhibited Scheme make any Recommendations: assessment problematic. The table in the exhibited policy (Clause 21.14 makes no reference to tenements). The Council has taken a strict view that the land described in the table to Clause 22.112-1 – Area ‘A’ must remain as a tenement prior to creation of the maximum number of potential lots specified in the table and as this has not occurred the subdivision opportunity no longer applies. The Panel has recommended that these site specific provisions should be converted to permits. Information provided to the Panel indicated that Clause 4 in the existing scheme together with Incorporated Document No.8 which set out the provisions intended to be preserved in the new Scheme, do not make any reference to a tenement. There is a strong argument that a direct translation of the rights under the existing Scheme in this instance provides for 3 lots (1 primary plus

223

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

two secondary) applicable to the whole of land described (CA 20 and CA20A) irrespective of whether the land is in a single tenement or not. A pedantic approach could require a permit to apply to the whole of the land described (now owned by two separate parties) but little practical purpose would be served. The Panel recommends that a permit be granted for the creation of two lots, consisting of a primary lot and a secondary lot, at 380 Gisborne-Bacchus Marsh Road, Bullengarook, Crown allotment 20.

224

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 195

Submitter Name and State Emergency Service Address: Lot 26 Urquhart Street, Woodend

Location and Map Map 24 Lot 26 Urquhart Street, Woodend Reference No:

Current Zone: N/a

Exhibited Zone: PUZ4

Requested Zone: Special Use - SES

Proposed Zone: PUZ7

Submission: Requested • Requests that the land by zoned for State Emergency Service Changes/Issues Raised: purposes.

Council Comment: • The land and surrounding land is currently zoned Public Use 4 (Transport). The land opposite is zoned Residential and Business 1. • As there is no obvious underlying zoning, the most appropriate zone for this land would be Public Use 7 (Other). The PUZ 7 should also include the adjoining CFA property.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Public Use zone is considered suitable. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and The SES is regarded as a public body and therefore warrants similar Recommendations: zoning considerations as the CFA for example. The Manual for the VPP’s states that the PUZ “is the main zone for public land used for utility or community service provision.”. The Panel believes a PUZ is appropriate for the SES on this occasion. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

225

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 196

Submittor Name and Macedon Ranges Shire Council Address: Fraser Bell Coordinator Tourism Development

Location and Map 59A High Street, Woodend (insectarium) Reference No:

Current Zone: Railway

Exhibited Zone: Public Use 4 - Transport

Requested Zone: Business 1

Proposed Zone: Business 1

Submission: Requested • Requests that the property be zoned Business 1. Changes/Issues Raised:

Council Comment: • Business 1 zone is an appropriate zoning for this property, to provide for its current and future use. The purpose of the Business 1 zone is to encourage the intensive development of business centres for retailing and other complimentary commercial, entertainment and community uses. The adjoining commercial area is zoned Business 1 zone. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that given the history of the site that a Business 1 zone be adopted.

Panel Comment and The PUZ is clearly inappropriate for this land given its use for Recommendations: commercial purposes. The land is still in public ownership but negotiations are currently underway for its sale. The land is shown in the Woodend Structure Plan as being part of the town centre. The Woodend Urban Design Framework (1998) shows the land on the periphery of the “commercial precinct” although the Land Use Plan in the same document does not have it identified as “business/commercial”. The Panel is satisfied that the B1Z is the appropriate zone. The Panel recommends that 59A High Street, Woodend (Insectarium) be rezoned B1Z.

226

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 197 Submitter Name and M and B Haverfield Address: Location and Map Calder Highway, Woodend North Reference No: Map 15 Current Zone: Environmental Protection Exhibited Zone: Rural Requested Zone: Removal of Overlays Proposed Zone: Rural Submission: Requested Requests that the; Changes/Issues Raised: • Land Subject to Inundation Overlay; • Rural Floodway Overlay; • Environmental Significance Overlay; • Significant Landscape Overlay; • Heritage Overlay; not be applied to the property.

Council Comment: • These overlays have been applied to recognise significant feature or issues on the land. They have been based on existing zoning and/or other information to justify these overlays.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Overlays be retained. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and This submission was presented verbally to the Panel by Max and Recommendations: Barbara Haverfield. See also submissions 90 and 128. LSIO & RFO – The Panel is in some doubt as to whether the LSIO and RFO are applicable to the subject land. As indicated elsewhere, the accuracy of the flooding overlays in the exhibited Scheme leaves a lot to be desired. Council needs to check its sources for the overlay and if not satisfied as to the authenticity, remove the overlay until detailed flooding analysis has been undertaken by the CMA. ESO & SLO – The Panel is satisfied that the basis for applying these overlays has been established. HO – The Panel has already made comment on the inadequacies of the HO in Section 1 of this Report. The Panel recommends that: the flooding overlays be checked for accuracy and adjusted if necessary; and the exhibited ESO and SLO remain.

227

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 198

Submittor Name and Collie Planning for Colanz Pty Ltd Address:

Location and Map Ferrier Road, New Gisborne Reference No: Map 34

Current Zone: Rural

Exhibited Zone: Rural

Requested Zone: Residential / Development Plan Overlay

Proposed Zone: N/a

Submission: Requested • Requests that the property be zoned Residential with a Changes/Issues Raised: Development Plan Overlay

Council Comment: • This land is located outside the urban boundary. There is no strategic basis to allow for further subdivision of this land at this time. There is sufficient land zoned for residential purposes at Gisborne. • The merits of such a proposal as submitted should be assessed as a separate planning scheme amendment.

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the existing zoning remain given the imminence of the Residential Review to be undertaken over the forthcoming year.

Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and Agree with Council’s assessment. The Panel notes that the subject Recommendations: land is outside of the Gisborne town boundary as shown on the structure plan. Council’s assessment of land supply indicates there is currently approximately 137 years supply of residential land in Gisborne. The Panel believes there is no strategic justification to support the submitters request. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

228

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 199 Submitter: Robin Viney for Mr and Mrs Faulkner of Braemar Park, Woodend Location and Map Braemar Park, Woodend Reference No: Map 24 Requested Zone: RO Submission: Requests that the restructure overlay that is applicable to the property be reviewed. Council Comment: • The restructure overlay is used to identify old and inappropriate subdivisions which are to be restructured. • The subject property consists of many small lots from an inappropriate subdivision which should be restructured to create larger lots which are more suitable and consistent with the purpose of the zone. Council That Council recommend to the Panel that the exhibited Restructure Overlay Recommendation: remain. Panel Comment The Panel was advised that three owners are affected by the old and inappropriate and subdivision of more than 300 lots. The lots shown as 1(3.2ha) and 3 (2ha) on the Recommendations: exhibited plan are owned by others with the balance of the restructure area owned by the submitters. The submitters do not object to the application of the overlay or the requirement to restructure the subdivision but seek modifications to the plan which was prepared by Council without their input. The rationale for the hand drawn exhibited plan, including lot yields and locations remained unclear after questions to Council at the hearing. However, the exhibited plan appears to have been developed based on: • ownership patterns; • objectives to avoid linear development along Woodend – Wallan Road while also limiting access required on unsealed Roads; and • an intention to retain a large balance lot consistent with Council policies. The submitter seeks three additional lots resulting in a total of 9 lots with some adjustment to lot boundaries with: • an additional lot to recognise an existing house; and • two further small lots (one fronting Waterworks Road and one fronting Lavender Farm Road). Given the statutory status of restructure plans, the Panel believes that the approach to the issue has been less than satisfactory. The Panel is concerned that the inclusion of the restructure plan amounts to approval of a subdivision plan with amendment of the scheme required to vary it, but the plan has been presented without the normal documentation expected and has therefore been subject to limited scrutiny. The Panel is not in a position to design the restructure plan but makes the following comments as the basis for further review of the plan prior to adoption of the scheme: • The size of the balance lot should be maximised. • It is reasonable to provide separate lots for the existing houses. • It may be possible to include an existing house in lot seven proposed in Mr. Viny’s submission to the Panel hearing. This would result in a total of 8 lots in the restructure area. If the matter cannot be resolved prior to adoption, it should be included in the first amendment to allow independent review based on adequate information. The Panel recommends that the Braemar Park Restructure Plan be reviewed prior to adoption of the Scheme.

229

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 200 Submitter Name and Anne McLennan, Coordinator Community Services, Address: Macedon Ranges Shire Council. Location and Map Reference Corner of Mollison and Hutton Street Kyneton No: Map 13 Current Zone: Civic Centre Exhibited Zone: Residential Requested Zone: N/a Proposed Zone: N/a Submission: Requested • Provides advice about the Macedon Ranges Housing Strategy Changes/Issues Raised: and how it relates to the Planning Scheme.

Council Comment: • The new planning scheme should address a number of the issues raised in the housing strategy. • The Macedon Ranges Housing Strategy should be included in the Planning Scheme as a reference document.

Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the Housing Strategy be included as a reference document to the new scheme. Refer to Panel. Panel Comment and This submission makes a number of comments on the exhibited Recommendations: Scheme. The Panel has not sighted the Macedon Ranges Housing Strategy and therefore is unable to comment on its contents. The issues raised in the submission are addressed as follows. Rental accommodation – It is included in the SPPF that Schemes should provide for a variety of residential types and this would included owner occupied and rental properties. Reticulated services – It is policy that intensification of residential land use in urban areas is not supported. Central areas – It is policy to encourage higher density housing close to services. Subdivision provisions – The Panel agrees the exhibited provisions are confusing and has recommended they be re-written. Developer Contributions Plan – Council has not proposed a Developer Contributions Plan in the Scheme. It is noted that these plans remain contentious and a substantial amount of work would be necessary to develop one. The allocation of resources for this purpose is a matter for Council. ILAP – The Panel supports a coordinated approach to planning involving all groups with a stake in the process. Submission noted.

230

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 201

Submitter Name and W & M E Carter, “Blue Range” Address: 25 Mount Macedon Road, Macedon.

Location and Map 25 Mount Macedon Road Macedon Reference No:

Current Zone:

Exhibited Zone:

Requested Zone:

Proposed Zone:

Submission: Requested Request that they be able to subdivide their land into 2 lots. Changes/Issues Raised:

TBA Planners Assessment: Based on previous strategic work by the Shire of Gisborne the exhibited zoning is appropriate. Council Comment:

Strategic Considerations and Implications:

Council Recommendation: That Council recommend to the Panel that the previously exhibited zoning remain. Panel Comment and This land is 5 ha in area and zoned RLZ with the SMO. The Recommendations: schedule to the RLZ places the land in area ‘B’ which has a minimum lot size for subdivision of 100 ha. There is no strategic support for the submitter’s request in the draft Scheme. The submitter’s request appears to be based on personal circumstances rather than offering any strategic planning justification for the subdivision. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning be maintained.

231

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 202

Submitter Name and Address: Robin Viney for Robert Talbot Location and Map Reference No: CA 111W2 & 111W3 Daniels Road, Woodend Current Zone: N/a Exhibited Zone: N/a Requested Zone: N/a Proposed Zone: N/a Submission: Requested Requests further information on the new planning Changes/Issues Raised: scheme Does not request any specific changes but expresses concern at the perceived additional restrictions to be imposed on the property. Comments made relate to Rural Water Catchment Zone and loss of cluster subdivision rights Council Comment: No assessment required as no changes have been requested. Zones and overlays imposed are based on existing zones or other supporting information to justify their selection. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: No amendment required. Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The subject land has an area of 75ha and is used for Recommendations: grazing but the submission indicates that it is not viable as a farm and off farm income is necessary. The 40 ha minimum lot size is questioned as subdivision is inevitable. With regard to construction of houses on lots smaller than 40 ha the submittor is concerned that the conditions will not be able to be met. It is suggested that the primary secondary lot provisions may be the most appropriate option. The submission also expresses concern that the planning scheme does specifically recognise existing crown allotments. The Panel is not in a position to vary the VPP definition of lot which focuses on the ability to dispose of a parcel of land separately. The Planning scheme provides the options of applying for a permit for a house on existing lots or resubdivision of existing lots which would be assessed on their merits in terms of zone provisions and local policy. The Panel recommends that the exhibited planning provisions be maintained.

232

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 203

Submitter Name and Address: Kevin Davis of Keatings Real Estate For T. McArdle Location and Map Reference No: 1 Corinella Road, Woodend Map 24 Current Zone: Railway Exhibited Zone: Public Use (Public Transport) Requested Zone: Residential 1 Proposed Zone: Residential 1 Submission: Requested Requests that the subject property be zoned Residential Changes/Issues Raised: as the land is now in private ownership and supports s dwelling which is used for residential purposes. Council Comment: As the property is no longer in Government ownership a public use zone is not appropriate. Residential 1 zone would appear to be the underlying zone and as the property is used for residential purposes this would be the most appropriate zone. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: 1 Corinella Rd, Woodend should be zoned Residential 1. Panel Comment and The underlying zone is R1Z. The Panel agrees with Recommendations: Council’s assessment and recommendation. The Panel recommends that Lot 13 Section 42, Township of Woodend be zoned R1Z prior to adoption of the Scheme.

233

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 204

Submitter Name and Address: Evadne Roberts for DNRE Location and Map Reference No: CA 2, Section 37, Township of Macedon Margaret St Macedon Map 27 Current Zone: PP6 (Crown Land) Exhibited Zone: Low Density Residential Zone Requested Zone: Village Conservation Proposed Zone: Low density Residential Submission: Requested Requests that as the property has been deemed surplus, Changes/Issues Raised: it be rezoned from a public land zone. Council Comment: The zone requested is not from the suite of zones in the VPPS. If the land is to be sold by the Crown it is appropriate that it be rezoned. The underlying zone in the exhibited scheme would appear to be Low Density Residential Zone with a Restructure Overlay. To rezone the property for residential purposes in this area would require careful assessment to determine whether it was suitable for development. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The Panel was advised that this submission has been Recommendations: withdrawn. Refer to other submissions from DNRE (nos.111 & 204). Submission noted.

234

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 205

Submitter Name and Address: Neil Manning 111W Ashbourne Road, Woodend Location and Map Reference No: General Current Zone: N/a Exhibited Zone: N/a Requested Zone: N/a Proposed Zone: N/a Submission: Requested Expresses concerns relating to the preparation of the Changes/Issues Raised: planning scheme and the subsequent exhibited planning scheme. Scheme is based on inadequate strategic work. Submits that scheme contains mistakes, there are inconsistencies between the MSS, policies and zone provisions, environmentally sensitive areas have not been appropriately translated to afford them adequate protection and water catchments require protection. Council Comment: The scheme was prepared based on a translation of existing zones and existing strategic documentation. Where advice of errors has been received these will be corrected as appropriate prior to adoption and approval of the scheme. Water catchments have been identified using the Environmental Significance Overlay. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: Refer to Panel Panel Comment and Mr Manning presented this submission to the Panel. Recommendations: The Panel notes the submitter’s concerns as to the process involved in the preparation of the Scheme. The problems with the process is reflected in the poor standard of the exhibited Scheme. The Panel’s assessment of the Scheme is undertaken in Sections 1 and 2 of this Report. The Panel agrees that the revised MSS is a much improved document over that which was exhibited. The translation of existing provisions has caused problems in the new Scheme and some gaps have emerged that urgently need to be addressed, such as the WMO. The Panel is reasonably satisfied with the protection afforded the environment in the Scheme although the job is far from finished. The Panel has expressed its concerns in Section 1 of this Report as to the extent of additional work Council indicates it intends to undertake to address shortcomings in the Scheme. The Panel has recommended that Council prioritise these tasks. Submission noted.

235

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 206

Submitter Name and Address: PS and EA Clay Location and Map Reference No: “Blue Ridge” Mount Macedon Current Zone: N/a Exhibited Zone: Environmental Rural Zone Requested Zone: N/a Proposed Zone: N/a Submission: Requested Expresses support for the provisions of the Changes/Issues Raised: Environmental Rural Zone providing for Bed and Breakfast accommodation. Council Comment: No assessment required as no changes have been requested. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: No amendment required. Panel Comment and The Panel agrees with Council’s assessment and Recommendations: recommendation. The Panel believes that the as of right status of Bed and Breakfast would be clarified it was subject to a condition that the use occurred in an existing building. It is noted that extensions to a Bed and Breakfast would also be as of right and some limitation may be appropriate, particularly in the ERZ. The Panel recommends that the DOI consider amending various zones to indicate that Bed and Breakfast is a Section 1 use in rural zones subject to a further condition that the use occurs within an existing building.

236

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 207

Submitter Name and Address: J and S Bowling Location and Map Reference No: 78 Main Street, Romsey Map 29 Current Zone: Residential A Exhibited Zone: Residential 1 Requested Zone: Business 1 Proposed Zone: Residential Submission: Requested Request that the property be rezoned to provide for a Changes/Issues Raised: business use of the land. Council Comment: The exhibited zoning is a translation from the current zoning. This zoning was based on substantial strategic work by the former Council. Residential is considered the most appropriate zoning for the site. Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: Refer to Panel Panel Comment and The site currently contains a weatherboard cottage. Recommendations: The submitter’s request is not supported by the Romsey Structure Plan which shows the site as outside of the Town Centre. The Structure Plan is based on previous strategic work which identified the land as residential. Allowing for a commercial use of the property would contribute to the fragmentation of the town centre. The Panel recommends that the exhibited zoning remain.

237

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Submission No: 208

Submitter Name and Address: Kyneton Aero Club Location and Map Reference No: Current Zone: Exhibited Zone: Requested Zone: Proposed Zone: Submission: Requested Changes/Issues Raised: Council Comment: Strategic Considerations and Implications: Council Recommendation: Panel Comment and The Kyneton Aero Club provided information outlying Recommendations: the significance of the Kyneton Airfield to the community. The Club manages the airfield for the Council and the facility is used for general flying, Police Air Wing, crop dusting, training and as a DNRE aerial fire-fighting base. Considerable assets have been invested in the airfield including paved runaways, re- fueling facilities, hangers and other facilities. A number of small allotments surround the airfield some in the flight-path. Provision of a DDO and AEO will limit the potential for future development which would compromise airport operations. The Panel accepts that the airfield is a valuable asset and requires additional protection. The Panel recommends that an Airport Environs Overlay and a Design and Development Overlay (based on a height limitations plan) be applied to the Kyneton Airfield and that consideration be given to reference to the airfield in the MSS.

238

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

4. RECOMMENDATIONS The Panel recommends that the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme should be adopted subject to the following recommendations. There are various minor changes required to the text to correct typographical and grammatical mistakes. There are also changes required to address mapping errors that for instance, show the incorrect zoning boundary or property alignment. Council has submitted to the Panel after the hearing a list of approximately 50 minor changes it undertook to the Scheme between exhibition and Panel hearing to correct these errors. This list is included as Attachment A. The Panel’s recommendations are divided into those which it believes should be implemented prior to adoption and approval of the Planning Scheme and those which can be addressed as part of the ongoing review of the Scheme. Only recommendations resulting in a change to the Scheme are included in this section. In addition, there are some changes necessary to the exhibited Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme because of the V3 Amendment, and Council will need to address these prior to adoption of the Scheme.

4.1 Before Adoption The Panel recommends that the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme be adopted with the following changes. 1. Recognise PP No 8 in the “How do we want to achieve it?” section of the Strategic Direction for “Management of Urban Growth and Development”. 2. That owners of all heritage sites not previously subject to heritage planning control and proposed for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay are personally advised of the inclusion. Where owners consent is obtained, the site be included in the Heritage Overlay. 3. The Heritage Overlay be thoroughly checked to ensure sites are correctly located and mapped. 4. The ESO3 apply to all land identified as Class 1 in CLPR mapping of agricultural land. 5. The schedules to the RUZ and RLZ be redrafted to provide for reduced average lot size where primary/secondary lot conditions are satisfied and a consolidated map of the areas associated with each schedule be included (rather than separate maps for each area). 6. The inconsistencies in lot sizes identified in the schedule to RLZ area “D” be corrected. 7. DPO13 be deleted. 8. Council consult with the CMA’s, DNRE and the DoI with a view to determining the appropriate size of dam in the Shire, above which a permit is required.

239

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

9. Those areas around the Cobaws previously provided with a Landscape zone in the former Romsey Planning Scheme be zoned ERZ. 10. A VPO be applied to roads identified as being of moderate or high conservation value, and to wildlife corridors. 11. The EMO include erosion areas identified in documents associated with the Kyneton Planning Scheme. 12. Mapping errors on the SMO be corrected. 13. The word “road” be removed from items exempted from a permit in the schedule to SLO2. 14. A WMO be developed in consultation with the CFA and should be based on CFA Fire Intensity mapping with consideration given to the effect of poor access and areas surrounded by high intensity fire potential. 15. The need to require the provision of adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes in Bushfire Prone Areas (under the Building Regulations) without reticulated water be investigated. 16. The RFO be extended to areas along the Campaspe River and at Gisborne as detailed by the CMA and that incorrectly marked areas be deleted. 17. Areas of known flooding be placed in a LSIO based on use of previous flood information, reports and reliable certification and a check of information against contour plans. 18. The current application of the LSIO be checked against contour plans and obvious anomalies removed. 19. Council prepare a Local Policy to address the impacts and issues surrounding the Calder Freeway route through the Shire. The Policy should include guidelines for development for land in proximity of the freeway route. 20. That DPO15 for 379 – 383 Mt. Macedon Road, Mt. Macedon be deleted and a new permit be issued to carry forward existing Planning Scheme conditions. 21. RO plans be included as incorporated documents. 22. The Braemar Park Restructure Plan be reviewed. 23. In relation to RO 10 and RO 11: the two storey hight limit be deleted and built form to protect landscape values in the area be addressed through performance based provisions in the relevant SLO; the reference to “Special Investigation Areas” be deleted; a general provision indicate that only one house is permitted on a lot except where lot restructuring or other development constraints are identified in the table to the schedule; consideration be given to removing the RO from properties without any restructure requirements;

240

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

delete the sub clause indicating that the lot size in the underlying zone applies; and prepare a plan showing restructure requirements prior to the scheduled review of the Scheme. 24. Insert title page into the Scheme. 25. Insert “Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme” as a header in the Scheme. 26. Insert the name of the local provision, the date it came into operation and a page number in a footer in the Scheme. 27. Make the following corrections to Schedules in the Scheme: Delete “none specified” from the requirements for dams in the Schedule to the RUZ. Insert clauses 3, 4 and 5 into Schedule 5 of the SUZ. Insert clauses 2 and 3 into Schedule 7 of the DPO. Insert Schedule to clause 52.05-5. Insert “Macedon Ranges Council” into first two lines of Schedule to clauses 61.01 – 61.04. Include “Search for stone - if the Section 1 condition is not met” into Section 2 of Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the SUZ. 28. That Council apply the EAO to all known potentially contaminated sites that permit the use of land for “sensitive uses” as defined in Ministerial Direction No. 1. 29. The LPPF, and in particular Local Policies, be strengthened in regards to planning matters in the various catchments in the Shire and acknowledging any relevant Catchment Management Strategies. 30. Relocate the restructure component from Macedon Ranges and Surrounds Local Policy (clause 22.01). 31. Review strategies for towns and amend Structure Plans accordingly where reticulated services are to be made available in the near future in Townships Local Policy (clause 22.02). 32. Address opportunities and constraints of by-pass in Woodend Township Local Policy (clause 22.02 B). 33. Include numbering in titles of Local Policies for Riddells Creek Township (clause 22.02), Romsey Township (clause 22.02), Macedon Township (clause 22.02) 34. Include numbering in titles and review Local Policies for the Lancefield Township (clause 22.02) and Malmsbury Township (clause 22.02) in light of proposed sewer. 35. Include numbering in titles and consider structure plan for the mountain in the Mount Macedon Township Local Policy (clause 22.02). 36. Delete Local Policies for Economic Development (clause 22.04), Tourism (clause 22.05), Agriculture (clause 22.06), Catchment Management (clause 22.08-06), Open

241

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Space and Recreation (clause 22.09), Development Contributions (clause 22.10), Building Aesthetics (clause 22.12), Timber and Timber Processing Activities (clause 22.15) and Shed and Outbuildings (clause 22.22). 37. Strengthen Effluent Disposal and Water Quality Local Policy (clause 22.08-01). 38. Amend Vegetation Clearance Local Policy (clause 22.08-02) to refer to vegetation (in preference to trees) and the restriction to 4 metres be altered to "all vegetation". 39. Consult with CMA and NRE to identify any other issues which should be addressed in the Dams Local Policy (clause 22.08-4). 40. Strengthen Steep Land and Ridgelines Local Policy (clause 22.08-5). 41. Delete or strengthen Erosion Risk Local Policy (clause 22.08-07) with guidelines for administration of the policy and extend to land zoned ERZ and LDRZ. 42. Clarify when EMP’s will be required in the Environmental Management Guidelines Local Policy (clause 22.11). Consider including key elements of the Environmental Management Plan Guidelines 1994. 43. Strengthen Road Construction in Rural Areas Local Policy (clause 22.13) to address fire access and consider directing development to existing sealed roads. 44. Consolidate Rural Housing and Subdivision Local Policy (clause 22.14) with clause 22.07 and: delete primary/secondary lot provisions and relocate in schedule to the zone provide for site specific approvals through permits delete prescriptive requirements evaluate requirement for sealed roads revise to reflect V3 changes include development guidelines explain how discretion can be exercised ensure that serial excision is prevented and indicate that applications for further subdivision of existing approved balance lots under zone provisions will not be supported. 45. Delete Future Growth and Infrastructure Local Policy (clause 22.16) unless there are specific local issues to be addressed. 46. Consult with CFA to establish appropriate guideline or delete Water Infrastructure for Rural Areas Local Policy (clause 22.17). 47. Target Revegetation of Rural Areas Local Policy (clause 22.18) more effectively or delete. 48. Delete Visual Outlook Local Policy (clause 22.19) and incorporate intentions elsewhere. 49. Edit Fire Prevention Local Policy (clause 22.20) to remove repetition.

242

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

50. Merge Local Policies for Tourism Developments (clause 22.20-1), Special Events (clause 22.20-2), Caravan and Camping Parks (clause 22.20-3), New Subdivisions (clause 22.20-4) into Fire Prevention Policy (clause 22.20). 51. Relocate Mt William Archaeological Area Local Policy (clause 22.21). 52. Delete Bushland Living Areas Local Policy (clause 22.23) and reconstitute as a DPO. 53. Redraft Intensive Animal Husbandry Local Policy (clause 22.24) to require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with performance objectives. 54. Council review its discretionary referral requirements to ensure consistent wording and clarity as to which mechanism is instigating the referral. 55. References to DCNR be amended to DNRE. 56. The following documents be removed from the list of incorporated documents and included as reference documents in the relevant parts of the LPPF: Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study 1994 Kyneton Heritage Study Macedon Ranges and Surrounds – Report of Studies for Preparation of Statement of Planning Policy No.8 Statement of Planning Policy No.8 Macedon Ranges and Surrounds 1975 (Town & Country Planning Board) 57. Restructure plans RO1 to RO12 (inclusive) be included as incorporated documents. 58. Council prepare a monitoring and review program and include those items that will assist in achieving the following strategic directions outlined in the MSS: management of urban growth and development protection of environment and landscape facilitation of agricultural productivity promotion of shire’s cultural identity and community values facilitation of economic development and tourism. 59. The Heritage Policy be strengthened by providing specific reference to the treatment of Aboriginal heritage utilising additional wording as suggested by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. 60. That Crown Allotments 7, 8 & 13 be zoned R1 and that Crown Allotments 10, 11 & 12 be zoned PPRZ on the corner of Mitchell, Ebden and Beauchamp Streets, Kyneton. 61. That the ERZ be removed from the land at Ashbourne Road (as described in submissions 19 and 44) and the land zoned Rural with an ESO. 62. That Lot 3 PS26584 being 5 Welsh Street, Kyneton, be zoned R1Z.

243

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

63. That the LSIO and RFO at the property of B.S. & S.W. Gedge (submission 30) be amended to correct the anomalies as noted in the submission and the land be rezoned RUZ with an ESO applied. 64. Council’s consolidate and re-subdivide Restructure Area 7. 65. The SMO be removed from Lots 6 & 7/120 Bacchus Marsh Road, Gisborne and Council obtain more accurate data on salinity for the purposes of applying this overlay in the Shire. 66. The following notation be added to the Heritage Policy – “Comment be sought from the National Trust on all planning applications which may have a significant impact on a place classified by the National Trust.” 67. That Schedules 1 and 2 to the SLO be revised to include landscape character objectives which are more specific to the particular areas and values to be protected and to require the values of the landscape to be addressed under clause 4.0. 68. HO132 only apply to areas identified in the relevant citation as being of heritage value. 69. The ESO3 in the vicinity of Carlesruhe be deleted. 70. The PAO along the Calder Highway frontage be mapped to reflect the schedule to the overlay. 71. The VPO be applied without re-exhibition to: the native grass area at the old Woodend racecourse land; the grassland at the Carlsruhe Cemetery; stands of Yarra Gums as referred to in the Environment Effects Statement for the Woodend section of the Calder Freeway; and the stand of Narrow Leafed Peppermint trees north of the Five Mile Creek as identified by the Land Conservation Council. 72. The accuracy of the application of the SMO over 7 Pyke Street Woodend be checked. 73. The Rural Floodway at Henty Park be reassessed and amended if justified. 74. The LSIO be removed from CA102 Mount Macedon Road, Woodend. 75. SLO3 be renumbered SLO1. 76. The following amendments be incorporated in the Scheme: Add to ESO3 and ESO4 the objectives “to minimise the threat of pest plants and pest animals to agricultural land and to water catchment areas”. Refer to the "Port Philip and Westernport Regional Catchment Strategy” in the MSS. Add reference to land capability assessments to identify areas capable of containing waste water management systems without threat of landslip in Effluent Disposal and Water Quality Local Policy (clause 22.08-1).

244

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Vegetation Clearance Local Policy (clause 22.08-2) to apply to all native vegetation and wording altered to read “All native vegetation should be retained”. Add reference in the Steep Land and Ridgelines Local Policy (clause 22.08-5) to land capability assessment to provide management criteria for areas prone to landslip (mass movement) and erosion. Add additional objective to the Road Construction in Rural Areas Local Policy (clause 22.13) “to consider road design and construction with regard to drainage management and road side vegetation management”. 77. The RO and other relevant overlay which were omitted in error be applied to the LDRZ north of Macedon township east of the railway line. 78. The EMO apply to the Malmsbury township together with provision for sediment control and requirement for artificial wetlands for water discharge to Malmsbury Reservoir. 79. The Malmsbury Township Local Policy provide for all new allotments and new development to be provided with sewerage. 80. That Local Policy 22.08-1 be extended to provide sediment and litter control, including litter traps and artificial wetlands to improve the quality of discharge from new developments prior to discharge to watercourses and that the Draft Campaspe Water Quality Strategy be included as a reference document. 81. The Intensive Animal Husbandry Local Policy be amended to: highlight the need for EPA approval for various intensive animal husbandry proposals and that Council will consult with the EPA; state that waste disposal should meet EPA requirements; and refer to EPA publication Noise Control Guidelines in connection with kennels. 82. That investigation of the potential for rural living opportunities in the vicinity of the trotting track be identified on the Lancefield Township Structure Plan in the MSS. 83. That references requested by the NCCMA in submission 107 be included in the MSS. 84. That an objective be included in the Local Policy 22.07 discouraging development from documented key habitat areas. 85. Subject to a Council evaluation, inclusion in the Vegetation Policy (clause 22.08-2) references to: Macedon Range Conservation Society Environmental Report Macedon Ranges Shire Roadside Management Plan Environmental Effects Statements for the Calder Highway North Central Catchment Management Authority relevant documentation on vegetation reference to exotic vegetation be included with the objective of preservation of significant stands and specimens.

245

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

86. Key habitat areas on private land be included in the monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of retention measures. 87. The documents referred to on page 11 of submission 109 be included as reference documents in the LPPF. 88. That prior to adoption, Council undertake a check of each error identified by Ms Preneau (submission 110) and Mr Mowatt (submission 89) in their submissions and correct all technical errors accordingly. 89. That a Local Policy for Extractive Industries be included as suggested by DNRE in their submission to the Panel hearing. 90. The amendments on Flora and Fauna referring to the MSS and Local Policies as submitted to the Panel at the hearing and in the initial submission by DNRE, be incorporated in the Scheme. 91. The map corrections on Crown Land detailed by DNRE be undertaken. 92. That parks controlled by Melbourne West and Victoria West Regions of Parks Victoria be zoned PCRZ and that allotments zoned PUZ1 within the Mount Macedon PCRZ be zoned PCRZ. 93. The requests contained within the two appendices attached to the DNRE’s submission at the hearing, be implemented by Council. 94. That Western Water and the Council confer and that the necessary assets are zoned PUZ, and an appropriate schedule be inserted. 95. That additions to Local Policy 22.08-01 requiring septic tanks to be regularly maintained and upgraded when extensions to a dwelling take place. 96. The EAO be applied to 68 Main Road, Lancefield. 97. That Council check each of the mapping errors claimed by Vicroads in its submission and make corrections to the maps where necessary. 98. That the “Calder Freeway and Calder Highway Environs Policy” as proposed in Vicroads submission, be included in the LPPF. 99. That background documents to the Calder Freeway pertinent to the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme be included as references. 100. That reference be included in Local Policy 22.08-04 that proposals for dams on waterway must be referred to the appropriate water authority for approval. 101. That land being purchased for the Waste Treatment Plant be zoned PUZ if the purchase has been completed or a Public Acquisition Overlay be applied if the purchase is not complete. 102. The Coliban -Kyneton Water Supply Basins and the Fernhill Reservoirs be zoned PUZ. 103. The establishment and management of timber plantations be exempt from the need for a permit in the SMO.

246

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

104. That HO 308 be limited to the area identified as being of heritage value in its citation. 105. That CA 11 Section 19 Township of Gisborne, between Lyell and Robertson Streets, Gisborne, be shown as R1Z in the adopted Scheme. 106. That Bald Hill Reserve be zoned PPRZ to recognise the continued use of the Gun Club. 107. That existing land zoned Railway Reservation be PUZ4 in the new Scheme and the RO affecting Macedon township exempt railway land. 108. Local Policies relating to the erection of dwellings in rural areas include guidelines for consideration of applications where scheduled lot sizes are not satisfied. 109. The residential estate known as Gisborne Rise be amended to LDRZ prior to adoption of the Scheme and without notification. 110. The Powercor Kyneton Depot at the corner of Redesdale Road and Knight Court be zoned IN1Z. 111. The Woodend substation at the corner of Montgomerys Lane and Parkers Street be zoned RUZ. 112. That a permit be granted for the creation of two lots, consisting of a primary lot and a secondary lot, at 380 Gisborne-Bacchus Marsh Road, Bullengarook, Crown allotment 20. 113. That 59A High Street, Woodend (Insectarium) be rezoned B1Z. 114. That Lot 13 Section 42, Township of Woodend be zoned R1Z. 115. That an Airport Environs Overlay and a Design and Development Overlay (based on a height limitations plan) be applied to the Kyneton Airfield and that consideration be given to reference to the airfield in the MSS. 116. That the property in Baynton Road Lancefield currently zoned Industrial, be zoned IN3. 117. Re-draft the schedules to the ERZ to achieve more specific environmnetal outcomes.

4.2 After Adoption Following adoption of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme, the Panel recommends the following actions be taken after adoption of the Scheme: 1. Undertake a review of all additional works intended to flow from the new Scheme (including costings), and prepare a realistic timeframe for the completion of the work. 2. Within 12 months of adoption, prepare a: Macedon Ranges Shire Environment Strategy (including a detailed review of the environmental issues of the Scheme, existing information, key habitat areas, preparation of additional information such as use of CLPR mapping, and consultation with the community).

247

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Urban Growth Strategy for the Shire (including integrated land use and development strategies for Woodend, Gisborne and Macedon townships). Strategic review of rural and rural living areas addressing land capability, protection of productive and commercially sustainable farms, farm restructuring, existing fragmentation of land, environmental constraints, availability of infrastructure and services, demand and supply of land, landscape objectives, guidelines for development, tenement controls, and opportunities and constraints for rural living. 3. Within 24 months of adoption, prepare a: Rural Character (Natural and Cultural Landscape) Study for the area of the Shire not contained within the Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage & Landscape Study Kyneton Industrial Land Study Remnant Indigenous Vegetation Study Heritage Study to identify any gaps in existing heritage material. 4. Where owners consent has not been obtained to include heritage items in the Heritage Overlay (see recommendation 2 Prior to Adoption), include items as part of first amendment to the Scheme. 5. Review the description and mapping of heritage items in rural areas with a view to being more definitive and in accordance with the Manual for the VPP’s. 6. The strategic review of Rural areas consider rezoning RLZ area “A” to RUZ together with consideration of appropriate subdivisions provisions for the area. 7. Council in consultation with the DoI undertake a review of the application of the ERZ based on an assessment of all environmental factors. 8. The area encumbered with ESO1 be considered for a RO. 9. A study be undertaken of the Mineral Springs to identify the source of the water and to develop management guidelines. 10. Council investigate further the need to extend the application of the EMO to other areas of the Shire. 11. The SMO be reviewed and based on accurate land capability work. 12. Council review its landscape policies based on the Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study (1994) to reassess the application of the SLO and provide objectives and guidelines for future evaluation. 13. The CFA develop a clear policy regarding referral applications it considers meets its requirements. 14. After detailed studies of flooding have been concluded by the CMA, the UFZ be incorporated into the Scheme in appropriate urban situations and the RFO and LSIO in rural situations.

248

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

15. Areas of likely development, known to be subject to overland flow and the potential for drainage problems, be investigated and Special Building Overlays be applied by way of a future amendment and that such action take place prior to any subdivision. 16. When a consistent approach to proclaimed catchment management has been developed, that the catchment areas be reviewed in conjunction with the relevant authorities and provisions be introduced to the Scheme by way of amendment (see Other Recommendations No. 4). 17. Council prepare a Local Policy for the Kyneton Industrial Area. 18. Prepare a Development Contributions Plan if Council intends to impose a levy on development. 19. As Aboriginal sites, places and objects are identified they be included in the HO as part of future amendments. 20. The planning provisions applicable to 46 Taylors Rd, Mt. Macedon be clarified with any substantive changes from existing planning controls exhibited as part of the first amendment to the new Scheme. 21. The sites identified in the Rosngren report be considered for inclusion in the SLO. 22. The need for additional mechanisms to manage development in the vicinity of Argent Court, Riddells Creek be evaluated with a view to applying a DPO. 23. The potential for a rural living area near the Lancefield Trotting Track which would be developed to meet the needs of the trotting industry be addressed as part of the strategic review. 24. Place documented areas of key habitat in the ESO. 25. That consideration be given to investigating ground water resources to determine appropriate strategies by DoI, the CMA or other relevant agencies. 26. A review of environment, bio-diversity, habitat flora and fauna issues be carried out to allow a coordinated approach to planning measures. 27. Zone translations of environmental and landscape areas be reconsidered. 28. That consideration be given to a Native Flora and Fauna Protection Policy. 29. Consideration of the use of an ESO around waste water plants. 30. The area bounded by Edgecombe Road, Boundary Road, Fords Lane and Pipers Creek Road be included in the Environmental Strategy to evaluate the basis for applying an ESO. 31. The Vegetation Protection Overlay be placed over those roads identified in the previous Shire of Kyneton Roadside Management Plan, and the environmental values of roads identified by the Friends of the Bald Hill Reserve leading to vegetation reserves in the Cobaws and Black Hill, be evaluated as part of the Environment Strategy. 32. The implications of including specific plans and prescriptive requirements in the schedules to DPO’s be evaluated in each case.

249

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

33. The drafting of schedules and plans associated with DPO’s be checked to ensure consistency with provisions of the new Scheme. 34. The 2,250 metre buffer distance for the Moneegeeta Piggery recommended by the EPA be included in ESO2.

4.3 Other Recommendations 1. Advise submitters of the Panel’s response to their submissions and Council’s support or otherwise for the Panel’s recommendations. 2. DoI to develop a consistent planning approach to planning approvals for public authorities and circumstances where exemption from the permit requirements imposed by overlays is justified. 3. Council commit itself in the MSS to undertake the additional work required to be undertaken to complete the Scheme. 4. The DoI develop a consistent state-wide approach to water catchments and investigate the addition of an overlay to address land use and management issues in water supply catchments. 5. Endorsement of PP No8 at a State level should be maintained through referencing in Clause 14.02-3 of the SPPF. This is because the area is identified as an asset of importance at a state level and the relationship of the policy area to the metropolitan area, which is an important source of pressures on this sensitive area in terms of urban expansion, residential development for commuters and recreational use, is unchanged. 6. The DoI consider amending various zones to indicate that Bed and Breakfast is a Section 1 use in rural zones subject to a further condition that the use occurs within an existing building.

250

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

ATTACHMENT A CHANGES TO EXHIBITED SCHEME REQUESTED BY COUNCIL (A) TEXT Contents – updated. Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) completely rewritten. Changes to new MSS after re-exhibition in August 1998: Contents page for MSS – deleted 21.2 Under Major Transport Corridor last paragraph, 2nd line change “discreet” to “direct”. 21.2 Under Natural Environment and Resources 1st paragraph, last line include the word “add” between rural landscapes “and” historical. Also delete a full stop after the word townscapes. 21.3 Under Population and Urban Growth 2nd paragraph, 1st line change “need” to “needs”. 21.3 Under Metropolitan Fringe 1st paragraph, 3rd line insert a full stop between “Shire Statement” eg “Shire. Statement” 21.3 Under Protection of Agricultural land 1st paragraph, 1st line insert a comma after valuable resources eg “valuable resources,” 21.3 Under Nature Conservation and Protection of Landscapes 1st paragraph, 4th line change “provided” to “provide”; 1st paragraph, 5th line include “and” between “distinctiveness need” e.g. “distinctiveness and need” 21.3 Under Local Economic Development and Employment 1st paragraph, 2nd line Journey to Work figures included. 21.3 Under Pest Management, 1st paragraph, 2nd line change “compete” to “competed” 21.4 Under State and Regional Planning Context change 14.01 “Planning for Urban Development” to “Planning for Urban Settlement” 21.6 Under Protection Natural and Cultural Assets, 1st paragraph, 4th line delete “and” between natural “and” assets 21.7-1 Under How Do We Achieve It? 10th and 11th dot points to be indented and changed to a hyphen bullet symbol; 14th dot point, last line include “of the” between values Macedon e.g. values “of the” Macedon 21.7-2 2nd paragraph, 2nd line remove one semi colon 21.7-2 Under Why is it important? 8th dot point, 3rd line change “area” to “areas” 21.7-2 Under How do we achieve it? 4th dot point the remainder of the words have been included. 21.7-3 Under What do we want to achieve? 1st line add a “colon” after are e.g. are: 21.7-4 Under Promotion of the Shire’s Cultural Identity and Community Values, 1st paragraph, 2nd line add “an” between and attractive e.g. and “an” attractive 21.7-4 Under How do we achieve this? 2nd dot point, 1st line add and 3rd dot point, 1st line add “of” between use local e.g. use “of” local 21.7-5 Heading delete the last word from the heading “it”; 6th dot point, delete last word in sentence “ente”; 10th dot point, 1st line delete “is to” 21.8-2 2nd paragraph, 1st line add “of the” between performance local e.g. performance “of the” local 21.8-3 1st paragraph, 1st line delete 3rd word “ documents”

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

21.8-3 Under Macedon Ranges include the following reference documents in bullet form: • Draft Municipal Fire Prevention Plan • Campaspe Water Catchment Strategy • Port Philip Water Catchment Strategy

Local Policies – rewritten to the end of Clause 22.02 and re-exhibited in August 1998 Changes made since exhibited in August 1998. Policy Area Map now more legible 22.01 Under Restructure Overlay areas – this has been transferred to the Restructure Overlay area Schedule and new wording has been included for 22.01 22.02 22.02 Under Objectives, 1st paragraph, 1st line change “environments” to “environment”; 2nd paragraph, 2nd line insert comma after boundaries e.g. “boundaries, ; 4th paragraph, 1st line add “and” between Macedon Mount Macedon e.g. Macedon “and” Mount Macedon 22.02 Under Policy, 6th paragraph, last line change the “colon” to a “full stop” 22.02 Under Woodend Township – Objectives, 1st paragraph, 1st line insert “the” between and role e.g. and “the” role; 2nd paragraph, 1st line change “protection” to “protecting the” 22.02 Under Woodend Township – Policy, last paragraph, 2nd line change “from” to “form” 22.03 22.02 Under Kyneton Township – Role and Character, 5th dot point change “has” to “have” 22.02 Under Riddells Creek Township – Policy, 3rd paragraph, 2nd line change “199” to “1991”; 4th paragraph, 2nd dot point delete the full stop inserted after Station Street; 4th paragraph, last dot point change “achieve” to “achieves” 22.02 Under Romsey Township – Role and Character, 1st paragraph, last line change “business” to “businesses” 22.02 Under Romsey Township – Objectives, 3rd sentence add “the” between consolidate retail e.g. consolidate “the” retail; add “the” between on west e.g. on “the” west

Changes made to Local Policies – Original exhibited copy 22.04 Under Heritage Policy – Policy alter 4th dot point, last line from “as” to “on” 22.05 Under Tourism – Policy indent dot points 3 to 10 and alter to a hyphen bullet symbol; alter last dot point, 2nd word “form” to “from” 22.08-01 Under Effluent Disposal and Water Quality – Policy, 4th dot point change “plans” to “plants”; 8th dot point delete dot point so that dot point 8 now becomes part of dot point 7 22.08-02 Under Vegetation Clearance – Policy, 2nd last sentence change “plaint” to “planting” 22.08-4 Under Dams – Policy, 6th dot point change “is” to “if” 22.08-05 Under Steep Land and Ridge Line – Policy Basis, 1st paragraph change “Shire’s” to “Shire”. 22.08-05 Under Steep Land and Ridge Line – Objectives, 6th dot point, last line delete “of” 22.08-05 Under Steep Land and Ridge Line – Policy, 3rd dot point, 1st word change from “Applications” to “Applicants” 22.06 Under Erosion Risk – Decision Guidelines, 3rd dot point, change “report” to “reports” 22.07 Under Open Space and Recreation – Policies, 1st dot point change “an” to “a” 22.08 Under Developer Contributions – Policy change “S173 Agreement” to “Section 173 Agreement” and made this a dot point 22.11 Under Policy, 1st dot point, 3rd line change “on-urban” to “non-urban”.

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

22.13 Under Road Construction in Rural Areas – Objective, 3rd dot point replace “two way access” with “adequate access” 22.14 Under Rural Housing and Subdivision, 1st sentence include “Rural Living Zone”. Under Policy basis heading, 1st sentence include the words “Rural Living” between Rural and Environmental e.g. “Rural, Rural Living and Environmental Rural Zones”; Under Policies, Subdivisions – General section 3rd dot point include clause number 35.03-4; 3rd dot point, 2nd hyphen point add the words Rural Living Zone; 3rd dot point 3rd hyphen point add clause number 35.03-6; 4th dot point add clause number 35.03-4, 4th dot point, 3rd hyphen point and the words Rural Living Zone; Under Policies, Infrastructure for Housing section, 1st sentence add the clause number 35.03-2; 1st dot point change “Rural Roads” to “Road Construction in Rural Areas”; Under Policies, Housing in Rural Areas, 5th dot point include clause number 35.03-4. 22.09 Include a new dot point, as the first dot point “The minimum area required for subdivision must be at least 100 hectares.” 22.10 Existing first dot point change “… will not exceed 100 hectares.” to …must not exceed 1:20.” 22.14-1 Heading at top of the first table to be altered. Replace “This section of the policy” with “22.14-1”. 22.14-2 Under Clustering of Lots option, 6th dot point, last line change “crating” to “creating”; 8th dot point change “is” to “are” 22.11 Under Resubdivision option – 2nd last dot point from “is” to “are” 22.14-2 Under Transfer of Development Rights, 2nd dot point change “or” to “of”’; 6th dot point “is” to “are” 22.19 Under Visual Outlook – Policy, 3rd dot point change “22.08-07” to “22.08-05” 22.20-1 to 22.20-4 inclusive change headings to sub-headings 22.20-02 Under Policy, 3rd dot point change “taken” to “take”; 5th dot point change “while” to “whilst” 22.22 Under Sheds and Outbuildings – Policy, 1st Paragraph, new 4th dot point added “All new sheds and outbuildings shall meet the setbacks specified in the zone, unless the consent of the Responsible Authority is obtained”; 2nd Paragraph, new 4th dot point added All new sheds and outbuildings shall meet the setbacks specified in the zone, unless the consent of the Responsible Authority is obtained” 22.23 Map to the Bushland Living Zone has been included. 22.12 Intensive Animal Husbandry – Objectives, first dot point change “suitable” to “suitably” 22.24 Intensive Animal Husbandry – Policy, first dot point, last line change “are” to “is”

Zones Changes to the State Section have resulted in some changes to the Schedules 32.02 Residential 2 Zone now included. 34.01 Business Zone 1 – Schedule under land the words “None Specified” have been added 34.03 Business Zone 3 – Schedule under land the words “None Specified” have been added 34.04 Business Zone 4 - Schedule under land the words “None Specified” have been added 34.05 Business Zone 5 has been included – No Schedule 35.01 Rural Zone – Schedule Altered; maps to the schedule have been improved with respect to legibility 35.02 Environmental Rural Zone – Schedule altered 35.03 Rural Living Zone – Schedule altered, maps to schedule have been improved with respect to legibility 37.01 Schedule 5 to the Special Use zone included

iii

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Overlays 22.13 Schedule 1 ESO1, Schedule 2 ESO2, Schedule 3, ESO3, Schedule 4 ESO4, Schedule 5 ESO5, Schedule 6 ESO6, –Statement of Environmental Significance now included and layout of schedules have been revamped 22.14 Schedule 1 VPO1, Clause 1, 1st paragraph, 2nd line change “well-form” to “well-formed”; New Clause 2 Vegetation Protection Objective to be achieved has been added and layout of schedules have been revamped 22.15 Schedule SLO1 New Clause 1 written; Clause 2 (previously Clause 1 in exhibited Scheme) replace “Macedon Ranges.” with “site”; Clause 4 (previously Clauses 2 and 3 of the exhibited Scheme) last dot point delete the words “visual outlook” appearing after the words “the environment” ‘ layout of schedule has been revamped. 22.16 42.03 Schedule SLO2 New Clause 2 written; Clause 4 (previously Clause 3 to exhibited Scheme) 2nd dot point, 1st line replace “on the” with “will affect”; change “22.08-07” to “22.08-05”; layout of schedule has been revamped. 43.01 Schedule 43.01 – Heritage Overlay. The following listings have been deleted. HO6 Calder Highway corridor, HO12 Fern Hill, HO17 Konagaderra, HO18 Lancefield Flats, HO21 Macedon Foothills, HO 22 Macedon Massif, HO28 Mt. William Range, HO29 Newham Flats, HO31 North South Corridor, HO35 Pyrites Creek, HO97 Calder Highway, Carlsruhe, Former Mill, HO233 Greens Lane, Granite House, Stone and timber outbuildings; HO296 James Lane Tylden (near Creek, south of Tylden), The following changes have been made to the listing: HO80 Under Heritage Place Column the word “Kyneton” has been added. HO84 Under Heritage Place Column the word “Tylden” has been added. HO87 Under Heritage Place Column change “Springfield” to “North Woodend” HO89 Under Heritage Place Column the word “Malmsbury” has been added. HO96, in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th columns delete the contents and replace with “-“, in the 8th column delete “No” and replace with “H310”. HO137, HO138, HO139 and HO140 Under Heritage Place Column the word “Tylden” has been added. HO169 Under Heritage Place Column the word “Hanging Rock” has been changed to “Newham”, HO170 Under Heritage Place Column the word “Carlsruhe” has been changed to “Woodend” HO297 Under Heritage Place Column the word “Springfield” to “North Woodend” HO481 Under Heritage Place Column the word “Pastoria” has been added. HO484 Under External Paint Controls Apply Column change “yes” to “no” HO498 Under Heritage Place Column change “Mount Woodend” to “Mount Macedon” HO622 Three Chain Road Cobaw renumbered to HO682 HO7, HO15, HO20, HO26, HO34, HO39 and HO40 Under Tree Controls Apply Column change “no” to “yes” HO47 Under Included on the Victorian Heritage Register change “874” to “2874” HO121 Under Prohibited Uses may be permitted? Change “No” to “-“. HO389 Under Included on the Heritage Register alter “G315” to “No”. The following new listings have been added; HO675 to HO699

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

These were heritage controls that existed in previous Schemes, completed Schedules for these sites will be provided in the near future. 43.02 Schedule DDO1, previous Clause 4 of exhibited Scheme Exemptions deleted and layout of schedule has been revamped. 43.04 Schedule DPO1 Clause 1 Requirements before a permit is granted rewritten, previous Clause 3.0 of exhibited Scheme “Exemptions” deleted; layout of schedule has been revamped. 43.04 Schedule DPO2 Clause 1 Requirements before a permit is granted rewritten, Clause 2, dot point 1 (previously Clause 2 of exhibited Scheme, 16th dot point) change “taken” to “taking”; Clause 2, dot point 3 (previously 18th dot point) 1st line insert “an” between than outbuilding e.g. than “an” outbuilding, previous Clause 3.0 “Exemptions” deleted; layout of schedule has been revamped. 43.04 Schedule DPO3 Clause 1 Requirements before a permit is granted rewritten; and previous Clause 3 “Exemptions” deleted; and layout of schedule revamped. 43.04 Schedule DPO4 Clause 1 Requirements before a permit is granted rewritten; Clause 2 last sentence change “lost” to “lots”; previous Clause 3 “Exemptions” deleted; and layout of schedule revamped 43.04 Schedule DPO5 Clause 1 Requirements before a permit is granted rewritten; Clause 3 9th dot point (previously Clause 2 9th dot point) change “birds” to “bird”; previous Clause 3.0 “Exemptions” deleted; layout of schedule has been revamped 43.04 Schedule DPO6 Clause 1 Requirements before a permit is granted rewritten; previous Clause 3.0 “Exemptions” deleted; layout of schedule has been revamped 43.04 Schedule DPO7 Clause 1, 1st dot point insert “interval” between metre contour e.g. metre “interval” contour; previous Clause 3.0 “Exemptions” deleted; layout of schedule revamped. 43.04 Schedule DPO8 Clause 1, Under heading Landscape Plans and Report, 2nd dot point change “land” to “and”; Clause 2, 1st sentence, change “lots” to “lot”; previous Clause 3.0 “Exemption” deleted; layout of schedule revamped. 43.04 Schedule DPO9 Clause 1, 1st paragraph of exhibited clause deleted i.e. “The plans covers the area included to the south of Coleraine Drive and east of Melbourne-Lancefield Road”’ previous Clause 3.0 Exemptions deleted; layout of schedule revamped. 43.04 Schedule DPO10 Clause 1 Requirements before a permit is granted rewritten, Clause 2 Under heading Dwelling, 3rd dot point change “Nor” to “No”; Clause 2 under heading Subdivision 7th dot point change “or” to “of”; Clause 2 Under heading Land Capability Report 6th dot point change “exiting” to “existing” Previous Clause 3.0 “Exemptions” deleted; layout of schedule revamped 43.04 Schedule DPO11 Clause 1 Requirements before a permit is granted rewritten; Previous Clause 3.0 “Exemptions” deleted 22.17 Schedule DPO12 Clause 1 of exhibited Scheme the following sentence has been deleted “The plan covers the area indicated between Sandy Creek Road and Gap Road Riddells Creek”; Previous Clause 3.0 “Exemptions” deleted 43.04 Schedule DPO13 Clause 1 Requirements before a permit is granted rewritten; Clause 2, 5th dot point change “an” to “any”; Previous Clause 3.0 “Exemptions” deleted and layout of schedule revamped 43.04 Schedule DPO14 Clause 1 Requirements before a permit is granted rewritten; layout of schedule revamped. 43.04 Schedule DPO15 Clause 1 Requirements before a permit is granted rewritten; Clause 2 last sentence, 1st line change “land” to “and”; layout of schedule revamped. 44.01 Now Environmental Management Overlay –Schedule added. 44.02 Now Salinity Management Overlay –Schedule added 44.03 Rural Floodway Overlay – Schedule added. 44.04 Land Subject to Inundation Overlay – Schedule added

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

44.05 Special Building Overlay – Schedule added 22.18 Schedule to the Restructure Overlay altered to indicate the relevant Restructure Overlay number, i.e. RO1, RO2 etc. 22.19 Schedule to the Restructure Overlay a new entry created RO12 Inappropriate Subdivision Monegeetta. 22.20 45.05 Schedule to the Restructure Overlay – an explanatory page has been included for each of the Restructure Overlays and maps contained within this section have been improved with respect to legibility. 45.05 RO8 Cherokee Restructure Overlay – Development Permitted Subject to a Permit last entry in this add the following “c) No effluent drain is located closer than 100 metres to Main. Creek. Extension to existing house on CA 5 provided the titles to CA No.’s 4, 5 and 6 are consolidated into one title.” 45.05 RO10 Mt. Macedon Restructure Overlay – Table 1, 10th section of table, under land column change the last line from “attached table” to “reference document Mount Macedon Restructure Overlay provisions 45.05 RO10 Mt. Macedon Restructure Overlay and RO11 Gisborne Restructure Overlay the text now reflects the existing controls. Land bounded by the RO is either controlled by the Schedule or by the wording of the text. Table 2, top of each page heading added defining “Column 1” and “Column 2”. The following changes have been made to Table 2, Column 1: Governors Drive – Street No. “20” changed to Street No. “30”. Governors Drive No. 1-35 inclusive change “West Side” to East Side” Ferrier Street – Street No. 24 include in the title description “Part Lot 16” Grandview Avenue delete “35” Mt. Macedon Road – Street No. 364 change “LP 95600” to “LP 95660” The following changes have been made to Table 2, Column 2 8 Devonshire Lane change “H2” to “H” 4 Devonshire Lane change “H” to “H2” An entry has been included for Childers Road (South side), this was inadvertently omitted from the exhibited scheme. Turritable Road, (West side) an entry has been included for No. 38 Turritable Road.

Particular Provisions 52.01 New Schedule added 52.02 New format for Schedule adopted and the words “None Specified” entered 22.21 New format for Schedule adopted and the words “None Specified” entered 22.22 New Schedule added 52.06-2 New Schedule added 52.17 New Scheduled added 52.27 New format for Schedule adopted and the words “None Specified” entered 52.28-3 Schedule – words “None Specified” added

General Provisions 61.01-61.04 (inclusive) Schedule altered, 3rd section of the table change from “Macedon Ranges Shire” to “Municipal Area of the Macedon Ranges Shire”

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

(B) CHANGES TO MAPS Various Road names have been added or altered to reflect the correct road name.

Zones Map Book 5 correction to zone area. Maps 9 and 10 RLZ boundary now defined. Map 14, Map 27 zone boundaries redefined, e.g. same zonings separated by a line which has been deleted. Map 30 TZ zone defined. Map 38 RLZ correction as area not previously zoned. Rural Flood Overlays – shown on large tracing Overlay and in Map Books. The basis of the RFO was an existing overlay control in the Kyneton Chapter and the Coomes Flood Study in Woodend. In summary the RFO is intended to define rural areas where development is to be controlled. Generally the RFO is intended to indicate areas where the 100 year flood will produce flows with depth >0.5m and velocity > 1m/s. This information has been provided by the Department Natural Resources and Environment. The RFO is generally only used where flood studies have been done. Where no studies have been done use of an LSIO should be considered. RFO incorrectly mapped and therefore shown as deleted on Map Book 27 page 4, Map Book 34 page 3, Map Book 35 page 4, Map Book 37 page 3 RFO indicated in the Woodend area has been extended to include the areas referred to in the Department of Natural Resources and Environment “Flood Data Transfer Project” of which a copy is attached. This is indicated on the large transparent Overlay but does not appear in the Map Book. RFO has been included for the Gisborne area to include that land referred to in the Department of Natural Resources and Environment “Flood Data Transfer Project” of which a copy is attached. This is indicated on the large transparent Overlay but does not appear in the Map Book. Land Subject to Inundation Overlay – shown on large tracing Overlay and in Map books. LSIO minor correction to a boundary line Map Book 24 page 2. The basis for the LSIO plotted in the Woodend area is the previous Rural A Zoning (Low Lying Land). Advice from DNR&E suggests the LSIO is to indicate the extent of inundation of the 1 in 100 Flood. You would expect to have an LSIO along the edges of an RFO (where studies have been done i.e. so you can tell the difference). Where valleys are well defined there would not be much difference between the RFO and the LSIO. Given the 1 in 100 year flood will extend beyond the boundaries of the Rural Floodway, in this area development may be allowed with conditions. DPO – Development Plan Overlays – shown on large tracing Overlay and updated in map book where necessary. DPO7 boundary re-defined and DPO number now shown as DPO7. Map Book 19 page 2. DPO8 incorrectly marked in the map book (Map 29 page 2) as DPO9 this has been corrected to indicate DPO8. DPO10 now indicated in the map book (Map 40 page 2). Previously listed in the text of the Scheme but no map was exhibited either in the Scheme or in the map book. DPO11 now indicated in the map book (Map 24 page 2). Previously listed in the text of the Scheme but no map was exhibited either in the Scheme or in the map book. DPO13 previously shown as DPO now shown as DPO13. Map Book 40 page 2. ESO – Environmental Significant Overlay – shown on large tracing Overlay and updated in map book where necessary. ESO3 Delete from Map Book 16 page 2 as incorrectly mapped.

vii

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

ESO3 A large Overlay for Good and High Quality Agricultural land has been mapped and is provided for Woodend and Romsey. The former Shire’s of Romsey, Newham & Woodend and Kyneton all had Land Capabilities Studies undertaken, however no land falls into the category of High or Good Quality Agricultural land for the former Shire of Kyneton. Please also note that no study had been undertaken for the former Shire of Gisborne/Gisborne area. ESO4 on Map Book 25 page 2 is also duplicated on Map Book 25 page 3, delete ESO4 on Map book 25 page 3. ESO4 delete boundary line and correct boundary definition (Map Book 36 page 2). ESO6 now indicated in the Map Book 6 page 2 with a 200metre buffer. Previously listed in the text of the Scheme but no map was exhibited in the Scheme or the Map Book. RO – Restructure Overlay shown on large tracing Overlay and updated in map book where necessary, also RO with a number has been allocated to all RO’s. RO1 now indicated in Map Book 26 page 3. A map was exhibited in the Scheme however did not appear in the Map book. RO3 Map 27 page 4. This appeared in the Map Book and was within the RO exhibited, however the actual area of RO3 within the exhibited RO has been defined and given a number. RO4 Map Book 34 page 3 and Map Book 27 page 4. This appeared in the Map Book and was within the RO exhibited, however the actual area of RO4 within the exhibited RO has been defined and given a number. RO5 Map Book 34 page 3. This appeared in the Map Book and was within the RO exhibited, however the actual area of RO5 within the exhibited RO has been defined and given a number. RO6 now indicated in the Map Book 34 Page 3. A map was exhibited in the Scheme however did not appear in the Map Book. RO8 now indicated in the Map Book 26 page 3. Properties and description was provided in the Schedule however no map was exhibited in the Scheme or the Map Book. RO9 now indicated in the Map Book 26 page 3. A map was exhibited in the Scheme however did not appear in the Map Book. RO10 exhibited as RO without a number, the number has now been defined. RO12 for the inappropriate subdivision in Monegeetta has been raised with the Panel and Council requests that it be allowed to be included as a Restructure Overlay. It has been marked on the large Overlay transparency and is indicated in the Map Book 30 page 3. PAO - Public Acquisition Overlay – indicated in the Map Book 15 page 3 and Map Book 16 page 4– no large Transparency Overlay provided. PAO1 Not previously indicated in the Map Book however all owners have been notified in writing of the Overlay at the time of exhibition of the Scheme. The Overlay has now been mapped refer Map Book 15 page 4 and Map Book 16 page 3. VPO – Vegetation Protection Overlay – shown on large tracing Overlay and updated in map book where necessary. Map Book 26 page 4 label given to Overlay i.e. VP. Map Book 15 page 3 additional VPO’s added in accordance with the Blackgum Study. Map Book 24 page 4 Boundary defined. Map Book 24 page 3 additional isolated trees added. SLO – Significant Landscape Overlay – shown on large tracing Overlay and updated in map book where necessary. Map 18 page 3 boundary has been redefined for SLO1. Map Book 24 page 2 SLO indicated, however no number given. This has been corrected to show SLO1. Map Book 27 page 4 delete SLO2 as incorrectly mapped. Map Book 27 page 3 SLO incorrectly appears as SLO3 this has now been corrected to indicate SLO1.

viii

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Map Book 32 Page 2 boundary redefined for SLO1. SMO – Salinity Management Overlay – two large transparent Overlays have been provided, one is titled exhibited Salinity Management Overlay which has various boundary definition lines omitted, the other transparency provided and is titled “Proposed Salinity Management Overlay” indicates the areas that should have been mapped. The Council therefore requests that the Panel allow them to include the new Overlay as part of their new Scheme. PCLO – Potentially Contaminated Land Overlay - this is indicated on the Map Book no large transparency Overlay has been created for this Overlay. PCLO on Map 36 page 3 has been deleted as it was incorrectly marked. PCLO’s appearing on Map Book 6 page 2, Map Book 7 page 3, Map Book 13 page 2, Map Book 15 page 2, Map Book 19 page 4, Map Book 24 page 2, Map Book 29 page 2, Map Book 33 page 2 and Map Book 35 page 2 did not appear previously in the map book. These sites are included on the Shire’s Contaminated Sites Register and as all of these sites are in the ownership of the Shire we request that the Panel agree to their inclusion in the new Scheme. There are further PCLO’s that are included on the State Register however these have not been exhibited (copy attached). The Shire seeks the Panel’s advice as to the inclusion of these PCLO’s in the new Scheme.

C) NOTES FOR PANEL Heritage Overlays. It is the intention of the Shire in conjunction with Aboriginal Affairs Victoria to place Heritage Overlays over Significant Aboriginal sites when the information becomes available. The Macedon Ranges Shire Council requests that Heritage Overlays that exist in the current Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme (some of which were not carried across to the exhibited Scheme) be included in the new scheme. Note control information for HO’s 678 to 699 will be provided to the Panel shortly. Council also seeks the interim approval of the Panel to seek the approval of all property owners to the placement of a Heritage Overlay over their property as per the exhibited Planning Scheme, updated copy.

Primary Secondary Lot Status Gisborne Area A table is attached 22.14-1 that indicates which properties a planning permit has been issued on.

Cobaw ERZ As indicated in our submission Council is supportive of changing the zoning in the Cobaw area from Rural to Environmental Rural and if required are happy to re-exhibit. An Overlay has been provided to show the extent of this which has been based on existing environmental zones.

D) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PROVIDED Macedon Ranges Pre-Contact Pilot Study Environment Effects Statement Black Forest Section Calder Highway Flora and Fauna Statement Black Forest Section Calder Highway Environment Effects Statement Woodend By-pass Calder Highway Flora and Fauna Statement Woodend By-pass Calder Highway Housing Strategy Council report on the zoning of the CSL Woodend Urban Design Framework Environmental Strategy of the Macedon Ranges Shire

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Amendment L28 Amendment L4 Flood Data Transfer Project by the DNRE

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

22.14-1 applies to land listed in the following table:

LAND DESCRIPTION Maximum number of Planning Permit potential lots permissible Issued

No. 154 Bacchus Marsh Road, 5 lots - 1 Primary, 4 Secondary No Bullengarook Lot 1 PS.321843 G Approx. 38.84ha No. 155 Bacchus Marsh Road, 7 Lots - 1 Primary, 6 Secondary No Bullengarook. Crown Allotment 25, Section M, Parish of Gisborne Approx 58.75 Ha Crown Allotment 21, Section M 9 Lots - 1 Primary, 8 Secondary No Parish of Gisborne Approx. 146.29 Ha No 235 Bacchus Marsh Road, 5 Lots - 1 Primary, 4 Secondary No Bullengarook. Crown Allotment 7 & 7A, Parish of Bullengarook Approx 51 Ha No 315 Bacchus Marsh Road, 4 Lots - 1 Primary, 3 No Secondary` Bullengarook, Crown Allotment 12 Parish of Bullengarook Approx. 69 Ha No 70 Couangalt Road, Gisborne. 7 Lots - 1 Primary, 6 Secondary No Crown Allotment 7, Section N, Parish of Gisborne. Approx 54 Ha No 135 Mt Macedon Rd Macedon (Refer No 50 Barringo Road, Macedon) No 27 Nolan Road, Gisborne 5 Lots - 1 Primary, 4 Secondary No Lot 23, LP 5477 Approx 86 Ha No 11 Nolan Road, Gisborne 6 Lots - 1 Primary, 5 Secondary No Lot 22 and South/West Part Lot 21 LP 5477

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

Approx 90 Ha No 2 Webb Road, Bullengarook 5 Lots - 1 Primary, 4 Secondary No Crown Allotment 23H, 23B, 23E and Part Crown Allotment 44, Parish of Bullengarook Approx 126 Ha No 2 Willey Road, Macedon 3 Lots - 1 Primary, 2 Secondary No Crown Allotment Y, Section D, Parish of Macedon. Approx 43 Ha No 41 Ellandee Crescent, 5 Lots - 1 Primary, 4 Secondary No except a large portion has been Macedon. Part Crown Allotment A, acquired by Vic Parish of Macedon Roads Approx 81 Ha No 36 Fitzgerlad Road 5 Lots - 1 Primary, 4 Secondary No Bullengarook. Crown Allotment 43, parish of Bullengarook Approx 75 Ha

xii

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

LAND DESCRIPTION Maximum number of Planning Permit potential lots permissible Issued No 46 Govans Road, New Gisborne 3 Lots - 1 Primary, 2 Secondary No Part Crown Allotment 119, Parish of Kerrie Approx 25.19 Ha No 3 Haires Lane, Bullengarook 10 Lots - 1 Primary, 9 Yes Secondary Crown Allotment 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 11B, Parish of Bullengarook Approx 99 Ha No 101 Kilmore Road, Gisborne, 19 Lots - 1 Primary, 18 Yes Secondary Crown Allotment 7, 8 & 9 Section 3 and Part Crown Allotment 32(PR) Parish of Gisborne. Approx 142 Ha No 27 McGregor Road, Gisborne 6 Lots - 1 Primary, 5 Secondary No. Crown Allotment 3, 4 & 5, Parish of Gisborne Approx 63 Ha No 340 Bacchus Marsh Road 6 Lots - 1 Primary, 5 Secondary No Bullengarook, Crown Allotment 27, 21 and North Part 21A Parish of Bullengarook Approx. 106 Ha No 365 Bacchus Marsh Road 7 Lots - 1 Primary, 6 Secondary Yes Bullengarook, Crown Allotment 15 and North Part 16, Parish of Bullengarook Approx 116 Ha 380 Bacchus Marsh Road 3 Lots - 1 Primary, 2 Secondary Yes Bullengarook, Crown Allotment 20, and Part 20A, Parish of Bullengarook Approx 52 Ha 385 Bacchus Marsh Road 4 Lots - 1 Primary, 3 Secondary No Bullengarook. Crown Allotment 17, Parish of Bullengarook. Approx 63 Ha

xiii

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

No 445 Bacchus Marsh Road, 33 Lots - 1 Primary, 32 No. Secondary Bullengarook, Crown Allotments 18, 19, 22, 22A, 22B, 22D, 22E, 20B, 20C, 20D and PR, Parish of Bullengarook. Approx. 512 Ha No 50 Barringo Road (Part Crown 31 Lots - 1 Primary, 30 Yes Secondary Portion 1 & 2, Section B, Parish of Macedon) and No. 135 Mt Macedon Road (Lot 43 LP, 2862 and CP 173543)., Macedon Approx 612 Ha No 611 Calder Highway, Macedon 4 Lots - 1 Primary, 3 Secondary No but subject to acquisition by Vic Part Crown Allotment 1, OA & O, Road. Parish of Macedon Approx 33.37 Ha

xiv

MACEDON RANGES PLANNING SCHEME REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PANEL

LAND DESCRIPTION Maximum number of Planning Permit potential lots permissible Issued No 614 Calder Highway, Macedon 3 Lots - 1 Primary, 2 Secondary No Lot 1, LP 63648 Approx 20.23 Ha No 470 Calder Highway, Gisborne 8 Lots - 1 Primary, 7 Secondary No but some land acquired by Vic Part Lot 26, LP 5226 Roads Approx 121 Ha No 15 Campbell Road, Gisborne 4 Lots - 1 Primary, 3 Secondary Yes Crown Allotment 27 & 28 Section 35 Parish of Macedon Approx 58 Ha No 69 Couangalt Road, Gisborne 3 Lots - 1 Primary, 2 Secondary Yes North Part Crown Allotment 14 & 15 Section N, Parish of Gisborne Approx 26.2 Ha