Mitchell Planning Scheme Review Final Consultant Report ... · PDF fileMitchell Planning...

Mitchell Planning Scheme Review

Final Consultant Report

APPENDICES

April 2012

Mitchell Planning Scheme Review Final Consultant Report Appendices April 2012 2

CONTENTS

APPENDIX 1 LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE MITCHELL PLANNING SCHEME .................4

APPENDIX 2 CONSULTATION .......................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX 3 REVIEW OF VCAT DECISIONS AND PANEL REPORTS .................................... 47

APPENDIX 4 ASSESSMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT...................... 55

APPENDIX 5 ASSESSMENT OF THE LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES ....................................... 61

APPENDIX 6 ASSESSMENT OF ZONES, OVERLAYS AND OTHER PROVISIONS ................ 68

APPENDIX 7 FURTHER STRATEGIC WORK AND OTHER ACTIONS..................................... 84


Abbreviations

CMA Catchment Management Authority

DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

GAA Growth Areas Authority

GMW Goulburn-Murray Water

PPV Planning Panels Victoria

PSP Precinct Structure Plan

The Act Planning and Environment Act, 1987

Planning Scheme Abbreviations

DCP Development Contributions Plan

DCPO Development Contributions Plan Overlay

DDO Design and Development Overlay

ESO Environmental Significance Overlay

FZ Farming Zone

HO Heritage Overlay

LDRZ Low Density Residential Zone

LPP Local Planning Policy

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MPS Mitchell Planning Scheme

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

POS Public Open Space

R1Z Residential 1 Zone

RLZ Rural Living Zone

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

SLO Significant Landscape Overlay

SMO Salinity Management Overlay

TZ Township Zone

UGB Urban Growth Boundary

UGZ Urban Growth Zone

VPO Vegetation Protection Overlay

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


APPENDIX 1 LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE MITCHELL PLANNING SCHEME


Amendment No

Description Approval date/status

C1 Removes requirement in the Rural Zone schedule that timber production on land greater than 40ha requires a planning permit.

13 MAY 1999

C2 Rectifies inaccuracies in the Comprehensive Development Zone, schedule 1, which occurred during the drafting of the planning scheme; improves the clarity of the wording within the Comprehensive Development Plan and removes conflicting controls contained in the schedules to the Erosion Management Overlay and Salinity Management Overlay.

26 OCT 2000

C3 Rezones Lot 1 on Title Plan No. 001312N from Public Use Zone – Local Government to Residential 1 Zone

15 JUN 2000

C4 Introduces a Road Closure Overlay over the Bretonneux Street road reserve between Villers Street and Callen Street, Seymour.

26 OCT 2000

C5 Introduces a Public Acquisition Overlay over part of Crown Allotment 164C, North Mountain Road, Heathcote Junction to enable acquisition and construction of a water supply storage tank by Goulburn Valley Water

26 OCT 2000

C7 Implements Section 48 of the Heritage Act by introducing a new or amended registration to the Victorian Heritage Register into the planning scheme maps and schedule to the Heritage Overlay. Also makes some formatting changes to the schedule to the Heritage Overlay.

28 SEP 2000

C9 Rezones Crown Allotments 1, 2, 3 and 12, Section 8, Township of Kilmore, Parish of Bylands, (No’s. 100-106) White Street, Kilmore to a Residential 1 Zone.

11 APR 2002

C10 Introduces a Public Acquisition Overlay to land known as Crown Portions 3, 4, 13, 14, 18, 25 and 25A, Parish of Moranding, Boundary Road, Kilmore to enable Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority to acquire the land for reuse by irrigation of reclaimed wastewater from the Kilmore Wastewater Management Facility. Introduces a Road Closure Overlay to land known as an unused government road reserve running generally east from Ryans Creek to a government road reserve (Durkins Lane) between Crown Portion 18 to the north and Crown Portions 13 and 14 to the south to enable the land to be incorporated into the adjoining land to be used for reuse by irrigation of reclaimed wastewater from the Kilmore Wastewater Management Facility.

27 JUN 2002

C11 Includes a new registration to the Victorian Heritage Register being the Exhibition Goods Shed at 330 Union Lane, Bylands within the schedule to the Heritage Overlay and on the planning scheme maps.

1 FEB 2001

C15 Part 1 The first general review of the Mitchell Planning Scheme makes various zoning and overlay map changes to correct or amend controls for various properties throughout the Shire, and revises the Hidden Valley Comprehensive Development Plan

20 FEB 2003


Amendment No


C15 Part 2 Changes the Municipal Strategic Statement and local policies in response to the first review of the MSS; updates structure plans for each of the townships in the municipality; makes a number of rezoning changes including the rezoning of two areas of land in Wallan to Residential 1; applies an Environmental Significance Overlay, Schedule 3 to land in Wallan, applies the Vegetation Protection Overlay, Schedule 1 to land including roadsides; inserts two new schedules to the Development Plan Overlay affecting land around Wallan and applies an Environmental Audit Overlay to land south of Willowmavin-Tantaraboo Road.

18 MAR 2004

C21 Introduces a Public Acquisition Overlay along the eastern bank of the Goulburn River within parts of Crown Allotments 34 and 35, Parish of Seymour to enable the completion of the Seymour Multi- Purpose Trail along the bank of the Goulburn River.

7 MAR 2002

C22 Amends the schedule and map to the Heritage Overlay to include the Victorian Railway Institute Building, Railway Place, Seymour and introduces a new reference document at Clause 22.01-1.

7 FEB 2002

C23 Rezones Crown Allotment 10, Section 11, Township of Kilmore, Parish of Bylands, (No. 111) Powlett Street, Kilmore on the south west corner of Green and Powlett Streets to Public Use Zone, Other Public Use (PUZ7) to accommodate a new 24-hour Kilmore Police Station, inserts a new Schedule to the Public Use Zone and rezones part of road reserve of Green Street to a Residential 1 Zn.

28 FEB 2002

C24 Rezones land on the corner of Tallarook and High Streets, Seymour to a Public Use Zone, Other Public Use (PUZ7) to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing 24 hour Seymour Police Station.

7 FEB 2002

C25 Introduces an Incorporated Plan Overlay to the Seymour Abattoir, Old Hume Highway, Seymour, and includes the Seymour Abattoir Incorporated Plan as an incorporated document.

7 NOV 2002

C26 Amends Planning Scheme Map 13HO to ensure that the boundaries of the Habbies Howe Homestead, Dropmore Road, Dropmore are consistent with the place listed in the Victorian Heritage Register.

21 MAR 2002

C27 Amends flooding controls in the planning scheme by rezoning land in the Seymour township from Urban Floodway to Residential 1 and Business 4, replacing Floodway Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay mapping with updated mapping, amending strategic directions for flooding in Clause 21.05-1, replacing the Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay Schedules and including a new incorporated document for floodplain management in the Goulburn River precinct.

25 JAN 2006

C28 Introduces a Public Acquisition Overlay to land known as lots 8 APR 2004


Amendment No


8 and 9 LP 6746, Parish of Merriang, County of Bourke (Cameron’s Lane, Beveridge) to enable Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority to acquire the land for reuse by irrigation of reclaimed wastewater from the Wallan Wastewater Management Facility.

C29 Introduces a Public Acquisition Overlay to land known as Lot 1 Title Plan 214423Q (also known as part of lot 8, LP 203106T), 160 Smiths Lane, Broadford to enable Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority to acquire the land for construction of a water storage tank and continued use of the land for water storage purposes.

3 JUL 2003

C31 Rezones most of the land to the east of the railway line from Junction Road to Dry Creek Road from a Township Zone to a Low Density Residential Zone; rezones Arkells Lane Road Reserve from a Road Zone Category 1 to a Rural Zone; rezones Lot 1 PS307611K Parish of Bylands from a Low Density Residential Zone to a Business 1 Zone; rezones part of the land along Dry Creek Road land zoned Township Zone to a Public Park and Recreation Zone – drainage reserve; and rezones land at part CA 9 Sec E, (part Lots 1 & 2 PS307611K), part CA 10, 11 & 12 Sec E, (CP 105049) & CA 9A Sec E, (Lot 2 LP222493A) from a Rural Zone to a Low Density Residential Zone.

26 FEB 2004

C32 Replaces existing and introduces new Wildfire Management Overlay to align building and planning fire risk mapping.

14 DEC 2006

C33 Corrects a mapping anomaly in the planning scheme by rezoning the property known as 5 Railway Court Kilmore (shown on Title as Vol. 10065 Fol. 539), from the Public Use Zone 2 – Education to the Residential 1 Zone.

25 MAR 2004

C34 Rezones areas of private land on the northern edge of the Broadford Golf Course in Davidson Street, Broadford (described as Part Lot 3, PS 448279) from Public Use 7 to Residential 1 and land in the north-western section of the golf course (described as Lot 1, PS 442014) from Residential 1 to Public Use 7 (Other Public Use).

28 OCT 2004

C35 Rezones the former VicRoads depot land on the western side of Goulburn Valley Highway, south of Lighthorse Drive and north of Telegraph Road, Seymour (described as Lot 1, PS 206896S, Certificate of Title Volume 9749 Folio 913) from Public Conservation and Resource Zone to Industrial 1 Zone.

31 JAN 2008

C37 Deletes Schedules 2 and 3 to the SLO as they apply to public land and removes the Department of Sustainability and Environment as a referral authority in Schedule 2 to the SLO.

19 MAY 2005

C39 Undertakes technical changes and procedural improvements to overlays by amending and deleting maps for the Environmental Significance Overlay and Erosion Management Overlay, amending Vegetation Protection Overlay maps, changing the status of the municipal land capability study from an incorporated document to a reference document, amending Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the Environmental

22 OCT 2009


Amendment No


Significance Overlay, deleting Schedule 4 to the Environmental Significance Overlay, amending Schedules 1 and 2 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay, amending Schedules 1 and 2 to the Significant Landscape Overlay and amending the Schedule to the Erosion Management Overlay.

C40 Makes corrective and procedural changes to the Mitchell Planning Scheme by: Correcting zone anomalies in Pyalong, Tallarook, Seymour, Kilmore, Broadford, Wandong – Heathcote Junction and Bylands; Amending the Heritage Overlay 71 notation in Piper Street, Kilmore; Deleting the Incorporated Plan Overlay from the State Motorcycle Sports Complex near Broadford; Applying the Environmental Audit Overlay to 56-58 First Street, Broadford; Correcting Development Plan Overlay 1 references to land in northern and southern Wallan to DPO 8 and 9 respectively; Amending Clauses 21.05 and 21.06 to make minor department name corrections; Amending Clause 22.01 to update the list of ‘adopted studies, strategies and other council documents’ (policy documents) that apply to the Mitchell Planning Scheme; Amending Clause 22.03 to make minor department name changes and update reference to the Septic Tank Code of Practice, Publication 891, March 2003; Amending Clause 22.06 to correctly reference the Clause 22.06- 3 title; Allowing outbuildings up to 100 square metres without a permit in the Low Density Residential Zone; Allowing extensions to dwellings up to 150 square metres without a permit and permit requirement for a building within specified setbacks in the Rural Living Zone; Providing for no permits for use or development on public land owned by the Department of Sustainability and Environment in accordance with a management plan in the Public Use Zone, Public Park and Recreation Zone and Public Conservation and Resource Zone; Including ‘market’, ‘primary produce sales’, ‘restaurant’ and ‘take away food premises’ as uses that require permits in Schedules 2, 3 and 4 to the Special Use Zone; Amending Schedules 1 (Residential 1 Zone), 2 (Low Density Residential Zone) and 7 (Rural Living Zone) to the Development Plan Overlay to provide a more detailed performance based approach to guide future layout, servicing and development; Amending Schedules 4 (Wallan), 8 (Wallan Part Crown Portion A, 625 Northern Highway, Wallan Development Plan) and 9 (Wallan South West Development Plan) to the Development Plan Overlay to delete existing development plans in the schedules, make minor department name

23 OCT 2008


Amendment No


changes and delete incorrect subdivision requirements; Amending the Schedules to the Floodway Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay to provide additional exemptions from planning permits for minor buildings and works.

C43 Removes the Heritage Overlay 85 (HO85) in part from areas with no built form heritage significance at 39 Sutherland Street, Kilmore (Assumption College), known as Lot 4 PS501303 in part and all of Portion 9 Parish of Bylands.

5 MAR 2009

C45 Proposes to insert three new Schedules to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO) and associated planning scheme mapping. The purpose of this amendment is to designate a helicopter flight path protection area for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) helicopters operating at the Kilmore and Seymour District Hospitals.

Panel report received early 2012.

C47 Amends the Mitchell Planning Scheme to facilitate the future upgrade of Hume Freeway and access restoration roads between Kalkallo and Beveridge.

13 AUG 2009

C48 Introduces the Rural Conservation and Farming Zones into the Scheme and rezones all land in the Environmental Rural Zone to the Rural Conservation Zone and all land in the Rural Zone to the Farming Zone. The Environmental Rural Zone and Rural Zone are deleted from the Scheme.

2 AUG 2007

C50 Introduces the Mitchell Shire Gaming Policy Framework, October 2007 as a ‘reference document’ at Clause 22.01 and introduces a local Gaming Policy at Clause 22.07, amends Clause 21.05-2 Economic Development to include reference to the Gaming Policy, amends Clause 21.06 to require monitoring and review of gaming machine numbers and specifies shopping areas within the schedules at Clauses 52.28-3 and 52.28-4 where gaming machines are prohibited.

24 JUN 2010

C52 Amends Clauses 21.05, 22.01, 22.02, 22.03, 22.06 to include the Mitchell Shire Domestic Wastewater Management Plan Final Report, RMCG, November 2006 and accompanying assessment tools document into the Mitchell Planning Scheme to guide domestic wastewater disposal and management in the municipality.

15 JAN 2009

C53 Amends the Schedule to the Public Conservation and Resource Zone, amends Schedule 3 to the Environmental Significance Overlay, amends Schedules 1 and 2 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay, amends Schedule 2 to the Significant Landscape Overlay and amends the Schedule to the Erosion Management Overlay, Salinity Management Overlay, Floodway Overlay, Significant Landscape Overlay and Clause 52.17 Native Vegetation to facilitate the construction of the Broadford Water Supply Project.

13 MAR 2008

C54 Proposes to correct a number of identified anomalies and errors within the Mitchell Planning Scheme including minor corrections to zones, overlay and other parts of the planning

Exhibited November 2011 – submissions to be considered by


Amendment No


scheme. Council.

C57 Applies the Public Acquisition Overlay to the land at Part Crown Allotment 3, Section 3, Parish of Tooborac, Lot 1 on TP 875118F (formerly part Crown Allotment 3, Section 3, Parish of Tooborac), Crown Allotment 2, Section 3, Parish of Tooborac and Lot 2 on TP 865152M (formerly Crown Allotment 12A, Section 3, Parish of Tooborac) known as 50 Middle Springs Road, Tooborac to enable Coliban Water to acquire the site of the Tooborac Water Storage Facility and associated easements.

10 SEP 2009

C58 Rezones Lot 18 and part of Lots 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83 Donaldson Drive Broadford from Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) to the Residential 1 Zone (R1Z), and rezones Council Land RES NO. 3 PS 524111U Donaldson Drive Broadford from Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) to Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ).

16 OCT 2008

C63 Corrects a mapping anomaly to HO53 - the Former Primitive Methodist Church, (Masonic Hall), at 13 – 15 Bourke Street, Kilmore.

11 DEC 2008

C65 Removes redundant flooding overlays from the East Wallan industrial precinct and applies the Flood Overlay to the land in part.

22 JUL 2010

C66 Introduces Clause 43.02 Design & Development Overlay and schedule 3 to Clause 43.02 to facilitate the co-existence of accommodation and horse stables on land within the north east township area of Kilmore

27 MAY 2010

C67 Preliminary investigation only into Significant Landscape Overlay for volcanic cones

Council resolved not to proceed 10 OCT 2010

C68 Nominates the Minister for Planning as the Responsible Authority for issuing Planning Certificates in the Schedule to Clause 61.01’

17 SEP 2009

C70 Rezones land at 14 Pioneer Street, Tallarook from Public Conservation and Resource Zone to Township Zone.

6 AUG 2009

C73 Implements Section 48 of the Heritage Act 1995 to ensure that places in the Planning Scheme are consistently identified with places in the Victorian Heritage Register.

27 AUG 2009

C71 Removes the Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO2) and Salinity Management Overlay from stage 1 of the Wallara Waters residential estate, Wallan East.

21 JUL 2011

C74 Introduces schedule 5 to Clause 43.02 to facilitate the co-existing use of accommodation and horse stables on land within the south east township area of Seymour.

25 NOV 2010

C75 Preliminary investigation only into Significant Landscape Overlay for hilltops and ridgelines


C78 Preliminary investigation only into Significant Landscape Overlay for the McHarg Ranges


C79 Implement a number of the recommended actions included exhibited


Amendment No


in the Kilmore Strategy Plan June 2008 by rezoning land and applying overlays to various parcels of land to guide the future development of the Kilmore township and environs.

C80 Rezones 30 and 70 Rowes Lane, Wallan to Residential 1 and Rural Living Zones and include this land within the Development Plan Overlay and two planning permits for subdivision of 203 and 70 lots.

Council has requested Ministerial Amendment (S96A)

C81 Incorporates the Lockerbie Precinct Structure Plan, Lockerbie Development Contributions Plan, Lockerbie Native Vegetation Precinct Plan into the Mitchell Planning Scheme and makes a range of other changes to the scheme to implement these documents.

Draft amendment exhibited by the GAA

C82 Incorporates the Lockerbie North Precinct Structure Plan, Lockerbie North Development Contributions Plan, Lockerbie North Native Vegetation Precinct Plan into the Mitchell Planning Scheme and makes a range of other changes to the scheme to implement these documents.

Draft amendment exhibited by the GAA

C83 Amends the schedule to Clause 52.17 to insert the Goulburn-Murray Water Code of Practice, February 2011 as a Utility installation code of practice. A planning permit is not required to remove destroy or lop native vegetation that accords with the Goulburn-Murray Water Code of Practice, February 2011.

29 MAR 2012

C84 Amendment C84 proposes to introduce site specific controls and exclusions at Clause 52.03 of the Mitchell Planning Scheme. The proposed specific controls will facilitate the development of a medical centre and associated pharmacy on a specific site within the Business 4 Zone land of Wallan. Amendment C84 has been prepared by the Minister for Planning, in accordance with section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and is considered to be a Ministerial Amendment.

23 FEB 2012


APPENDIX 2 CONSULTATION


Councillor briefing (19 September 2011)

Issues raised by Councillors are summarised below.

Medium density housing

The amenity impacts of medium density housing. Identifying appropriate medium density development sites. The influx of units in Wallan

Towns

Protecting the individual identities of the town. Establishing town boundaries. Facilitating the growth of Seymour and its role as a ‘regional capital’

Rural Living

Identifying areas for the LDRZ (particularly in the south) Smaller rural lifestyle blocks enable better land management Managing rural living aspirations (Many new residents are from Melbourne and

aspire to a rural/country lifestyle but oppose farming practices)

Infrastructure/funding

Lack of ‘infrastructure’ strategies that can be fed into DCP processes.


Workshop with Council planning staff (19 September 2011)

Planning and process issues raised by Council planning staff are summarised below.

Rural/Farming Issues

Lack of a Rural Strategy There is no budget or commitment to prepare a Rural Strategy.

Dwellings in the FZ

Pressure for dwellings Need for consistent application of the requirement for ‘whole of farm plans’ Number of existing crown allotments. Introduction of the FZ did not reduce the pressure for dwellings.

Subdivision in the FZ

Need for more policy guidance. Excisions are being refused Introduction of the FZ did not reduce the pressure for subdivision

RLZ has been used to provide for rural living and there is a strategy to provide more.

Lack of policy guidance for development along the freeway.

Need to control the use of shipping containers.

Regular enforcement action to deal with native vegetation clearance.

Wallan

Pressure for growth Lack of current policy/direction for growth in the scheme Existing Structure Plan is outdated Draft Structure Plan (2009) yet to be adopted (has been overtaken by the ‘Logical

Inclusions’ process)

Kilmore

Residential subdivision pressures Declining population Structure Plan amendment (C79) referred to a Planning Panel to consider

submissions.

Seymour

People are retiring to Seymour from local farms and from Melbourne. Opportunities associated with the railway line and the hospital.

Tallarook

Opportunities associated with art and cultural events

Broadford

Limited local employment Some residential subdivision activity, but the population is not growing

Wandong/Heathcote Junction


No services Limited capacity for growth

MSS

MSS is of limited use in considering applications

Limited use of Clauses 21.02 and 21.03

Very general content

Conflicting provisions

Limited guidance for towns

- Structure Plans are outdated - Very little relevant content - The towns need individual objectives and strategies - The towns need urban design guidelines

LPPs

Limited use of 22.02-1 (Planning Evaluation Guidelines) (treated as a list of reference documents)

22.03-5 (Land Capability and Catchment & Land Protection) - applies dated ’land capability mapping’

22.03-6 (Mt William Archaeological Area) - important site but LPP might not be needed in light of zone and overlay controls.

22.03-7 (Puckapunyal Military Base and Surrounds) – not used

22.03-8 (Site 17) important site but LPP might not be needed in light of zone and overlay controls.

22.04-1 (Small Lot Subdivisions in the Farming Zone) – this LPP is used

22.04-3 (Subdued Tones) is only applied in the FZ

22.05-2 (Industrial Development) – this LPP is used

22.06-1 (Residential Infrastructure Requirements) includes standard conditions and is referred to in reports.

Overlays

SMO and EMO are applied in conjunction with LPPs

SMO is used as a ‘de facto’ rural control for issues such as the location of sheds etc

DPOs

many can be removed because DPs have been implemented seemingly indiscriminate application of the DPO 1 and 2

Community

Increasing community awareness of the planning scheme

Subsequent discussions with staff raised the following additional issues.


While permits are triggered for buildings and works in the rural areas under some zones and overlays, there is no consistent requirement for a permit for development within a specified distance of a watercourse.

In the event that an application is triggered and in the event that referral is required, water authorities (GMW etc) typically require a 30m setback from any watercourse (including a drainage line or even a dam). Resort is usually had to the ‘Guidelines for the Protection of Water Quality’ (2001) for assistance. Staff are unclear whether or not this is appropriate and whether or not this document should be relied on given that it has no status in the planning scheme.

Council staff acknowledge that while there are local polices for small lot subdivision and dwellings in its rural areas, these add little to the Farming Zone provisions at Clause 35.07. Council has begun to tie a dwelling with the provision of a whole farm plan but once again this is all outside the planning scheme.

Another recurrent issue in the rural areas is the development and use of ‘sheds’. While a VCAT decision has required that a shed be non habitable, Council receives many requests for legitimate sheds. Council officers consider these structures to be defined as a ‘rural store’ which is a section 2 use in the FZ.

Since ‘dams’ were removed from the schedule to the Farming Zone some years ago, control over them has been left to the Water Act. Council repeatedly sees dams being erected on water courses including on very small blocks of land (RLZ or LDRZ). Both the FZ and RLZ may enable a ‘dam’ to be captured by the earthworks provisions, but this option is not available under the LDRZ.

Presently the scheme is very light on for direction on environmental and biodiversity issues, especially native vegetation. Council officers are looking for more assistance in both a mapping, schedule or policy sense to properly address this issue. DSE mapping of EVC classes may assist as has been done elsewhere (see Ararat).


Meeting with agencies

12 October 2011

DPCD

Logical Inclusions process will have major implications for the planning scheme - this needs to be referenced in the Review Report.

A major planning scheme issue is the need for it to be updated to reflect changing and new circumstances.

DPI, CMA and GAA should be involved in the review process. It was noted that these agencies were invited to the workshop but did not attend.

DSE

EVC mapping has improved significantly since 2003 (the last review) and could be incorporated within the planning scheme.

Fire planning is a key issue. Changes to bushfire provisions are likely to significantly increase the area covered by the fire overlay and will have tighter controls.

Concern about the number and nature of applications referred to DSE under overlays. Discussion about an agreement between DSE and Council that standard conditions be applied in lieu of referral in some circumstances.

Extent of the SMO could be reduced.


One-on-one stakeholder meetings Seymour (25 October 2011)

Issues raised by stakeholders are summarised below.

Rural areas/farming

Subdivision controls are too restrictive; there should be more opportunities/flexibility.

The 80 ha subdivision minima (Seymour) is no longer appropriate and should be reduced (60 ha is adequate for a grazing property).

There should be planning scheme recognition of defacto rural living areas particularly in marginal farming areas (e.g. Tallarook Ranges).

Rural living

More recognition of issues associated with defacto rural living areas (zoned FZ), including zoning, services, rubbish collection, road maintenance (Tallarook Ranges).

Small towns/settlements

There should more recognition of small towns/settlements, particularly where there is existing infrastructure that can be utilised.

Seymour

The Seymour Structure Plan is outdated and should be reviewed/replaced, particularly in light of:

the opportunities (and investment) associated with the levee bank,

the tourism opportunities (proposed precinct) associated with the river.

Need to protect environmental and landscape values.

Changing demand for housing types – smaller houses and gardens, higher quality.

There is a shortage of choice in new residential development/subdivision.

Opportunities to reinforce and expand the medical precinct.

Equine industry is a major opportunity.

There is a need for a community centre.

Heritage buildings are being lost.

Kilmore

There is no longer a discernible heritage character along the main street

Future development should be to the west of the town.

Economic Development

Opportunities associated with having a university in the municipality.


One-on-one stakeholder meetings Kilmore (25 October 2011)


Wandong

Urgent need to update the Structure Plan.

Need for more LDR and R1Z on the edge of the town of Wandong

Prepare a new Structure Plan for Wandong and Heathcote Junction.

Some tension between demands for new housing on the one hand and keeping the ‘village’ feel of the town on the other.

A lot of commuters to Melbourne and the railway car park is regularly full.

The Wandong/HJ Structure Plan process went nowhere.

Wallan

DOT looking to a new inter modal freight terminal and one of the candidates is Wallan.

Need clear direction on the future of the train station environment at Wallan irrespective of the DOT outcome.

Extra people in Wallan will continue to apply pressure on services.

The Wallan SP is also not completed.

Wallan SP cannot get approved because of the UGB

Through street connectivity is very poor in Wallan.

Existing Wallan SP in the MPS is of no use.

The Craigieburn by-pass was the impetus for considerable change in Wallan.

Wallara Waters has already flooded and is on a swamp and other estates are planned on similar ground. Wallara Waters made little contribution to the town.

Wallan should not extend further east of the rail line for environmental reasons.

Wallan has not been properly planned

Mitchell 2020

Mitchell 2020 is not available to the community and people don’t know what is in it.

2020 must link to the MSS then policies, strategies etc.

General

Council needs to get some fundamentals clear in the MPS.

Council needs direct MPS initiatives such as controls and overlays, subdivision responses rather than just left as meaningless policy statements.

Council doesn’t back up its good intentions with decent planning controls. For instance DPO1 and DPO2 all have nice ambitions but leave you none the wiser about what it seeks.

Unless the Council can fast track their structure plans the market will simply not wait and ad hoc development will take place.


Council needs a strong MSS position that they welcome development but not at any cost.

Typical outcome is 300sqm sites with no room to move and this means there is limited housing diversity.

The market is first home buyers and young families (and some elderly).

VCAT commented that Council has let the community down on lack of direction in the MPS.

Kilmore

Kilmore Structure Plan is out of date.

Confusion about the status of the KSP. Where is it at?

Highgate Road should be extended through to the Hume Hwy instead of forcing people through residential areas.

Poor connections from the east side into the town.

No vehicular or pedestrian connections.

By pass of Kilmore is a major issue.

The by-pass preference is to the east.

Traffic through the town is excessive.

Failure to have a contemporary structure plan is inhibiting Kilmore’s growth.

Amendment C79 is dealing with numerous sites in Kilmore for rezoning in a piece-meal manner

Council is to be commended on the work it has done on Kilmore Creek through the town.

The town growth is not aligned with infrastructure services.

Kilmore East is not really addressed at all – it needs the critical mass around the rail station.

Kilmore heritage

Strong heritage friction in Kilmore with heritage versus growth.

The main street of Kilmore is really disappointing.

Need for more tourism direction and encouragement and this can be linked with the heritage assets.

Need for stronger heritage and design controls on the main street.

Heritage considerations are lacking in the planning scheme

A really critical issue is the need to have better heritage policies to acknowledge the role that this has played in the growth and development of the Shire.

Town should become a tourist town for its heritage assets and this could only occur if the town is free of traffic such as the case in Piper Street Kyneton.


Rural issues

The planning scheme needs to implement innovation and flexibility especially for excisions.

Council is very strict on excisions.

Need for more rural living, LDRZ and excisions.

There are demands for people to have a small house in Melbourne and a small farm in Kilmore because of its accessibility.

Only 16 viable farms in the Mitchell Shire.

There are many parcels zoned for RLZ or LDRZ but the owners don’t want to develop them.

Support for independent living estates in a rural setting like previously supported under the Cluster Titles Act where the bulk of the land is actively farmed.

Environmental issues

Lack of concern for the environment in the MPS.

Poor social and environmental assessment of planning applications.

All concrete and no vegetation.

Environmental issues not addressed properly.

Light on for environmental controls including creeks and volcanic cones. These are regional assets that need to be linked.


One-on-one meetings Broadford (26 October 2011)


Rural areas/farming

Should be more subdivision opportunities to enable on-farm retirement, succession planning, and recapitalisation.

Council should be more supportive of applications related to on-farm retirement, succession planning, and recapitalisation

Inconsistent application of the FZ provisions by Council planners.

‘Whole Farm Plans’ are a positive requirement but not adequately assessed by Council.

Rural living

More recognition of issues associated with defacto rural living areas (zoned FZ) (eg Sugarloaf Creek, north of Reedy Creek)

Broadford

Need to implement the Broadford Open Space Strategy when adopted and to update the Broadford Structure Plan.

The Place Management Strategy should be implemented.

Broadford Structure Plan should be revised/updated.

Mitchell 2020

Should be the Shire’s overarching strategic document.

Environment

Planning scheme should address issues such as peak oil, climate change.

Biodiversity decline, particularly net loss of vegetation, gradual extinction, need for biolinks and bigger patches of retained vegetation.

Environment Strategy doesn’t address all of the issues and needs to be implemented.

MSS

The MSS needs to include a new ‘vision’ and it should be given more prominence in the Planning Scheme.

‘Transition Towns’ initiative should be reflected in the MSS.

Small towns/settlements

Reedy Creek should be zoned TZ rather than FZ and have an opportunity for further subdivision/development (it was zoned township in earlier schemes, has services, 24 houses) In contrast Tyaak is zoned FZ but has far fewer houses.

Wallan

Needs a bigger town centre to cater for population growth.

Wandong/Heathcote junction

Increasing number of planning issues – Structure Plan is needed as a priority.


One-on-one meetings Wallan (26 October 2011)


Wandong

The population has not grown at all in Wandong over the last twenty years and commercial owners cannot grow their businesses.

Wandong needs to grow so that the critical mass is there for businesses to grow.

Population growth is needed to support the primary school and the football club.

Need to balance growth in Wandong with its ‘village’ feel.

Wandong has all the facilities but not the people.

The Wandong SP is still some way off – they are not first in the queue.

Highest and best use around the town is no longer farming land.

They have been kept out of the 2020 vision discussions.

Some see that there is a real north/side divide in the Shire.

Review the Wandong Heathcote Junction Structure Plan as a matter of urgency

Wallan

Big blocks in the north east part of Wallan will be developed.

Council needs to have an orderly process in place for this area.

The area will be redeveloped but it needs a development plan overlay and infrastructure needs to be considered.

They want to be proactive and positive by urging Council to prepare a DPO for this area to address density and infrastructure issues such as the drainage problems in this area.

Prepare DPO for the large lots north east of Wallan.

The SP in the MPS is out of date.

Mitchell 2020

Confusion about the status of Mitchell 2020. Where is it at?

General

Planning is developer led, not Council led.

Council reacts to developer initiatives.

Heritage policy is lacking.

Design controls are lacking.

Directions for medium density growth are not there.

Poor direction on side and rear setbacks.

Insufficient space for planting in any of the units and this is not environmentally sustainable.

Lack of attention to wildfire issues especially to the west.


Review after review is being done and nothing changes. This has been the case for a generation.

Councillors get in the way of planning issues.

No monitoring or KPIs in the PS.

No link between the MSS and the implementation on the ground

Broadford and Seymour get more attention than the south.

The community is suffering from ‘submission fatigue’.

Council needs to place design and development overlays on all underdeveloped residential land.

Better standard of applications are needed.

Councillors need re-education.

Need for community hubs and neighbourhood house.

Better use of overlays needed on all residential land.

Need for more low cost housing, smaller and more efficient.

The planning department and the Council must use the SPPF and lift the standard of applications.

Kilmore

Kilmore will move south however there needs to be a clear green natural break between Kilmore and Wallan.

Kilmore SP cannot proceed until the by-pass is approved.

The biggest issue is to get the trucks off the main street.

Through street connectivity is very poor in Kilmore.

Nothing is likely to advance in Kilmore until the by-pass is resolved.

Heritage and design along the main street are critical.

Council should enforce its planning scheme and make people look after their properties.

Lack of pride in some properties in the town but there are many underutilised or vacant sites including in the main street.

Review the Kilmore Structure Plan based on the bypass outcome.

Heritage

Confusion about the status of the Heritage Study. Where is it at?

They need clarity and certainty in the SPs and not meaningless words.

Open Space

Open space reserves along creeks need to be about 100m wide to facilitate habitat access.

No proper town by town open space analysis.


Inadequate open space and sporting facilities in Wallan.

Public open space – there is no use of Clause 52.01

Infrastructure funding

When Council rezones land they do not bargain properly.

No developer contributions in the scheme.

Council has a lack of clout in requesting developer contributions and they are passing on debts to the future.

Need for development plan overlays to specify side and rear setbacks and site coverage for units and housing.

Need for Developer Contributions Plans.

Rural issues

Support for environmentally sustainable dwellings in the FZ.

Concern about lack of subdivision, excision and dwelling potential.

Very restrictive controls in the farming areas.

No direction in the scheme about excisions or dwellings on small lots including old crown allotments.

No direction on rural living and small lots.

Need for a rural living strategy including to pick up on old crown allotments.

Need for a small towns strategy for Clonbinnane, Reedy Creek and Tallarook.

Environmental issues

Merri Creek committee have done some good work and this could be absorbed.

The five hills in the Shire need to be protected.

Sustainability and climate change are ignored – it is a car based municipality.

Not enough attention paid to flooding of Merri Creek

No regional attempt to link the important regional river system in the shire that all converge in the central part of the shire.

No use of Clause 52.10

The geology of the area needs reference in the MSS.

Numerous environmental references in the MSS are incorrect such as the Axe quarry.

The scheme is weak on environment and doesn’t take account of biodiversity corridors along old roads such as Old Sydney Road or its critical position biodiversity links at the junction of five creeks and the Great Dividing Range.

ESO3 is mapped in a bizarre manner.

ESOs are needed all along waterways.

Need for ESOs along creeks.

VPOs needed along roadsides.


Need for SLOs on the five hills, the old volcanic cones – which are so critical to the Shire.

Need for DSE mapping of EVC areas.

Town entrances must be protected from big box development a need for a DDO.

Transition Towns Initiative Mitchell

Climate Change

Peak Oil

Urban Design and the lack of linkages and open space and local services.

Importance of house orientation and avoiding overshadowing.

Need for environmental overlays.

Need for more variety in buildings; rammed earth, straw bales, corrugated iron, kit homes etc

Council needs to hold more land for public use.

Allow food production in front yards.

Need for seven star energy efficiency.

Link bike and walking tracks.

Develop strong MSS positions and back this up with zones and overlays

Clonbinnane

Clonbinnane has the FZ and the SMO.

Numerous one acre blocks that date to the early 1920s.

There were 3000 people there at one stage.

Went to sell one of the blocks but as it was in the FZ it was knocked back. Went to VCAT and got knocked back. VCAT P2795/10

It is not farming land in the township.

Boundary realignment refused.

The biggest problem is the farming zone.


Written Submissions

Council invited stakeholders to comment in writing on the operation of the MPS. Approximately 30 submissions were received. This section summarise the key elements of the written submissions. Submission reference numbers are in brackets.

Community Submissions

Seymour

Lack of quality housing in Seymour for purchase and rent. (1, 9)

Need to construct the levee bank (1, 8)

Lack of promotion of Seymour (1, 8, 9)

Kilmore

Inadequate road system (6)

Restrictions on heritage buildings are not practical, need an overall plan for heritage respiration of the town. (6)

Poor traffic access/flows. (6)

Rezone the ‘old pine plantation’ for ‘50 – 100 acre hobby farms’. (6)

Need to complete heritage overlay. (16)

Proposed bypass routes will be devastating for the town. (16)

Need a Structure Plan. (18)

Kilmore’s main street needs to be improved, particularly the heritage character. (27)

Broadford

Prepare a Broadford Structure Plan as a matter of urgency. (23)

Wallan

Lack of strategic direction, particularly associated with locating medium/high density development. (7)

VPOs and ESO3 are incomplete for Wallan. (7)

Need to include references to Wallan’s natural assets, the provision and connectivity of POS, more sporting grounds, service for young people, town centre boundaries, parking, street connectivity. (7)

Wallan should be brought within the Melbourne UGB. (10)

Range of issues, including character, ad hoc development, developer driven development, land banking, poor subdivision design, lack of Structure Plan, lack of POS and community facilities. (17)

Apply DDOs over the southern entrance, town centre and northern entrance. (17)

Apply DPOs on private land through which Merri Creek tributaries flow. (17)

No more building in Hadfield Park. (17)

Wallan Community Park needs a special overlay to protect it. (17)


ESOs should be applied to all waterways. (17)

Neighbourhood character needs to be protected. (17)

Additional POS via Clause 52.01. (17)

Need a Structure Plan. (18, 24)

Need provision for future schools. (18)

Need cohesive B1Z along High Street. (18)

Need adequate provision on bulky goods. (18)

Need extra supply of B1Z and B4Z. (18)

Wallan needs a DCP to ensure adequate services/infrastructure are in place. (24)

Wandong-Heathcote Junction

There are opportunities for residential growth in appropriate locations (east of Dry Creek) that will take advantage of existing infrastructure. (28)

Various zoning changes are required, including applying the LDRZ to the Sunnyglen subdivision, the R1Z to the north of the old township (Rail Street/Wandong-Broadford Road). (29)

Reedy Creek

Should be zoned TZ to reflect existing development, past zoning. (20)

Southern area of the Shire

LPPF lacks detail and the overlays are incomplete. (7)

MPS should recognise that the southern half of the Shire is not farming land – it is ‘country living’. (10)

Strategy Plans for towns should be fast-tracked and implemented befire more land is approved for development. (16)

Northern area of the Shire

Inadequate consideration given to the growth potential of the northern area of the Shire. (12)

Small towns

The Overlays affecting areas around small townships should be modified to give protection from fire and to allow for transitional development. (10)

Towns

Structure Plans should be prepared for all settlements. (13,19, )

Need to protect appearance of towns. (17)

Establish growth boundaries. (19)

DDOs should be applied to townships. (19)

Public Open Space

POS contribution should be maximised/increased (up to 10%). (7, 13, 15, 19)


Need to protect and provide new POS, including 200m wide links between parks, 1,000ha regional park between Wallan and Beveridge. (13)

Parks should be provided in older residential areas that don’t have any. (16)

Open Space Strategies are needed for each town e.g. Broadford Township Open Space Strategy. (19)

Stormwater retention basins and other facilities could not be included in the calculation of POS. (19)

Agriculture/Farming Land

Opposition to cattle grazing next to residential development (3)

MPS should recognise that the southern half of the Shire is not farming land (10)

Need to designate prime agricultural land that is near townships for ‘local food production’. (11)

FZ subdivision minima should be reduced to 8 – 16 ha (particularly the 80 ha minimum around Seymour. (12)

High quality agricultural land should be protected. (13, 19)

Horticultural industries should be supported around Seymour. (19)

Need to provide buffers between towns/small rural lots and farms/agriculture.

Need to resolve land use conflicts between agricultural use and ‘lifestyle’ uses. (24)

Agricultural land should be preserved. (24)

Landscape

Need to preserve landscape values. (13)

SLO should be applied to Green Hill, Spring Hill, Mt Fraser, Bald Hill, the top of Pretty Sally Hill and the Old Sydney Road ridgeline. (17)

SLO should be applied to Four Hills around Wallan and Pretty Sally. (19)

Rezone rail trails to PPRZ and apply VPOs. (19)

Waterways

ESO3 should be applied to all waterways (particularly the Merri Creek). (17)

Merri Creek at Wallan should have a wide floodplain overlay with no development. (19)

ESO3 should be remapped to address its deficiencies. (19)

ESO3 exemptions should be revised to protect waterways from agricultural activities. (19)

Additional protection should be provided to Hughes Creek and Strathaird Creek east of Wallan. (19)

Significance of the Merri Creek is not reflected in the MSS. (21)

An ESO (consistent worth the ESOs in Hume, Darebin, Moreland and Yarra) should be applied to the Merri Creek and its tributaries. (21)


Environment

Various areas/features need protection for example: conservations reserves, Hughes Creek, Whiteheads Creek, and Granite Park (13)

Need to ensure consistency between bushfire provisions and vegetation protection provisions. (15, 19)

The environment is undervalued in the MSS. (17)

Need to protect biodiversity and wildlife corridors. (17)

VPO or ESO should be applied to the Wallan to Beveridge railway reserve.

Council should develop a biolinks plan with the CMA, DSE and DPI. (19)

VPOs should be more extensively applied to existing native vegetation. (19)

Rural Conservation Zone should be more extensively applied. (19)

There should be further restrictions on dams. (19)

ESO should be applied to remnant bushland and waterways between Clancy Road and Tootle Street in Kilmore, including parts of Natures Run, and Strathaird Creek in Wallan. (19)

Heritage

Heritage conservation should be given more prominence. (24)

Residential Development

Neighbourhood Character Overlays should be introduced. (16)

Lots sizes in subdivisions need to be more varied. (16)

R1Z should include requirements in the schedule. (17)

Various recommendations relating to future residential development. (19)

Rural Residential Development

FZ subdivision minima should be reduced to allow self-sufficient rural residential development on lots of 20 – 40 acres. (12)

Demand for Rural Living under 40ha. (12)

Change FZ to RLZ around Seymour, Trawool and Tallarook and encourage increased population. (12)

Rural living and low density residential subdivisions should only occur where building envelopes can be provided on cleared land. (19)

MPS should provide for alternative styles of rural living eg ‘strata title’. (19)

Rural lifestyle lots (20 – 50 acres) should be zoned to provide flexibility of use. (20)

Rural lots under 20 ha with services, made roads etc should be zoned RLZ. (22)

Rural living and low density residential development should be limited – it is incompatible with rural amenity, landscape values. (24)


Rural living development opportunity to the south east of Kilmore. (25 various landowners)

The FZ is too restrictive for defacto rural residential lots. (26)

Opportunities for rural living adjacent to Kilmore, Broadford and Wandong. (27)

There should be increased use of the RLZ and LDRZ. (27)

There should be more flexibility when considering the excision of house lots from rural properties. (27)

Tourism

Planning should allow flexibility for tourism development. (27)

Infrastructure

DCPs should be prepared to ensure adequate community facilities are provided/funded. (19)

The prohibition on wind farms should be reviewed. (19)

Transport

Poor traffic access/flows (6)

Need expansion and diversity of train options. (19)

Need improved interconnectedness between transport nodes. (19)

Process Issues

Amendments to residential planning permits should be advertised. (16)

Environmental Overlays should be reviewed every 10 years. (10)

Strategic Issues

Lack of vision (1)

Need to plan for 15-50 years ahead (10)

Planning needs to be holistic (10)

MPS should address issues such as resource scarcity, climate change and economic instability. (11, 13, 15)

Over regulation is inhibiting growth. (12)

Wallan should be amalgamated with the southern metropolitan municipality. (12)

Need to ensure that the MPS is consistent with all Council documents/policies. (14)

MPS should form part of the hierarchy of strategic documents, and draw its vision from Mitchell 2020. (15)

Strategic reports should be adequately resources and actioned. (15)

MPS is outdated. (18)

Principles of sustainability are not adequately expressed in the MPS. (19)

MPS needs to be regularly updated and revised. (19)


Council should work closely with adjoining Councils. (19)

Increase innovation and flexibility in planning decisions for new development. (27)

Flexibility has been restricted by lack of Council imagination and vision. (27)

MPS should more explicitly seek to protect and improve the health and wellbeing of the community. (27)

Documents/Policies that should be implemented in the MPS

Need to implement the Recreation and Open Space Strategy (2005), Wallan Structure Plan (2007) and Mitchell South Place Management Plan (2006) (15)

Need to implement the Sustainable Resource Management Strategy, 2011. (19)

Need to implement Towards Sustainable Neighbourhoods report, and Communities in Transition Program. (19)

Need to implement Goulburn Broken and Port Phillip and Westernport CMA strategies, Taylors Creek Strategic Plan, Broadford Recreation and Open Space strategy, Rural Roadside Code of Practice, Street Trees Guidelines, Sustainable Resources Management Strategy, Merri Creek and Environs Strategy. (19)

Need for Council top adopt the Broadford Open Space Strategy and implement it via the MPS. (23)

Mitchell Council planning service

Inadequate planning staff, need for staff training (8)

Lack of staff (18)

Improve communication with community about planning issues/projects. (6)

Planning and building permits need to be fast-tracked. (9, 18)

Need continuity of planning staff. (10)

4 year review is good – outcomes should be followed up in 12 months and reported to community. (12)

Difficult to access planners. (16)

Staff should better understand the MPS and adopt a position of supporting for employment related development. (18)

Better management of statutory and strategic planning. (18)

MSS

Needs to be updated. (13)

Need to link the MSS with Mitchell 2020. (14, 17)

The MSS is poorly structured, inconsistent headings etc. (14)

Needs to reflect the community’s aspirations and protect and enhance residential development while supporting growth. (16)

Too general, open to wide interpretation. (17)


Clause 21.02 needs to be expanded and updated to better reflect environmental context. (17)

Clause 21.03 needs to be updated to include latest census data, recent planning decisions/polices, new issues etc (17)

Clause 21.05 needs to be expanded to better cover environmental issues/values (17)

LPPs

General concern that the LPPs are not strong enough i.e. should use the term ‘must’. (17)

22.06-3 (Highway environs) No dense housing estates should abut the Hume Freeway. (17)

22.03-4 (Hilltop and ridgeline protection) replace ‘should’ with ‘must’, or apply a SLO. (19)

Corrections/anomalies

Southern part of the shire is mostly in the Merri catchment, not the Maribyrnong catchment. (7)

Mitchell Shire Council Environment Advisory Committee advised of a number of public land zoning and overlay anomalies/inaccuracies/issues. (19)

Various open space zonings in Broadford should be corrected. (23)

Agencies

Department of Transport

Suggested changes to Clause 22.06-2 (Roads Construction and Access)

Melbourne Water

Seeks a waterway specific MSS policy addressing: ‘waterway protection, riparian setbacks, stormwater quality, stormwater harvesting, protection of riparian vegetation and development near waterways’. (4)

Seeks more and strengthened LPPs addressing riparian setbacks, appropriate waterway rehabilitation, vegetation protection and stormwater quality, sedimentation and development. (4)

‘Pressure points for development’ include: Upper Boyd Creek forested catchment; upper Merri Creek; locations with highly erodible soils, illegal clearing of native vegetation. (4)

Council should provide incentives to landowners to protect flora and fauna values. Council maintained gravel rods should be better designed to protect waterways. (4)

Goulburn-Murray Water

Clause 21.05-1 (Natural Resources and the Environment) – various additional material should be included. (5)

Clause 21.05-3 (Settlement) – various additional material should be included. (5)

Clause 22.03-1 (Effluent disposal and water quality) – range of issues that are covered should be expanded, should include updated references to new policy documents. (5)


Clause 22.04 (Development in the Farming Zone) – should consider other impacts on water quality, for example, creation of small lots. (5)

Clause 22.06-1 (Residential infrastructure requirements) – application report should include WSUD requirements. (5)

ESO2 – should apply to all areas within the Lake Eppalock Special Water Supply Catchment, should include decision guidelines (eg Bendigo ESO3), various referrals should be ‘scheduled out’. (5)

ESO3 – should apply to all major waterways and be wide enough e.g. 50m. (5)

DPO1 (Residential) – unsure why it has been applied, need to update document references, should include waterway setbacks. (5)

DPO2 (Low Density Residential) - unsure why it has been applied, need to update document references should include waterway setbacks. (5)

DPO7 (Rural Living Zone) - unsure why it has been applied, need to update document references. (5)

Referral agreement – unnecessary referrals should be scheduled out of ESO2, draft agreement provided that should be an Incorporated Document. (5)

Include ‘Guidelines for the Protection of Water Quality, North East Planning Referrals Committee, 2000’ as an Incorporated Document. (5)


Written Submissions on the Consultation Report (January 2012)

The Consultation Report was exhibited over February and March 2012 and attracted 22 submissions. Most of the submissions supported the findings and recommendations of the Consultation Report. In particular, there was general support for updating and preparing new Structure Plans for various towns, preparing a Rural Areas Strategy and implementing new or updated controls to protect the environment. A recurring theme in many submissions was the need for more public open space, including a regional park to the south of Wallan.

The following tables outline the submissions that were received and the responses provided by the consultants.

Submission 1

Agrees with the Review Report findings in relation to Wallan and highlights a number of issues relating to the future growth of Wallan that need to be addressed through planning for the northern corridor and the Wallan Structure Plan.

Response

The submission is noted.

Recommendation

That the submission be referred to the Wallan Structure Plan process recommended in the review Report.

Submission 2

Advises that the Review Report generally aligns with Melbourne Water’s previous submission to Council.

Response

The submission is noted.

Recommendation

No further action is required.

Submission 3

Opposes the development of new estates around Wandong-Heathcote Junction and seeks involvement in future Structure Planning for the town.

Also submits that the Review Report should reflect/support:

rezoning of the Sunnyglen (Country Lane) subdivision from R1Z to LDRZ; and

rezoning of the LDRZ area (Rail Street/Wandong – Broadford Road) to the north of the old township to R1Z.


Response

It is agreed that the Wandong-Heathcote Junction Community Group should be involved in future structure planning for the settlement.

Issues relating to future residential growth and the two proposed rezonings should be considered as part of the Structure Plan process, rather than in isolation.

Recommendation

That the submission be referred to the Wandong-Heathcote Junction Structure Plan process recommended in the Review Report.

Submission 4

Supports the Review Report and highlights a number of issues relating to the future growth of Kilmore, including public open space that need to be addressed through the Kilmore Structure Plan. Submits that the Kilmore Structure Plan should be a high priority.

Response

The submission is noted. Council had previously designated the Kilmore Structure Plan project as ‘medium priority’; however the Review Report recommends that it is a ‘high’ priority project.

Open spaces issues should be considered within the Kilmore Structure Plan and Mitchell Open Space and Off-road Recreational Trails Strategy projects.

Recommendation

That the submission be referred to:

The Kilmore Structure Plan process recommended in the Review Report.

The Mitchell Open Space and Off-road Recreational Trails Strategy project.

Submission 5

Identifies a number of issues relating to the planning and development of Kilmore (and Wallan), and notes that the route of the Kilmore By-Pass needs to be resolved before longer term planning can be undertaken.

Response

The submission is noted. These are issues that will need to be considered during the structure planning processes for Kilmore and Wallan, particularly the bypass issues.

Recommendation

That the submission be referred to the Kilmore and Wallan Structure Plan processes recommended in the Review Report.


Submission 6

Supports the preparation of the Wallan Structure Plan as a high priority and includes a number of recommended actions. The submission provides a useful analysis of planning issues in Wallan and makes various recommendations:

1) The DPCD Flying Squad should be accessed to assist with the Wallan Structure Plan process.

2) Systems should be put in place to ensure that the Planning Scheme remains contemporary.

3) The Comprehensive Development Zone should be applied at the southern and eastern approaches, and there needs to be additional business, commercial and industrial land.

4) Planning for Wallan should include a tertiary level TAFE, and entertainment and recreational facilities (e.g. cinema and aquatic centre).

5) Strategies should be put in place to train and retain planning staff.

Response

1) Project funding arrangements are matters for Council, although the opportunities offered by the program have been noted by Council officers

2) The Planning and Environment Act requires that planning schemes be regularly reviewed.

3) The selection of zones and the provision of additional land for commercial purposes are matters that should be addressed as part of the Wallan Structure Plan process.

4) The provision of educational, entertainment and recreational facilities should be addressed as part of the Wallan Structure Plan process.

5) Staffing arrangements are matters for Council, although it is noted that Council commissioned an independent review of statutory planning resources and processes and implemented its recommendations

Recommendation

That the submission be referred to the Wallan Structure Plan process recommended in the Review Report.

Submission 7

Supports dwellings on small rural lots and notes that the ‘50mts overlay seems to vary broadly considering the definition of a waterway.’

Response

As discussed in the Review Report, the suitability of permitting dwellings on small rural lots (and other rural living and rural area issues) is a matter that needs to be considered within the recommended Rural Areas Strategy.

The Review Report notes that there has been a haphazard approach to mapping the ESO3 (Watercourse Protection) in terms of its location and width. The Review Report recommends that the ESO3 be applied to all waterways and that it be a minimum width of 50m from either side of the waterway 100 m in


Special Water Supply Catchment Areas). The 50m ESO was supported by Goulburn-Murray Water. There may be situations where a wider application of the ESO3 is warranted, although this would need to be assessed on a case by case basis.

No modification to the Review Report is required.

Recommendation

That the submission be referred to the Rural Areas Strategy recommended in the Review Report.

Submission 8

Supports the Review Report and recommends that:

1) Structure plans be prepared for all towns immediately.

2) Further analysis of the proposed Seymour levee should be undertaken.

3) Open Space contributions should be 10%.

4) A regional wetland be provided south of Wallan and be subject to the PAO.

5) Site 17 be referred to as the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park.

Also provides detailed comments in relation to Wallan and Seymour, and LPPF content.

Response

1) The Review Report highlights the need to prepare new Structure Plans.

2) The decision about the levee is a process that will take place outside the planning scheme review; the Review Report simply notes that it would need to be taken into account in a future Seymour structure plan.

3) Open spaces issues should be considered within the individual structure plans and the Mitchell Open Space and Off-road Recreational Trails Strategy projects.

4) The regional wetland/park proposal should be considered within the Mitchell Open Space and Off-road Recreational Trails Strategy project

5) References to Site 17 should be updated in the revised LPPF recommended in the Review Report and currently underway.

The material relating to Seymour would be helpful to the structure plan review and should be referred to that project.

Recommendation


The Seymour Structure Plan process recommended in the Review Report.


That reference to Site 17 in the LPPF be replaced with Australian Light Horse Memorial Park.


Submission 9

Supports dwellings on small rural lots and submits that the 50m overlay on waterways is excessive.

Response


The Review Report notes that there has been a haphazard approach to mapping the ESO3 (Watercourse Protection) in terms of its location and width. The Review Report recommends that the ESO3 be applied to all waterways and that it be a minimum width of 50m from either side of the waterway 100 m in Special Water Supply Catchment Areas). The 50m ESO was supported by Goulburn-Murray Water. There may be situations where a wider application of the ESO3 is warranted, although this would need to be assessed on a case by case basis.

Recommendation

That the submission be referred to the Rural Areas Strategy recommended in the Review Report.

Submission 10

Supports the findings and recommendations of the Review Report and includes various comments/suggestions:

1) The Wallan Structure Plan should be a high priority, and address areas for accelerated medium density growth

2) Staffing and resourcing issues.

3) Support for a rural areas strategy

4) Questions the future development of Beveridge and the roles of Council and the GAA in the long term planning of that area. A Structure Plan should be prepared for Beveridge.

5) Open Space contribution should be 10%.

6) Supports the inclusion of the Health and Wellbeing Plan in the Planning Scheme.

7) The Port Phillip and Westernport Regional Catchment Strategy is not referred to in the Review Report.

8) DDOs should be applied to waterways in conjunction with ESOs. There should be a 200m buffer on either side of the Merri Creek to facilitate biodiversity, river health and pedestrian linkages.

9) DDO is needed for the town entrances of Wallan as well as Kilmore.

10) A regional wetland/park should be provided south of Wallan.

Response

1) Noted, the Review Report supports a new Wallan Structure Plan being prepared.

2) Staffing arrangements are matters for Council, although it is noted that Council commissioned an independent review of statutory planning resources and processes and implemented its


recommendations

3) Noted, the Review Report supports a Rural Areas Strategy.

4) Planning for this area will be dependent on the outcomes of various actions including PSPs and the Logical Inclusions process. These are matters that the Council and GAA are working to address.

5) Open space issues should be referred to the Mitchell Open Space and Space and Off-road Recreational Trails Strategy project.

6) Noted, the review identifies that the Health and Wellbeing Plan should be included in the MSS.

7) The Review Report should include a reference to the Port Phillip and Westernport Regional Catchment Strategy.

8) The ESO is the more appropriate VPP tool for waterway protection, particularly in rural areas. The Review Report has recommended a minimum 50 buffer – the need for a wider buffer would need to be demonstrated on a case by case basis.

9) The Review Report recommends a DDO for the Kilmore town entrances, but not for Wallan. It is agreed that the Wallan town entrances warrant improvement and that a DDO/s might be a way to achieve this. How to best address this issue should be considered as part of the Wallan Structure Plan process.

10) Open spaces issues, including the regional wetland/park, should be considered within the individual structure plans and the Mitchell Open Space and Off-road Recreational Trails Strategy projects.

Recommendation


The Wallan Structure Plan process recommended in the Review Report.


That the Review Report include a reference to the Port Phillip and Westernport Regional Catchment Strategy, 2004 -2009.

Submission 11

Raises various issues relating to agriculture and small rural lots.

Supports preparation of Wandong-Heathcote Junction Structure Plan.

Concerns about 50m waterway ESO.

Response


The Review Report supports the preparation of a Wandong-Heathcote Junction Structure Plan.

The Review Report notes that there has been a haphazard approach to mapping the ESO3 (Watercourse Protection) in terms of its location and width. The Review Report recommends that the ESO3 be applied to all waterways and that it be a minimum width of 50m from either side of the waterway 100 m in


Special Water Supply Catchment Areas). The 50m ESO was supported by Goulburn-Murray Water. There may be situations where a wider application of the ESO3 is warranted, although this would need to be assessed on a case by case basis.

Recommendation

That the submission be referred to the Rural Areas Strategy process recommended in the Review Report.

Submission 12

Seeks information from Council regarding POS.

Response

The submission does not provide any commentary on the Review Report.

Recommendation

No further action.

Submission 13

Supports the Review Report.

Structure Plans are needed for all towns, Wallan, Beveridge and Kilmore are particularly urgent.

Southern towns are deficient in open space.

Supports regional park between Wallan and Beveridge.

Response

Support for the Review Report is noted.

The Review Report recommends new structure plans for Wallan and Kilmore as a high priority. Planning for Beveridge will be affected by various factors such as the Logical Inclusions process. If and when a Structure Plan is prepared is a matter that Council will have to monitor with the GAA.

Open spaces issues, including the regional wetland/park, should be considered within the individual structure plans and the Mitchell Open Space and Off-road Recreational Trails Strategy projects

Recommendation





Submission 14

Copy of a submission to Mitchell 2020 seeking the rezoning of land on Avenal Road Seymour from FZ to R1Z.

Response

This is site specific rezoning proposal that should be considered as part of the Seymour Structure Plan process.

Recommendation

That the submission be referred to the Seymour Structure Plan process recommended in the Review Report

Submission 15

Criticizes the Review Report for lacking content in relation to State strategies and failing to provide policy content.

Review should have been undertaken by Council officers not consultants.

Review should be abandoned until the route for the bypass of Wallan and Kilmore has been resolved.

Response

The submission seems to misunderstand the purpose of the Review and the content of the Review Report. The Review assesses the existing planning scheme and recommends further work that should be undertaken. Any changes to the planning scheme will be publicly exhibited and there will be opportunities for submissions.

Recommendation

No further action.

Submission 16

Refers to a proposed rezoning on Butler’s Road, Kilmore. Supports submission 20.

Response

The submission does not provide any specific information relating to the proposed rezoning, and relies on submission 20.

Refer to the commentary in relation to submission 20.

Recommendation

No further action.


Submission 17

Makes various recommendations:

1) Supports the need for structure plans for the major towns, but is concerned about the time that it will take to prepare them. Wallan should be a high priority, a Beveridge Structure Plan should be integrated with the GAA Structure Plan Processes

2) Supports the Rural Areas Strategy, and restrictions on the supply and location of lots.

3) All sites on the Victorian Heritage Register should be included in the HO.

4) References to Regional Catchment Strategies should be included in the Review Report.

5) Open Space contribution should be 10%.

6) A regional wetland/park should be provided south of Wallan.

Response

1) Support for Structure Plans is noted. Review Report agrees that Wallan should be a high priority. Planning for Beveridge will be affected by various factors such as the Logical Inclusions process. If and when a Structure Plan is prepared is a matter that Council will have to monitor with the GAA.

2) Support for Rural Areas Strategy is noted. Issues should be referred to the Rural Areas Strategy.

3) The three heritage sites referred to the submission are covered by the HO.

4) Agreed, Review Report should include references to the relevant Catchment Strategies.

5) Open spaces issues, including the regional wetland/park, should be considered within the individual structure plans and the Mitchell Open Space and Off-road Recreational Trails Strategy projects.

Recommendation




The Rural Areas Strategy process recommended in the Review Report.

That the Review Report be amended to refer to all relevant Catchment Management Strategies.

Submission 18

Raises various issues and questions in relation to existing planning scheme processes and provisions, including heritage provisions in Kilmore, the Kilmore Structure Plan, Kilmore’s population etc.

Response

Some of these issues might warrant a response from Council to the submitter, while others should be


referred to the Kilmore Structure Plan process recommended in the Review Report.

Recommendation

That the submission be referred to the Kilmore Structure Plan process recommended in the Review Report.

Submission 19

Supports the Review Report recommendations and highlights the following actions:

1) Wallan Structure Plan – should address the protection of environmental features and assets and to provide adequate open space.

2) Wandong-Heathcote Junction Structure Plan – should consider the location of Heathcote Junction at the top of the Merri Creek catchment, and land management and runoff issues.

3) Supports implementing existing environmental strategies and policies and associated zoning and overlay changes, including the ESO, VPO and SLO to protect environmental and landscape values.

4) Applying the ESO to the Merri Creek and other waterways (100m either side of the Merri Creek).

Response

Support for the Review Report is noted.

1) Environmental issues relating to Wallan should be referred to the Wallan Structure Plan recommended in the Review Report.

2) Environmental issues relating to Wandong-Heathcote Junction should be referred to the Wandong-Heathcote Junction Structure Plan recommended in the Review Report.

3) The Review Report identifies the need to protect environmental assets as a high priority.

4) The Review Report notes that there has been a haphazard approach to mapping the ESO3 (Watercourse Protection) in terms of its location and width. The Review Report recommends that the ESO3 be applied to all waterways and that it be a minimum width of 50m from either side of the waterway 100 m in Special Water Supply Catchment Areas). The 50m ESO was supported by Goulburn-Murray Water. There may be situations where a wider application of the ESO3 is warranted, although this would need to be assessed on a case by case basis.

Recommendation



The Wandong-Heathcote Junction Structure Plan process recommended in the Review Report.

Submission 20

Criticises the Review Report for lacking content in relation to State strategies and failing to provide policy


content.

Review should have been undertaken by Council officers not consultants.

Review should be abandoned until:

The route for the bypass of Wallan and Kilmore has been resolved,

The State Government has announced its strategic intent for Seymour

The GAA’s logical inclusions process is complete.

Response

The submission seems to misunderstand the purpose of the Review and the content of the Review Report. The Review assesses the existing planning scheme and recommends further work that should be undertaken. Any changes to the planning scheme will be publicly exhibited and there will be opportunities for submissions.

Recommendation

That the submission be referred to the Kilmore, Wallan and Seymour Structure Plan processes recommended in the Review Report.

Submission 21

Seeks the opportunity to review Council’s Domestic Wastewater Plan in light of recent VCAT decisions relating to the density of dwellings in Special Water Supply Catchments.

Seeks an agreement to ‘schedule out’ unnecessary referrals within the Lake Eppalock Proclaimed Special Water Catchment.

Response

The comments relating to the Domestic Wastewater Plan area are unclear, and need to be clarified with GMW.

The Review Report recommends that Council and GMW develop a referral agreement.

Recommendation

That Council have further discussions with Goulburn-Murray Water relating to the Domestic Wastewater Plan and referral arrangements.

Submission 22

Supports high priority given to Wallan Structure Plan.

Response

Noted


Recommendation

That the submission be referred to the Wallan Structure Plan process recommended in the Review Report.


APPENDIX 3 REVIEW OF VCAT DECISIONS AND PANEL REPORTS


VCAT Decisions

A review of relevant decisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has been undertaken. Relevant features of those decisions include the following.

Rural issues

While applications in rural areas were repeatedly highlighted in consultations, there have been few Tribunal decisions on this issue. Brackley v. Mitchell Shire Council [2005] VCAT 2170 considered a subdivision of rural land of 8.8ha located about 8kms from Kilmore. The proposal sought to separate two dwellings onto separate titles, one of 1.9ha and one of 6.9ha. The two dwellings were located about 20 metres apart from one another. The land was zoned Rural and also affected by the Salinity Management Overlay and the Erosion Management Overlay. Council refused the application as it did not comply with the small lot subdivision policy at Clause 22.04-1.

The Tribunal supported Council’s refusal and noted that:

The land is zoned Rural and policy is very clear in terms of subdivision and in addition a ‘Kilmore Structure Plan’ exists that caters for rural living surrounding Kilmore.

There are not reasons to permit this subdivision and the fact that two dwellings exist and are no longer needed for the purpose for which the second dwelling was constructed is certainly no reason.

The planning scheme sees the fragmentation of rural land as a concern and the creation of rural residential type development by stealth as bad.

The Tribunal supports the endeavours of the Responsible Authority to retain the rural zone as just that and to discourage subdivision that is not in the interests of the zone purpose.

In Rehn v. Mitchell SC [2011] VCAT 229, the Tribunal upheld a Council refusal to grant a permit for a dwelling on a lot of about 4000m2 in the Farming Zone at Clonbinane. The Tribunal commented:

This is an isolated rural locality in which there are a small number of dwellings around the review site. I do not regard this locality as one which has been converted to a primarily residential area. In addition, the policy framework of the planning scheme discourages the establishment or growth of these isolated settlements. The planning scheme encourages residential development within designated town boundaries and in identified preferred locations for rural/residential development. The review site is not located within one of these locations.

The issue of farm sheds has also been a recurrent issue and in Salvatore v. Mitchell SC [2002] VCAT 1184, Council granted a permit for a large shed (24m by 15m) on land zoned Low Density Residential. A neighbour objected to the grant of the permit. The Tribunal acknowledged that there was little in Council’s planning scheme to provide direction on this recurrent issue other tan Clause 22.04-3 (Subdued Tones Policy). The Tribunal was satisfied that a permit should issue and attached conditions relating to a landscape plan, muted and non reflective tones and the removal of a shipping container on the site. Importantly, another condition was included which stated:

The shed must not be used for human habitation, and must not contain facilities that could be used for cooking, eating or sleeping.


Heritage issues

Group Units Pty. Ltd. v. Mitchell SC [2004] VCAT 187 commented on the lack of support in the scheme for heritage issues in this immediate area noting that the heritage overlay does not cover the site despite the proximity of some important heritage buildings. The Tribunal noted that:

Although reference was made to a later heritage assessment that has been undertaken for the Shire, this study has not yet reached the stage of a seriously entertained planning proposal and cannot be given any weight…………….

Kilmore

The Tribunal has considered numerous applications for development in and around Kilmore including for residential subdivision and for medium density development. In Selkrig v. Mitchell SC [2004] VCAT 1078, the Tribunal considered an application for a 164 lot subdivision on about 25ha of vacant land zoned Residential 1. The Tribunal noted:

We note that the Mitchell Planning Scheme Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) at Clause 21.05-3 identifies Kilmore as one of the traditional towns within the Shire, which is subject to rapid growth where infrastructure services can be supplied consistent with the settlement strategy. Staged residential development is contemplated to assist with the provision of appropriate physical infrastructure, community services and facilities. The MSS acknowledges the long term need to establish a Development Contributions Plan, but such a plan does not exist. The Townships Strategy for Kilmore encourages the consolidation of urban development. The local planning policies of relevance to this application are: * Clause 22.02-1 Structure Plans for Towns * Clause 22.05-3 Townscape Policy * Clause 22.06-1 Residential Infrastructure Requirements Taken together these policies provide general guidance applicable across the whole Shire with regard to containing urban development within existing towns in a manner that has regard to the design, character, local heritage, landscape and streetscape issues and to ensure that an appropriate level of servicing is available and delivered. However, the policies provide no specific direction in relation to Kilmore.

Group Units Pty. Ltd. v. Mitchell SC [2004] VCAT 187 considered a Council refusal to grant a permit for eight medium density units on a 4200m2 site zoned Residential 1 east of the main street in Kilmore. In granting the permit, the Tribunal relied on local policy and noted:

In terms of the Kilmore Township Structure Plan, the site is within the urban growth management boundary and the proposal is consistent with the settlement strategy to encourage consolidation of urban development within the township. Policy at Clause 22.06-1 requires that all forms of residential development be connected to reticulated water, sewerage, power and stormwater facilities.

Policy does not limit the number of medium density developments within the area and although respondent objectors have expressed concern about the number of such developments within this area, there is nothing in planning policy which would


support such a notion – and indeed planning policy supports consolidation in well serviced and well located areas such as the review site.

Wandong

Wandong and Heathcote Junction have also been the subject of a number of Tribunal decisions. In Sunnyglen Pty. Ltd. v Mitchell SC [2004] VCAT 71, the Tribunal considered an application for an extension of time for a 104 lot subdivision in the Township zone in Wandong. The extension had evidently been refused as (among other things) Amendment C15 proposed to rezone the land to Low Density Residential. The history of the rezoning was a most relevant consideration for the Tribunal and it noted that the following sequence of events:

April 2002, the Responsible Authority exhibited amendment C15 which among other things proposed the rezoning of the subject land from Township Zone, to Residential 1 Zone. May 2003, the panel presented its report to the Responsible Authority. The panel supported the rezoning of the land to Residential 1 Zone notwithstanding submissions in opposition to this rezoning from the Wandong Heathcote Community Group. June 2002, the Responsible Authority resolved to adopt amendment C15, modified in accordance with the recommendations of the panel. However, the Responsible Authority also resolved in relation to the subject land that it should be included within a Low Density Residential Zone.

The Tribunal then assessed the request and in particular, Council’s preference for a Low Density residential zone over the land:

The second change relied on …. was the resolution of the council that the land be included within a Low Density Residential Zone. It was argued that this proposal amount to a seriously entertained planning policy, part of an adopted planning scheme amendment, Amendment C15. However, it is my view that the Responsible Authority's decision in this regard is a considerable breach of procedural fairness, and can be given little weight.

In practice the proposal to amend the planning scheme to include the subject land within a Low Density Residential Zone has not been exhibited and affected persons including the Applicant have been given no opportunity to make submissions to the Responsible Authority in relation to this rezoning proposal. Affected persons have been given no opportunity to have their submissions considered by an independent panel. Finally the Responsible Authority does not have the benefit of the advice of an independent panel in relation to this proposal.

The Tribunal decided to extend the permit and noted that

I am of the view that the procedural defects are such that in a sense I do not have to consider whether or not the proposed rezoning of the land to Low Density Residential Zone is sound from a planning perspective to form a view about the likelihood of change. However, I observe that; i The Wandong-Heathcote Township is largely subdivided with only a relatively small area of vacant land available for subdivision, including the subject land.


ii Only a very small proportion of the township area is subdivided at conventional densities, most of the township is subdivided at low densities. iii Urban infrastructure, including water and sewerage is available to the subject land. iv The land is located within a kilometre of the Wandong Railway Station.

Wallan

The Tribunal supported Council’s approval of a 70 place child care centre in Queen Street Wallan (Piper Street Children’s Centre v Mitchell SC *2005+ VCAT 182). The Tribunal noted:

There is no doubt that Wallan is a fast-growing community and, as noted by Ms Graham, the Council is attempting to ensure that community services, facilities and infrastructure keep pace with the rapid growth. That can be a difficult challenge, however, there is some structure planning for the town evident through the policies set out at Clauses 21.04, 21.05 and 22.02. While there is no doubt more to be done in relation to the detailed service planning, including in relation to the siting of community facilities, we find that there is sufficient direction and information to enable a decision on the merits of this proposal without waiting for further investigations.

There has also been at least two Tribunal decisions in the northern part of Wallan in recent years that have rejected applications for more intense development based on deficiencies in the planning scheme. In Bendele Property Group Pty Ltd v Mitchell Shire Council & Brian Weir – P2197/2007 the Tribunal considered an application on a site on Daraweit Guim Road of about 7000m² for 24 dwellings. The Tribunal expressed concerns about the ‘character’ of this part of Wallan for such an intense development and noted:

From its inspection of the site and area, the Tribunal recognises the changing character of the area as demonstrated by the recent subdivision in the area that provides urban sized lots with suburban dimensions and the medium density development immediately to the east. The area is undergoing a change in neighbourhood character from rural or semi-rural to a suburban character.

It agrees with the parties that the current rural and semi-rural character is not sustainable, given the policy for urban growth for Wallan. The question is whether the proposed built form is an appropriate response to the emerging character of the area. In here, the Tribunal notes that there is no neighbourhood character study for the township underway or in the Scheme.

The Tribunal finds that the proposed building masses to be intensive for the area and not one of a suburban character. The proposed continuous built form, with several of the rows of buildings in two storey scale with limited side setback (for example 1 metre from the western boundary), are characteristics of an inner urban area or appropriate if abutting or near an activity centre.

Similarly, in Mesh Architecture Pty. Ltd. vs. Mitchell Shire Council and Others (P3428/2008), the Tribunal considered an application for twenty one dwellings on William Street. The Tribunal noted that Clause 21.04 of the scheme noted that Wallan is earmarked for “development within the urban growth boundary”. Clause 21.05 outlines Township Strategies and Structure Plans and the policies for Wallan


“…..encourage infill development to assist in established residential communities”. However, the Tribunal commented that:

I think that this level of support is fairly general and I note that very little is provided in

the Mitchell Planning Scheme by way of specific strategic direction for the town. In

contrast to many other town structure plans in other planning schemes, there is (for

instance) no specific areas in Wallan earmarked for accelerated medium density

growth, nor is there even a generic strategy which promotes medium density within a

specified distance of the town centre.

It is acknowledged that Clause 21.05-3 also nominates Wallan (among others) as a

focus for growth and isolates Wallan as the one town in the Shire that does not have a

sufficient supply of residentially zoned land prompting the MSS to identify two areas

to be rezoned so as to deliver another 500 to 700 lots. Regrettably, like most of the

Mitchell Municipal Strategic Statement, this information is now very dated and

appears to have been based on data from the 1996 census.

That decision also commented on the draft Wallan Structure Plan which acknowledged that Development Plans were needed in parts of Wallan which had large lots. The Tribunal observed:

I would urge Council to give serious consideration to a detailed review of large sites

such as these on the periphery of the town. There have now been at least two

applications to intensively develop these large narrow blocks for units and in both

cases the Tribunal has rejected them. Options could include one of the new residential

zones but some form of ‘restructure’ or ‘development plan’ for the lots appears to be

needed.

Panel Reports

A review of relevant decisions of Planning Panels Victoria (PPV) has been undertaken. Relevant features of those amendments and reports include the following.

Am No Description Panel Report Recommendations and Comments

C5 Introduces Public Acquisition Overlay in Heathcote Junction for Goulburn Valley Water

Panel Report 24 August 2000.

Recommended that the amendment be adopted with changes.

C10 Introduces Public Acquisition Overlay and Road Closure Overlay along Boundary Road Kilmore associated with Wastewater Management Facility.

Panel Report 8 February 2002.


C15 (Part 1) Zoning and Overlay changes arising from first review of Mitchell Planning Scheme.

Revises Hidden Valley Comprehensive Development

Advisory Committee Report 24 September 2003.

Recommended that this part of the amendment be abandoned.



Plan.

C15 (Part 2) MSS and Local Policy changes arising from first review of Mitchell Planning Scheme.

Updates town structure plans.

Rezones land in Wallan to Residential 1.

Applies ESO3 to land in Wallan.

Applies VPO1 to roadsides.

Applies two new schedule to DPO around Wallan.

Applies EAO to nominated site.

Panel Report 17 June 2003.

Four day Panel hearing.


C16 Facilitates upgrade of Hume Hwy between Craigieburn and Beveridge.

Jointly with Hume City Council (Am. C11)

Panel Report 9 January 2005.

Five day Panel hearing.

Recommended that the Mitchell part of the amendment be abandoned.

C28 Introduces Public Acquisition Overlay in Beveridge associated with Wallan Wastewater Management Facility.

Panel Report 7 August 2003.

Three day Panel hearing.

Recommended that the amendment be adopted as exhibited.

C32 Replaces WMO to align building and fire risk mapping.


Three day Panel hearing.


Specific recommendations for the CFA in relation to mapping of Bushfire Prone Areas and other matters.

C35 Rezones VicRoads depot in Seymour from PCRZ to Industrial 1.

Panel Report 25 May 2006.

Two day Panel hearing

Recommended that the amendment be adopted with changes

C39 Various procedural changes to maps, overlays, schedules and reference documents.

Panel Report 9 December 2008.

One day Panel hearing.

Recommended that the amendment be



adopted with changes

C40 Extensive corrective and procedural changes to zones, overlays and policy direction in the Mitchell Planning Scheme


No hearing required. ‘On the papers’.


C47 Facilitates upgrade of Hume Hwy between Kalkallo and Beveridge.

Jointly with Hume City Council ((Am. C90)


Six day Panel hearing.


C50 Introduces Mitchell Shire Gaming Policy Framework into Mitchell Planning Scheme.

Panel Report 23 November 2009.



C57 Applies Public Acquisition Overlay to land in Tooborac to facilitate Tooborac Water Storage Facility.



Recommended that the amendment be adopted as exhibited


APPENDIX 4 ASSESSMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT


Municipal Strategic Statement

The Mitchell MSS is relatively concise and a lot of the material has been carried over unchanged from the original 1999 version.

The MSS contains the following key elements:

Clause 21.01 Purpose;

Clause 21.02 Context;

Clause 21.03 Key issues;

Clause 21.04 Strategic Vision and Framework maps;

Clause 21.05 Objectives and Strategies; and

Clause 21.06 Monitoring and Review.

Discussion of form and content issues

This section provides an assessment of the general structure and content of the MSS against the principles and requirements of the relevant Practice Notes. Each Clause is discussed in turn, together with ‘suggested actions’ that might inform the drafting of a revised MSS.

Clause 21.01-1 Purpose

This clause is made redundant by the standard introduction at clause 20.01 of all VPP planning schemes.

Suggested actions for Clause 21.01

Delete.

Clause 21.02 Context

This clause provides a very succinct overview of the municipality, including a ‘Strategic Framework’ map. The clause is generally in accordance with what is anticipated for the ‘municipal profile’ in the MSS Practice Note.

While the brevity of this clause is commendable, it is clearly in need of updating, particularly the references to the 1996 Census. The Strategic Framework map should also be reviewed and updated, as well as be repositioned into clause 21.04 (Strategic Vision and Framework Maps).

Suggested actions for Clause 21.02:

Rename as ‘Municipal Profile’.

Update the background information, particularly census material.

Update the Strategic Framework’ map and reposition to clause 21.04 (Strategic Vision and Framework Maps).

Clause 21.03 Key issues

This clause provides discussions of key issues under five themes. These themes do not directly relate to the themes used elsewhere in the MSS, such as in Clause 21.05 (Objectives and Strategies).


This material has not been revised for some time, and although many elements of it remain relevant, some elements need to be updated. It should also reflect the key issues identified in recent strategic work, including this planning scheme review. It would also be useful to adopt the themes that are to be used for presenting ‘objectives and strategies’.


Update the discussion of key issues particularly in light of Mitchell 2020.

Use themes that are consistent with the themes used to present objectives and strategies elsewhere in the MSS.

Clause 21.04 Strategic Vision and Framework Maps

This clause includes five ‘factors’ that are the basis of strategic land use planning and development of the Shire. These overarching objectives are supported by a ‘vision’. This type of material is appropriate for the MSS.

The clause also refers to the Mitchell Corridor Strategic Framework Maps (2 and 3). But only includes Map 2. This map is dated and should be reviewed and updated. As discussed earlier, the ‘Strategic Framework’ map in Clause 21.02 should be repositioned to this clause.

These types of MSS clauses also often include relevant ‘vision’ material drawn from the Council Plan. There is scope to include this type of material from the current Mitchell Shire Council Plan (2009 -2013).


Review and update the Mitchell Corridor Strategic Framework Map.

Include relevant material from the Mitchell Shire Council Plan.

Clause 21.05 Objectives and Strategies

Selection of themes

The MSS Practice Note encourages the grouping of objectives, strategies and implementation sections under logical themes, with the preferred approach being the use of SPPF themes. Using SPPF themes reinforces the strategic links between the MSS and the SPPF, helps with navigation between the two documents and improves the ease of use.

The clause only uses three themes under which the objectives and strategies are presented – Natural Resources, Economic Development and Settlement. In contrast, the SPPF uses nine themes.

The links between the MSS and SPPF themes are shown in the following table.

MSS themes Corresponding SPPF themes

Clause 21.05-1 Natural Resources and the Environment (with the sub-themes Rural Land, Urban Development and Land Management)

Clauses 12 Environmental and landscape values, 13 Environmental risks, 14 Natural resource management and15 Built environment and heritage.


MSS themes Corresponding SPPF themes

Clause 21.05-2 Economic Development (with the sub-themes Employment, Land Supply, and Development Opportunities)

Clauses 17 Economic development and 14 Natural resource management

Clause 21.05-3 Settlement (with the sub-themes Population Growth Rates, Settlement Strategy, Town Strategies and Structure Plans [Seymour, Kilmore, Broadford, Wallan, Wandong-Heathcote Junction, Pyalong, Tallarook, Beveridge and Waterford Park])

Clauses 11 Settlement, 12 Environmental and landscape values, 13 Environmental risks, 14 Natural resource management, 15 Built environment and heritage,16 Housing 17 Economic development,18 Transport and 19 Infrastructure

The MSS would benefit from a revised structure that was more closely aligned with the SPPF themes. It need not replicate all of the themes, but should be structured in way that improves the flow between the two documents.

Clause 21.05-1 Natural Resources and the Environment

This is a relatively succinct clause that provides general ‘context’ material and a set of ‘objectives’ under which various strategies are provided within the sub-themes of Rural Land, Urban Development and Land Management.

There is also an ‘Implementation’ clause that includes Planning Scheme Provisions and Additional Avenues of implementation.

General observations about this clause include:

The ‘Context’ material would be more useful if it was summarised and presented under sub-themes.

The strategies are not grouped under individual objectives.

Many of the objectives and strategies are poorly expressed and do not serve their intended purpose.

Many of the strategies are items of ‘further strategic work’.

The clause could be broken down into themes used in the SPPF.

Although this clause is not lengthy, there is scope to reduce it further by removing unnecessary and repetitive material.

Clause 21.05-2 Natural Resources and the Environment

This clause is also relatively succinct and provides general ‘context’ material and a set of ‘objectives’ under which various strategies are provided within the sub-themes of Employment, Land Supply, and Development Opportunities. Elements of the context material are likely to be outdated (references to the 1996 census) and should be revised.

There is also an ‘Implementation’ clause that includes Strategy Implementation, Planning Scheme Provisions and Additional Avenues of implementation.



The ‘Context’ material would be more useful if it were updated, summarised and presented under sub-themes.




The clause could be broken down into themes used in the SPPF

Although this clause is not lengthy, there is scope to reduce it further by removing unnecessary and repetitive material.

Clause 21.05-3 Settlement

This is a very lengthy and structurally disjointed clause.

Much of the ‘context’ material is outdated and contains elements that might be better located in Clause 21.02 Context (Municipal Profile) and 21.03 (Key Issues).

There are some general objectives and strategies that relate to ‘settlement’, but most of the material is presented in relation to specific settlements: Seymour, Kilmore, Broadford, Wallan, Wandong-Heathcote Junction, Pyalong, Tallarook, Beveridge and Waterford Park. This settlement material and the specific township material might be supplemented by including elements of Mitchell 2020.


The ‘Context’ material would be more useful if it were updated, summarised and presented under sub-themes.

Some of the ‘context material could be relocated to Clause 21.02 Context (Municipal Profile) and 21.03 (Key Issues).




Most of the township specific material could be repositioned into a new ‘Local Area Plans’ clause – consistent with the MSS Practice Note.

There is scope to include material from Mitchell 2020.


Review the objectives, strategies and implementation actions to ensure that they perform their intended functions.

Group strategies under individual objectives.

Update and summarise the ‘context’ material and include it under sub-themes in order to improve the navigability of the MSS.

Reposition relevant ‘context’ material into clauses 21.02 Context (Municipal Profile) and 21.03 (Key Issues).


Expand the thematic structure to achieve greater consistency with the SPPF.

Reposition the township material in a new ‘Local Areas’ clause.

Expand the headings used under the ‘Implementation’ sections to include, where relevant, ‘policy guidelines’ (application requirements, exercise of discretion, decision guidelines and criteria or performance measures),’scheme implementation’ and ‘other actions of Council’.

Include relevant material from Mitchell 2020.

Clause 21.06 Monitoring and Review

DPCD no longer requires that monitoring and review programs be specified in the MSS. This clause can be deleted.


Delete

Other MSS issues

The MSS commits Council to a significant amount of ‘further strategic work’. Apart from the need to review and rationalise this list, the MSS would benefit from having a standalone clause that lists all of the further strategic work. Although the MSS Practice Note encourages ‘Further strategic work’ to be included within the implementation sections of the thematic MSS clauses, having a standalone clause is a preferred approach because it ‘unclutters’ the thematic clauses and provides a more transparent list of Council’s further work commitments.

The MSS is also notable for not including a list or lists of ‘reference documents’ although various documents are referred to, particularly in Clause 22. The MSS would benefit from including a standalone clause that lists all of the relevant reference documents.

Suggested actions

Include separate a separate clause or clauses that list ‘further strategic work’ and ‘reference documents’.


APPENDIX 5 ASSESSMENT OF THE LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES


Local Planning Policies

The MPS contains twenty three LPPs grouped under four themes:

Planning Evaluating Guidelines;

Environment;

Development on the Farming Zone;

Economic Development; and

Infrastructure.

Discussion of form and content issues

This section provides an assessment of the general structure and content of the LPPs against the principles and requirements of the relevant Practice Notes and contemporary approaches to drafting LPPs.

Importantly, the use of LPPs is diminishing as more use is made of zone and overlay schedules and MSSs (including policy guidelines) as the principle means of expressing planning policy. This approach is consistent with the State Government report ‘Making

Local Policy Stronger’ (2007). There is also increasing recognition that LPPs are only useful where the planning scheme requires a planning permit that then triggers the application of the LPP.

Clause 22.01 Planning Evaluation Guidelines

Clause 22.01 Planning Evaluation Guidelines and Other Council Documents

This LPP includes a list of documents ‘that will be taken into consideration when assessing and evaluating applications for use and development or planning scheme amendments’. This elevates these documents to a higher status than normally associated with ‘reference documents’. This approach is typically not supported by Planning Panels or DPCD on the basis that such documents should be implemented by including the relevant elements directly into the planning scheme, or in some circumstances, by formally ‘incorporating’ the document. These documents should be included in the MSS as Reference Documents.

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.01 and include an updated the list of reference documents in the MSS.

Clause 22.02 Settlement

Clause 22.02-1 Structure Plans for Towns

This concise LPP applies to Seymour, Kilmore, Broadford, Wallan, Wandong-Heathcote Junction, Beveridge and Pyalong. It contains general settlement objectives and policies that are more appropriately located in the MSS under a general settlement theme and/or in relation to individual towns.

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.02-1 and reposition relevant material into the MSS under a settlement theme and/or in Local Area sections.


Clause 22.02-2 Strategic Directions and Policies for Small Townships

This concise LPP applies to Tallarook, Tooborac and Waterford Park. It contains general objectives and policies that are more appropriately located in the MSS under a general settlement theme and in relation to individual towns.

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.02-2 and reposition relevant material into the MSS under a settlement theme and/or in Local Area sections.

Clause 22.03 Environment

Clause 22.03-1 Effluent Disposal and Water Quality

This LPP applies to ‘development within those areas not presently serviced by reticulated sewerage and to those developments which it is assessed may impact upon water quality’. It contains some general objectives and policy statements that trigger the application of the Mitchell Shire Domestic Wastewater Management Plan Final Report (November 2006) and the Mitchell Shire Land Capability Mapping and Assessment Tools for Domestic Wastewater Management (June 2006).

This LPP should be deleted and relevant material repositioned into the MSS

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.03-1 and reposition relevant material into the MSS under an infrastructure theme.

Clause 22.03-2 Erosion Risk

This LPP applies to areas subject to the EMO. It contains general objectives supported by various policy statements.

The LPP largely repeats the requirements of the EMO. Other elements can be included in the EMO schedule (such as application requirements) or in the MSS, where a broader policy context is required.

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.03-2 and reposition relevant material into the EMO schedule and/or the MSS.

Clause 22.03-3 Dams

This LPP applies to the ‘construction of dams’.

In light of changed permit requirements in the FZ schedule this policy is no longer required.

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.03-2 and include a permit requirement for earthworks(including dams) in the schedule to the Farming Zone.

Clause 22.03-4 Hilltop and Ridgeline Protection

This LPP applies to ‘any buildings or works on significant hilltops and ridgelines’. Some buildings and works that the LPP seeks to regulate might not require a permit and therefore not trigger the LPP. For this reason these issues are best controlled by the


application of the Significant Landscape Overlay. In the absence of suitable SLOs, elements of the LPP can be repositioned into the MSS.

Suggested action

Council to consider whether SLOs should be applied.

Delete Clause 22.03-4 and reposition relevant material into the MSS under an environmental or design theme.

Clause 22.03-5 Land Capability and Catchment & Land Protection

This LPP applies to the ‘assessment and evaluation of any use or development in the rural areas including land and water bodies of the Shire’.

This is a wide-ranging LPP that triggers the application of the Land Capability Mapping for Mitchell Shire, July 1996. It contains general objectives and policy statements that should be repositioned into the MSS under an environmental theme.

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.03-5 and reposition relevant material into the MSS under an environmental theme.

Clause 22.03-6 Mt William Archaeological Area

This LPP applies to the Mt William archaeological site. It contains policy statements relating to the referral of applications and avoiding adverse impacts on the site.

The site is zoned Farming Zone and is subject to the Salinity Management Overlay and the Erosion Management Overlay (in part). It contains general objectives and policy statements that could be repositioned into the MSS under an environmental theme. Alternatively the site could have an ESO applied, in order that relevant permit applications are captured.

Suggested action

Apply an Environmental Significance Overlay to the site.


Clause 22.03-7 Puckapunyal Military Base and Surrounds

The LPP applies to ‘all land adjoining and in the immediate surrounds of the Puckapunyal Military Base’. It contains two objectives relating to minimising impact from and on the operation of the base and a policy that applications will be referred to the Australian Army.

This LPP can be deleted and the relevant material repositioned into the MSS.

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.03-7 and reposition relevant material into the MSS.

Clause 22.03-8 Site 17

This LPP refers to the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park and seeks to protect its heritage, cultural and social values. The site is not subject to a Heritage Overlay.


The objectives and policy statements can be repositioned into the MSS, either under a heritage theme or in association with Seymour Local Area provisions. The site could also have a Heritage Overlay applied.

Suggested action

Apply a Heritage Overlay to the site.

Delete Clause 22.03-8 and reposition relevant material into the MSS under a heritage theme.

Change references to the ‘Australian Light Horse Memorial Park’.

Clause 22.03-9 Steep Land

This LPP applies to ‘land having a slope greater than 20%’. It contains a general objective and various strategies. This material can be repositioned into the MSS under an environmental theme.

Suggested action


Clause 22.04 Development in the Farming Zone

Clause 22.04-1 Small Lot Subdivisions in the Farming Zone

This LPP applies to ‘all Rural Zones’ and provides additional policy guidance in applying those zones. This material can be repositioned into the MSS.

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.04-1 and reposition relevant material into the MSS as a policy guideline.

Review in light of new rural zones.

Clause 22.04-2 Fire Safety

This LPP applies to ‘developments in Rural Zones and the Low Density Residential Zone’.

In light of the new BMO and mapping this LPP is now redundant and can be deleted.

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.04-2 as the issue is addressed by the WMO.

Clause 22.04-3 Subdued Tones

This LPP applies to ‘all applications for new buildings and extensions to existing buildings within the area of this planning scheme’. It is unclear whether the Policy applies throughout the municipality or just to land within the Farming Zone. Either way, this material can be repositioned into the MSS.

More usually a DDO or SLO would be applied to address these issues and to require a permit.

Suggested action

Council to consider whether a DDO or SLO should be applied.


Delete Clause 22.04-3 and reposition relevant material into the MSS under an environment theme, but confined to rural areas.

Clause 22.04-4 Construction of Dwellings on Small Lots in the Farming Zone

This LPP applies to ‘all rural zones’ and provides additional policy guidance in applying those zones. It is partly repetitive of the zone provisions and for that reason the content should be reviewed and repetitive material deleted. Any remaining material can be repositioned into the MSS.

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.04-4 and reposition relevant material into the MSS as a policy guideline.

Review in light of new rural zones.

Clause 22.05 Economic Development

Clause 22.05-1 Agriculture, Agroforestry and Processing

This LPP applies to ‘all land in the Rural Zones’. It contains general objectives and policy statements that can be repositioned into the MSS.

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.05-1 and reposition relevant material into the MSS.

Clause 22.05-2 Industrial Development

This LPP applies to ‘all development in the Industrial Zones’. It contains general objectives supported by a mixture of general and prescriptive policy statements that can be repositioned into the MSS. Much of the material can be repositioned into the MSS, with the prescriptive material being included as ‘policy guidelines’.

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.05-2 and reposition relevant material into the MSS under an economic development theme.

Clause 22.05-3 Townscape Policy

This LPP applies to the ‘entrances and streetscapes of all urban settlements and townships’. It includes some general objectives supported by some general design policies/statements. This material can be repositioned into the MSS. There is insufficient material on which to develop a DDO.

Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.05-3 and reposition relevant material into the MSS under a settlement or built form theme.

Clause 22.06 Infrastructure

Clause 22.06-1 Residential Infrastructure Requirements

This LPP applies to ‘the provision of infrastructure for new residential areas’. It includes some general objectives, application requirements and design standards. This material should be reviewed to identify elements that are unnecessarily repetitive of zone provisions, with the remaining material repositioned into the MSS.


Suggested action

Delete Clause 22.06-1 and reposition relevant material into the MSS under a settlement and/or infrastructure theme, and/or in the DPO1 schedule.

Clause 22.06-2 Road Construction and Access

This LPP applies to ‘the creation of new roads and access to service land in Rural Zones, Low Density Residential Zone and the Township Zone’. It includes some general objectives supported by general and prescriptive policy requirements. This material can be repositioned into the MSS, with the prescriptive material being included as policy guidelines.

Suggested action


Clause 22.06-3 Hume Freeway, Hume Highway and Goulburn Valley Highway Environs

This LPP applies to the use and development of land within 100 metres’ of the three highways. It includes some general objectives together with some very prescriptive development requirements. As currently, configured the LPP seeks to regulate matters that might not require a permit. Overcoming this would require an additional control such as a Design and Development Overlay.

Suggested action

Apply a Design and Development Overlay within 100m of the nominated highways incorporating the material in Clause 22.06-2.


Clause 22.07 Gaming

This LPP applies ‘to all planning permit applications to install or use a gaming machine, or use land for the purpose of gaming’.

This is a comprehensive LPP that was approved in 2010 following a Panel hearing and there is no reason to change or relocate this LPP. In the event that this is the only LPP following the planning scheme review, consideration might be given to how it could be relocated to the MSS.


APPENDIX 6 ASSESSMENT OF ZONES, OVERLAYS AND OTHER PROVISIONS


Zones

There are a total of 20 (twenty) zones in the Mitchell Planning Scheme as follows:

Residential 1

Low Density Residential

Mixed Use

Township

Industrial 1 and 3

Business 1, 2 and 4

Rural Living

Rural Conservation

Farming

Public Use

Public Park and Recreation

Public Conservation and Resource

Road

Special Use

Comprehensive Development

Urban Floodway

Urban Growth

All of these zones (other than the Road Zone) have attached schedules. These schedules vary in complexity with the standard “default” schedules used in the Residential, Mixed Use, Township, Industrial 1, Industrial 3, Business1, Business 2, Business 4 and Urban Floodway zones (“none specified”). There are specifically tailored schedules applied to the Farming, Rural Living and Rural Conservation zones to specify a range of minimum lot sizes. There is a schedule to the Low Density Residential Zone that does not specify a minimum lot size but does specify a maximum area and height for an outbuilding.

There are also four specifically tailored schedules for the Special Use zone dealing with Extractive Industry, the State Motor cycle Sports Complex, Kilmore Racetrack and Private Education and Religious Institutions. There are two schedules to the Comprehensive Development Zone for the Hidden Valley and Beveridge integrated subdivision and recreation developments. There is finally one schedule to the Urban Growth zone but as yet there are no Precinct Structure Plans referred to in this

schedule.

The Public Use zones all have schedules that identify that on land owned by the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), any use or development is to be in accordance with a management plan approved between Council and DSE. The Public Use zone also specifies that for the Kilmore Police Station, all use and development by


Victoria Police for police purposes on the land is exempt from the requirement for a planning permit.

What issues have emerged/what are the gaps

Consultation feedback from Council officers, community representatives, agencies and stakeholders has revealed that while the zone selection remains generally appropriate, the zone schedules typically need review particularly in terms of permit exemptions.

Other specific issues to emerge from consultation regarding the zones are discussed below under the relevant themes.

Residential Zones

The main residential zone applied in the built up areas of the townships is the Residential 1 Zone.

The Mixed Use Zone has been sparingly but inconsistently used. It applies to a ‘commercial’ art of Seymour opposite the rail station and also applies to an extensive area of Wallan east which is being progressively developed for Wallara Waters residential estate.

The Low Density Residential Zone has seemingly been translated from former schemes and is extensively used. Vast areas east of Seymour, south of Kilmore, surrounding Broadford and throughout Wandong/Heathcote Junction are included in this zone. All of Waterford Green is zoned LDRZ. Based on an analysis of amendments, it appears that most of the LDRZ has been zoned in this manner since amalgamation.

Despite the extensive use of this zone, demands for further provision of the LDR have arisen in consultations.

The Township Zone has been applied to Tooborac, Pyalong, Tallarook, Kilmore East, old Beveridge and parts of Wallan East. It has also been applied to hamlets such as Tyaak but has not been applied to similar hamlets such as Reedy Creek and Clonbinnane. Once again, there were community submissions opposing the absence of the Township zone in these areas.

The RLZ is also widely used south and east of Broadford with lot sizes varying between 1h and 4ha.

Repeated requests were made during consultation for further rezonings for RLZ.

The R1Z zoning for the Sunnyglen subdivision in Wandong Heathcote Junction has been questioned by the Community Group believing that it should be within the LDRZ so as to match adjoining lots. Conversely, some RLZ north of the town should be included in a R1Z. Elsewhere, there have been repeated doubts raised over the years (and legal opinions received) about the accuracy of the TZ.

As with all other towns, the zoning regime in Wandong/Heathcote Junction needs to be an outcome of a structure planning exercise rather than in input into it. There is a danger in rezoning land without a sound strategic basis and Council is strongly advised to refrain from any short term rezonings until its structure planning is complete.

Industrial Zones


The Industrial 1 Zone has been applied to almost all industrial land covered in the Shire. This is especially so in the main industrial areas at Seymour, Kilmore and Broadford. A small area in Wallan East is similarly zoned.

The Industrial 3 Zone has been very sparingly used on a small site in central Kilmore.

Business Zones

The Business 1 Zone has been appropriately applied to the central retail areas of Seymour, Kilmore, Wallan, Wandong and Broadford.

The Business 4 Zone has also been appropriately applied to the peripheral retail areas at the town entrances to Seymour, Kilmore and Wallan.

The Business 2 Zone has been applied to an isolated site in Broadford and to all commercial land on the ‘east’ side of the old Hume Hwy in Broadford between the rail station and the park.

Submissions have noted that the Business 1 zone along High Street in Wallan needs to be rationalised and that there also needs to be more Business 4 zoning in the towns.

Rural Zones

The Farming Zone has been applied as the ‘default’ rural zone across the Shire.

It is understood that the schedule to the Farming Zone is a direct translation from the former schemes with minimum lot sizes of 40haexcept around Seymour (80ha) and a small area near Broadford (20ha). There is an urgent need to review the minimum lot sizes in the zone given that they have not been reviewed for about twenty years.

The Rural Living Zone has been extensively used. It encircles much of Pyalong and surrounds parts of Kilmore, Seymour and Wandong with a schedule specifying a 2 hectare minimum lot size.

Small lot excisions and dwellings on small lots are a recurrent issue for Council and the community. They are judged on a case-by-case basis and are assisted by a local policy at Clause 22.04-1.

Submissions have suggested that there should be greater scope to use innovative subdivision techniques to address the small lot issue such as at Lyndale Park at Tallarook.

A Rural Areas Review is contemplated in the medium term but based on consultations and the evidence of applications, there seems to be a pressing need to bring this work forward. This study should include a detailed review of the Rural Living zone, the Farming Zone and the Low Density Residential zone. In addition, further detailed work is needed to determine the number of small lots that are available, the number of existing houses and the potential for further houses and excisions.

Extensive areas of the Shire are also included in the Rural Conservation zone and this is appropriate.


The Rural Activity zone has not been applied but could be used if justified by the Rural Areas Strategy.

GMW has identified that there is potential for exemptions for referrals for dwelling extension, rural dwellings, native vegetation removal, boundary re-alignments, sheds or outbuildings in the FZ, RLZ, RCZ and RAZ provided that certain specified conditions are met.

The RCZ has been sparingly used but there is greater potential in areas such as Tantaraboo Hills and Black Range.

Public Use Suite

The Public Use Zone has been applied to land in public ownership.

The Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) has been extensively applied to most reserves and has been suggested as an appropriate zone to apply for the full length of the network of rail trails.

The Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) has also been extensively used and has been applied to public lands. Numerous other sites have been suggested for inclusion in the PCRZ including:

Old Police Paddocks Broadford

Greens Pinch

Kilmore Hospital Reservoir

Ryans Creek Reserve Kilmore

LB Davern Reserve and Dry Creek Corridor Wandong

Green Hill, Wallan

Beveridge Spring

Tooborac Nature Reserve

Black Springs Fauna Reserve, Pyalong

High Camp Flora Reserve

Comprehensive Development Suite

The two CDZ schedules affect the Hidden Valley Resort and the Beveridge Tourism and Residential Resort.

Special Use Suite

There are four schedules to the Special Use zone and there does not appear to any scope to rationalize these as they relate to specific sites. Greater opportunity exists in most of the SUZ schedules for exemptions from buildings and works approvals. It is noted that concern has been expressed during consultation regarding application of the SUZ to areas of extractive industry which have high environmental sensitivity.

Conclusions regarding the Zones and Schedules

Issues to emerge from the review of the zones and schedules requiring further work include:


Need for Rural Areas Strategy (inclusive of Rural Living zone, Farming Zone and Low Density Residential Zone review). Such a review should include an audit of small lots in the Farming Zone and for old crown allotments.

Need for a considered planning scheme response in relation to house entitlements on small lots in rural areas that reflects State Policy; Council’s vision for the future development of its rural areas; which aligns with the Rural Areas Strategy outcomes.

Need to review the zoning regime applied to smaller towns and settlements (Farming Zone or Township Zone).

Review of all existing Mixed Use zones.

Review of the need for the Business 2 zone.

Greater exemptions from buildings and works controls especially in the Special Use zones.

Suggested Actions:

Implement zoning changes resulting from further strategic work to be undertaken.

Investigate the application of Public Park and Recreation zone to publicly owned open space areas including the network of rail trails in the Shire.

Review proposals to apply Pubic Conservation and Resource zone to sites nominated in submissions.

Overlays

There are a total of 16 overlays in the Mitchell Planning Scheme as follows:

Environmental Significance

Vegetation Protection

Significant Landscape

Heritage

Design and Development

Incorporated Plan

Development Plan

Erosion Management

Salinity Management

Floodway

Land Subject to Inundation

Wildfire Management

Public Acquisition

Environmental Audit

Road Closure


Restructure

All of these overlays (other than the Road Closure, the Environmental Audit and the Wildfire Management Overlay) have at least one attached schedule which also vary in complexity. A brief overview of the overlays and schedules arising from the analysis and consultations include:

Environmental Significance Overlay

This overlay has four schedules being:

Schedule 1 Mount Piper and surrounds

Schedule 2 Lake Eppalock

Schedule 3 Water Course Protection

Schedule 4 Rural Conservation Area

This overlay has been widely applied around the declared Lake Eppalock water supply area and it ‘blankets’ extensive areas in the north west of the Shire (ESO2). That said, GMW notes that ESO2 does not apply to all areas within the Lake Eppalock Special Water Supply Catchment and this needs to be rectified.

Elsewhere, the ESO is sparingly used along waterways (ESO3) and around Mount Piper (ESO1). In particular, it is apparent that ESO3 only applies intermittently and it needs to be applied along all watercourses. It is noted by the Merri Creek Management Committee that ESO3 has not been applied to Merri Creek or any of its tributaries. The Merri Creek Development Guidelines could also be referenced in the schedule to the ESO.

The respective schedules do not exempt many permits and it is notable that ESO 1 and 2 contain no exemptions from buildings and works. By contrast, ESO3 and ESO4 have extensive exemptions.

The extensive ESO2 contains no decision guidelines and it is unclear how any applications are to be assessed. There is also greater potential for further exemptions for permits and referrals in ESO2.

Melbourne Water has identified that overlays alongside and over a waterway need to be expansive enough to ensure that the waterway is adequately protected from development and takes into account the quality of riparian vegetation, threatened species, habitats and setbacks.

Goulburn-Murray Water has suggested that the extent of the setbacks should be 50m for waterways (100m in Special Water Supply Catchment Areas).

Vegetation Protection Overlay

This overlay has two schedules being:

Schedule 1 Roadside and Corridor Protection Schedule 2 Freeway Environs Protection This overlay has been widely applied along roadsides (especially along the Hume and Goulburn Valley Freeways) and along some vegetated corridors near waterways. There is some overlap with ESO3.


The only permit exemptions in the overlay schedules relate to exotic vegetation or (in the case of VPO2) to a VicRoads approved document.

Submissions to the review from agencies and local environment groups have identified the need for an expanded regime of environmental type overlays (such as the VPO or the ESO). Candidate sites include those nominated by DSE as having high EVC significance while other possible candidate sites and areas include:

Seymour Bushland Park

Hughes Creek

Whitehead’s Creek

Granite Park Precinct

Telegraph Road bioloink

Piper biolink

Cobaw biolink

Strathbogie Ranges

Merri Creek habitat corridor

Wallan/Beveridge railway reserve

Beckingsale Reserve

Strathaird Creek, Taylors Creek, Wallan Creek and Mittagong Creek as tributaries of the Merri Creek.

Wallan Community Park.

Hadfield Park

Hernes Swamp

Rail Trails

Lambing Gully Road

Mount Piper to Dry Creek Corridor

While this list is by no means exhaustive, there are clearly a number of sites and areas that are candidates for greater environmental protection and these (and others) need to be properly assessed as part of further strategic work.

Significant Landscape Overlay

This overlay has two schedules being:

Schedule 1 Monument

Schedule 2 Tallarook Ranges

The overlay has been applied in a very local sense to Monument Hill and it contains no permit exemptions. The overlay has also been applied in a broader (‘blanket’) sense to the Tallarook Ranges and once again contains no meaningful permit exemptions. Both schedules contain helpful objectives and but little by way of decision guidelines.


Submissions have suggested that the hill areas and mountain ridgelines in the Shire require protection especially the five volcanic ‘cones’ and areas in the south of the Shire including Green Hill, Spring Hill, Mt. Fraser, Bald Hill, Pretty Sally Hill, and the old Sydney Road ridgeline. More ‘urban’ areas such as around Morrish Court Seymour could also be considered.

Notably, the overlay schedule requires referral under Section 55 of the Act to DSE unless the proposal satisfies requirements agreed to in writing between Council and DSE. In that context, an agreement dated July 2002 between Mitchell Shire and DSE (North East Region) and relating to the:


Salinity Management Overlay

Erosion Management Overlay

has been signed and is operational specifying exemptions and conditions. No reference to this agreement is made anywhere in the schedule.

Heritage Overlay

The Heritage Overlay has one schedule which lists 109 heritage places which vary from buildings, to structures, to trees to precincts. The schedule was most recently informed by Amendment C73 and includes 18 sites on the Victorian Heritage Register. Repeated community concern has been expressed about the lack of heritage protection (especially in towns such as Kilmore) and it is understood that the forthcoming Amendment C56 will redress this, in part.

Evidently Site 17 has now become the Australian Light Horse Memorial Park and the Schedule may need to be amended to reflect this.

Design and Development Overlay

This overlay has two schedules as follows:

Schedule 3 Kilmore Equine Lifestyle Precinct

Schedule 5 Seymour Equine Lifestyle Precinct

These overlays are both relatively recent (2010) and arise from site specific amendments (C66 and C74). In that context it is relevant that the overly schedules are both noticeably different from many other in the scheme with clear permit exemptions, development standards and decision guidelines.

Identified ‘gaps’ arising from consultation relating to the possible use of the DDO include a need for protection for the southern entrance to Wallan and Urban Design Guidelines for commercial and industrial areas especially Sydney Street Kilmore (which already has an adopted Urban Design Framework). There is some scope to adapt the state government ‘Business 4 Guidelines’ to suit local circumstances at town entrances in Seymour, Kilmore and Wallan.

Incorporated Plan Overlay

This overlay has one schedule and it only applies to the Seymour Abattoir introduced as part of Amendment C48 in 2007. The overlay links with an Incorporated Document and requires some EPA compliant conditions to be imposed.


Development Plan Overlay

This overlay has nine schedules as follows:

Schedule 1 Residential 1 Zone

Schedule 2 Low Density Residential Zone

Schedule 3 Industrial Development Plan

Schedule 4 Wallan

Schedule 5 Tullamore Park Cluster Farm Development Plan

Schedule 6 Land in the vicinity of State Motorcycle Sports Complex

Schedule 7 Rural Living Zone

Schedule 8 Wallan Part Crown Portion A Development Plan

Schedule 9 Wallan South West Development Plan

These schedules all apply either in a general sense (Schedules 1, 2 and 7) or in amore site specific sense (Schedules 5,6,8 and 9).

In all cases they specify the requirements for a Development Plan and many of them specify conditions and requirements for permits. Schedule 5 seems to be the conversion of an old permit for Tullamore Cluster Farm while Schedule 6 contains a map identifying where dwellings will be discouraged on the basis of noise impacts from the state motor cycle complex. Schedules 4, 8 and 9 apply to areas within Wallan and contain subdivision requirements and staging plans.

GMW has queried why DPO1, DPO2 and DPO7 are applied at all and questions if the overlay adds anything to the base zone.

Wallan Environment Group has suggested that ‘neighbourhood protection’ type overlays should be selectively applied including to the older residential areas of Wallan. This could be addressed in a DPO.


This overlay has been extensively applied to throughout the Shire and is based on recent mapping as part of Amendment C39 approved in 2009. Evidently, the new mapping reduces the previous extent of the overlay. There is one schedule to the overlay with an extensive list of exemptions which will not trigger permit applications for many buildings and works.

As noted above, while the EMO is joined with the SLO and SMO in specifying exemptions from referral, it is noted that the EMO schedule contains no option for referral under Section 55 of the Act.


This is another very extensively mapped overlay which covers most of the rural areas of the Shire in a ‘blanket’ sense. The overlay has one schedule with some exemptions from the need to apply for buildings and works including for outbuildings less than 120m2.

Staff advise that the overlay is so extensive that it extends into residential areas and because of this, Amendment C47 (2009) included a exemption that states:


No permit is required, other than as required under other clauses of this scheme pertaining to the land, to construct a building or to construct or carry out works including a fence, if the buildings or works form part of a planning permit relating to an approved plan of subdivision, or other planning permit issued in relation to the land.

This provision has caused confusion especially in relation to ‘as of right’ dwellings in a new estate that might be covered by the SMO.

Unlike the SLO, the overlay ‘header’ (as opposed to the schedule) requires referral under Section 55 of the Act to DSE unless the proposal satisfies requirements agreed to in writing between Council and DSE. An agreement dated July 2002 between Mitchell Shire and DSE (North East Region) and relating to the:




has been signed and is operational specifying exemptions and conditions. As with the SLO, no reference to this agreement is made in the schedule.

Floodway Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

These overlays both have reasonably detailed schedules informed by the Mitchell Local Floodplain Development Plan. The new schedules and mapping were included as part of Amendment C40 (2008) and contain extensive exemptions from permit requirements. The LSIO contains very specific exemptions for Seymour subject to reference to a specified CMA plan for that area.

Wildfire Management Overlay

This overlay applies extensively across the Shire and was most recently updated (in a mapping sense) by Amendment C32 in 2006. The mapping for all wildfire areas is being reviewed at the state level after ‘Black Saturday’. A recent state wide amendment (VC83) has replaced the WMO with a new Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO). The overlay presently has no provision for a schedule. Amendment VC83 changed the Mitchell Planning Scheme by:

Replacing Clause 13.05 of the State Planning Policy Framework to introduce an objective, strategies and policy guidelines relating to bushfire.

Replacing Clause 44.06 Wildfire Management Overlay with a new Bushfire Management Overlay.

Introducing a new particular provision Clause 52.47 Bushfire Protection: Planning Requirements with objectives, standards and decisions guidelines that are to be applied to planning permit applications to subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works under the provisions of the Bushfire Management Overlay.

Introducing a new particular provision Clause 52.48 Bushfire Protection that consolidates and updates planning permit exemptions for bushfire protection purposes.


Amending Clauses 42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay, 42.02 Vegetation Protection Overlay, 42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay, 44.01 Erosion Management Overlay, 44.02 Salinity Management Overlay, 52.16 Native vegetation precinct plan and 52.17 Native vegetation to address vegetation removal for creating defendable space and reducing the risk from bushfire.

Introducing consequential changes that include defining defendable space, changing the reference from the Wildfire Management Overlay to the Bushfire Management Overlay and updating reference from wildfire to bushfire.

Public Acquisition Overlay

This overlay has one schedule with eight acquisition authorities identified as follows:

PAO1 Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority


PAO3 Mitchell Shire Council


PAO5 Roads Corporation

PAO6 Coliban Region Water Corporation

PAO7 Roads Corporation

PAO8 Director of Public Transport

This schedule has evidently worked well and has been modified on an on-going basis over the life of the planning scheme to reflect the acquisition objectives of the authorities. There have been at least six local amendments to the scheme to introduce new maps and to identify acquiring authorities.

Environmental Audit Overlay

This overlay has been sparingly used and seemingly has not been applied to sites listed by the EPA. The overlay is not intended to have a schedule but it identifies places requiring environmental audit clearance prior to development for a ”sensitive use”. The Broadford Land Management Group has suggested that the EAO be applied to the water board land at Broadford to address any chemical contamination.

Road Closure Overlay

This overlay has been applied to land within Seymour and does not have a schedule. There is no provision for a schedule in this overlay in the VPP.

Restructure Overlay

This overlay has been applied in isolated instances to land near Tallarook and Reedy Creek. The overlay has a schedule with ‘none specified’ included, meaning that all land covered by the overlay is sterilised from use or development until a Restructure Plan has been prepared. Clearly this was not the intention and it needs to be remedied.

GMW noted that there is potential to use the overlay in areas where small lots cannot be serviced by reticulated sewerage. They suggest the use of the overlay to encourage the consolidation of small lots.


Conclusions regarding the Overlays and Schedules

Many of the overlays and schedules in the Mitchell Planning Scheme require review and further work including possible deletion, exemptions, map changes and the like. Notably, some of the overlay schedules do not provide any meaningful exemption provisions (eg Environmental Significance Overlay, Erosion Management Overlay, Salinity Management Overlay, Vegetation Protection Overlay) meaning that in some cases, most buildings and works require a permit.

Given the extensive coverage of some of these overlays (especially ESO2, EMO, SMO etc) it is quite possible that unnecessary applications have been triggered by this network of overlays with inadequate exemptions. In the context of the recent state initiatives to streamline the planning process and remove unnecessary permits, it appears that Council could minimise applications by including some realistic exemptions.

It is also evident that a number of environmental issues need to be addressed through the application of additional overlays. This could either be done as a series of individual projects (such as a waterway amendment, a significant landscape amendment etc) or under the umbrella of a ‘Biodiversity Mapping Project’ that sought to address all of these outstanding environmental issues as one project.

In a specific sense, the Restructure overlay needs urgent review as it has sterilised a number of lots from use or development. Either a Restructure Plan needs to be prepared or the overlay needs to be removed.

The new Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) and maps will also need to be included and it remains unclear whether this is to be a state initiative or whether it is to be the responsibility of Council.

Community consultation identified the possible use of the DDO to apply the adopted Urban Design Guidelines for commercial and industrial buildings in Sydney Street Kilmore.

Other issues to emerge from the consultation requiring further strategic work include:

Development Contribution Plan Overlay is urgently needed.

Design and Development Overlays are needed to address urban design guidelines for commercial, industrial and mixed use areas.

Modified flooding overlays to come.

Clarifying the intent of the permit exemptions in the SMO.

Suggested Actions:

Implement overlay changes resulting from further strategic work to be undertaken.

Modify the Environmental Significance Overlay 2 maps to extend to all of the Lake Eppalock Special Water Supply Catchment Areas.

Modify the Environmental Significance Overlay 3 maps to extend to 50m for all waterways (100m in Special Water Supply Catchment Areas).

Modify Environmental Significance Overlay 2 and 3 schedules to:


Emphasise the protection of waterways;

Include decision guidelines; and

Exempt out unnecessary referrals and exemptions.

Review proposals to apply a Vegetation Protection Overlay (or Environmental Significance Overlay) to environmentally sensitive areas identified in submissions.

Review proposals to apply a Significant Landscape Overlay to prominent hilltop, ridgeline and other visually sensitive areas identified in submissions.

Apply a Design and Development to the Kilmore town entrances and Sydney Street to implement the Kilmore UDF.

Review the need for Development Plan Overlay 1, 2 and 7 given that parts of these areas have been extensively developed.

Identify potential sites for the application of the EAO in consultation with EPA.

Review the application of the existing Restructure Overlay and remove it from areas that do not have a Restructure Plan.

Consider the application of the Restructure Overlay (with Plan) to encourage the consolidation of groupings of small lots in rural areas including those with reticulated sewerage.

Review all Bushfire Management Overlay mapping in consultation with the CFA every three years.

Specific provisions

There are now eleven opportunities in Clause 52 of the Mitchell Planning Scheme for Council to specify local variations to the Particular Provisions as follows:

Clause 52.01 Public Open Space Contribution and Car Parking

Clause 52.02 Easements, Restrictions and Reserves

Clause 52.03 Specific Sites and Exclusions

Clause 52.05 Advertising Signs

Clause 52.06 Car Parking

Clause 52.16 Native Vegetation Precinct Plan

Clause 52.17 Native Vegetation

Clause 52.27 Licensed Premises

Clause 52.28 Gaming

Clause 52.32 Wind Energy Facility

Clause 52.37 Post box and Dry stone walls

It is noted that Council has not taken the opportunity to include local content in most of these schedules with the term “none specified” being applied. In particular, there is no nominated public open space requirement at Clause 52.01. The Environment Advisory Committee has suggested that this be nominated as 10% of land area or land value. Such a figure would be difficult to substantiate without a robust open space


strategy but at the very least a 5% figure (to align with the Subdivision Act) seems appropriate. This would provide a more transparent basis to apply permit conditions.

Exceptions include the schedule to Clause 52.17 (Native Vegetation) which identifies areas along the Hume Freeway, the Goulburn Valley Highway and around the Broadford Water Supply Project where native vegetation removal is exempt.

The other significant exception is the schedules to Clause 52.28-3 and 52.28-4 (Gaming) where the Seymour Shopping Centre, the Coles Supermarket Complex in Kilmore and the Wellington Square Shopping Complex in Wallan are listed as localities where ‘gaming’ is prohibited. Strip shopping centres at Broadford, Kilmore, Seymour, Wallan and Wandong are listed and mapped to similarly prohibit ‘gaming’ machines. This clause complements the local policy at Clause 22.07 which was introduced as part of Amendment C50 in 2010.

A more recent addition is Clause 52.32 which enables a Council (or the state) to identify an area where a wind energy facility is prohibited. Amendment VC82 (August 2011) included all land west of the Hume Freeway and the Goulburn Valley Highway in the schedule to this clause.

Incorporated Documents

There are five ‘local’ documents listed in the Schedule to Clause 81.01 being:

Beveridge Comprehensive Development Plan.

Hume Freeway Upgrade – Gunns Gully Road to Beveridge (Drawing Nos. VR1 March 2007)

Hidden Valley Comprehensive development Plan December 1999 (Revision 01)

Mitchell Local Floodplain Development Plan, Precinct of Goulburn River, September 2003

Seymour Abattoir Incorporated Plan May 2002.

All of these plans and documents are available for inspection free of charge at the Council offices in Wallan.

Other documents suggested as being worthy of incorporation (or at least referenced) include:

Regional Catchment Strategies

Recreation and Open Space Strategies

Taylor’s Creek Strategic Plan

Rural Roadside Code of Practice

Sustainable Resource Management Strategy 2011

Mitchell 2020

Merri Creek and Environs Strategy 2009-2014

Municipal Health and Wellbeing Plan

Suggested Action:

Consider applying a 5% public open space requirement in Clause 52.01.


Consider the status of various Council and agency documents for formal inclusion in the planning scheme.

Conclusions regarding Specific Provisions and Incorporated Documents

While all the schedules to the Specific Provisions and Incorporated Documents have been reviewed to ascertain whether they are achieving their intended purpose, some (especially Clause 52.01) need to be updated.


APPENDIX 7 FURTHER STRATEGIC WORK AND OTHER ACTIONS


Mitchell MSS

Further Strategic Work and Other Actions

MSS Reference Further Strategic Work /Other Actions

Status

MSS Clause 21.05-1 Rural Land strategy

Identify sites with cultural heritage values and ensure supporting information for all sites is contained on Shire’s Heritage Database

2006 Heritage Study was adopted on 25/06/2007.

Council has prepared draft Amendment C56 and has updated the Statements of Significance and Data Base.

MSS Clause 21.05-1 Urban Development strategy

Develop and implement an effluent disposal strategy for unserviced residential areas of the Shire.

No further work completed


Identify sites with cultural heritage values and ensure supporting information for all sites is contained on Shire’s Heritage Database




Develop drainage and stormwater management programs for urban areas within the Shire.

Working with water authorities as development occurs and preparation of drainage strategies are required.


Look for opportunities to enhance environmental assets in urban areas, e.g. replanting of creek reserves and additional planting in road reserves.

Nothing planned in the short term although this is an increasingly important issue in the southern part of the Shire. Goulburn-Murray Water native Vegetation Code of Practice to be incorporated into the Scheme as part of Amendment C83.

MSS Clause 21.05-1 Land Management strategy

Continue to resource the Shire’s 10 Year Weed Control Program.

Nothing planned in the short term although this is an increasingly important issue in the southern part of the Shire.

MSS Clause 21.05-1 Land Management strategy

Develop a policy in collaboration with the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Catchment Management Authorities and other councils on the Goulburn River which is classed as a Heritage River.

Nothing planned in the short term although this is an increasingly important issue in the southern part of the Shire.

MSS Clause 21.05-1 Additional Avenues of Implementation

Further work is being undertaken to complete an overall Heritage Study of the Shire which integrates this work and provides the Shire with a complete Heritage Analysis for inclusion in the Planning Scheme.




The Country Fire Authority (CFA) has completed a mapping exercise of the Shire, detailing the areas considered to have potential for fire risk. This mapping has only been completed in draft form and upon its formalisation the information will be included in

State Government has reviewed the extent of the fire overlay and controls in response to the Bushfire Royal Commission. A new Bushfire Management Overlay is to be introduced into the same WMO areas but it is expected that the BMO mapping will be



Status

the scheme. enlarged to include areas of Mitchell that are not presently covered.

MSS Clause 21.05-2 Land Supply strategy

Delineate areas within the Shire where specific industrial or employment sectors will be encouraged to locate, so as to support infrastructure capabilities, available workforce requirements and suitable land.

Work continuing as part of employment economic development strategy and structure planning

MSS Clause 21.05-2 Industrial Development Opportunity strategy

Introduce an Industrial Development Code to ensure a consistent and acceptable standard of development that will attract further industries and employers to the area and protect the amenity of each town.

Economic Strategy completed and adopted. Not specific enough to apply a DDO to industrial areas. Not a high priority.

MSS Clause 21.05-2 Industrial Development Opportunity strategy

Examine the requirements for industries needing larger buffer area (including noxious industries).

Economic Strategy completed and adopted. Not specific enough to apply an overlay to buffer areas. Not a high priority.

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Settlement Strategy text

Council also acknowledges the strong demand for low density and rural residential allotments. Further research is needed to prepare a detailed inventory of those areas of the shire that are appropriate for rural residential development.

Rural Review to be completed as a medium priority over the next few years. Based on consultations this should include FZ , RLZ and LDRZ land.


In the longer term Council acknowledges the need to establish an equitable Development Contributions Plan which takes into account the different growth and development rates which occur from the south to the north of the Shire.

SGS prepared some indicative rates for Wallan, Kilmore and Broadford in 2005 but this is now superseded by the UGB and PSP work. Development Contributions remain a critical requirement but will be absorbed into the respective structure plans.


An Outline Development Plan, to guide possible future urban development, previously applied to land between the existing Beveridge township and the railway to the east. This plan will need to be re evaluated given the approval for the west Beveridge development proposal and the resultant implications for the availability and provision of physical and social infrastructure and supply and location of any further residential land. Significant additional development in the Beveridge area may justify the opening of a station on the rail line.

No longer relevant as all superseded by Melbourne @5 million and UGB. Need to be considered as a separate PSP or as a separate Structure Plan.

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Seymour Township Structure Plan

Agricultural – Industry

Investigate suitability of site for comprehensive agricultural enterprise park.

Will all need to be considered as part of the wider Rural Review inclusive of FZ, RLZ and LDRZ. Need separate analysis of agricultural trends in the Shire.


Environment

Examine environmental features of industrial zoned land to confirm suitable use.

To form part of future Seymour Structure Plan pending the resolution of the flood levy bank.



Status


Anzac Avenue

Consolidate neighbourhood role of the existing centre. Examine redevelopment options for public housing to support enhanced community facilities.

To form part of future Seymour Structure Plan pending the resolution of the flood levy bank

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Kilmore Township Structure Plan

Public Land

Review zoning and use of public land south of Clarke Street.

To form part of future Kilmore Structure Plan pending resolution of the town by pass.

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Broadford Township Structure Plan

Future Industrial

Investigate suitability of industrial expansion area.

Broadford Structure Plan not as contingent on other factors as the other towns and it could be fast tracked as a higher priority

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Wallan Beveridge Structure Plan

Mixed Use

Existing mixed use Precinct (Incorporated Plan applies). Future long term residential/commercial development opportunities. Review need/appropriateness of this area given lack of progress on proposed development; preferred development framework for Wallan; and difficult physical condition.

To form part of the Beveridge Structure Plan pending the outcomes of the Logical Inclusions Review

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Seymour Economic Development strategy

Strengthen the relationship with the Australian Army and the Puckapunyal base.

No action in recent years – see letter

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Seymour Economic Development strategy

Provide assistance for the development of small business.

Generally dealt with by the Economic Strategy Development. No further action needed in Planning Scheme.

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Seymour Industrial Development strategy

Establish a small business support program to assist the development and growth of local employers and businesses.

Generally dealt with by the Economic Strategy Development. No further action needed in Planning Scheme

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Seymour Industrial Development strategy

Prepare strategies and funding program for the long term planning of the Seymour urban area. This will need to include issues such as: town centre re-development, infrastructure, traffic management, urban design, flooding, railway crossing and residential area re development strategies.


Development of Structure Plan remains a medium priority but the Levee Bank issue to be addressed first

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Seymour Commercial Redevelopment

Work with Victoria Police to address public safety concerns.

Not relevant



Status

strategy

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Seymour Commercial Redevelopment strategy

Complete the Station Street Streetscape improvement program.


MSS Clause 21.05-3 Seymour Commercial Redevelopment strategy

Complete the Wallis Street traffic management and pedestrian crossing program.


MSS Clause 21.05-3 Seymour Neighbourhood Renewal of Public Housing Areas strategy

Identify areas of public housing stock To form part of future Seymour Structure Plan pending the resolution of the flood levy bank.


Encourage renewal of existing public housing stock in areas identified as not meeting acceptable community standards taking into account the special requirements of the occupants



Encourage diversity of housing by sale of selected dwellings in areas of concentrated public ownership. Sales to be accompanied by corresponding purchases of public housing in alternative locations

While this will form part of future Seymour Structure Plan pending the resolution of the flood levy bank, this has been dealt with on an ongoing basis.

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Kilmore Township Character strategy

Seek funding to employ Council’s Heritage Adviser to update the controls and guidelines for heritage assets in the town. Such work to include working with owners to assist them to make appropriate decisions that uphold the heritage importance of buildings and other structures.

Funding has been organised with Heritage Victoria and advice has been ongoing


Funding opportunities for streetscape improvements should be actively pursued.

The Mill Street Focal Space Project. Funding was accepted from DPCD and a report was endorsed by Council on 25th July 2011. The Kilmore Structure Plan 2008 contains an Urban Design Framework which can be

Detached from the report and used as the basis for overlay controls (DDO).


Support the realignment of the Highway from the town centre and ensure that additional traffic volumes can be accommodated within the urban boundaries.

To form part of future Kilmore Structure Plan pending resolution of the town by pass

State Government has made a funding commitment for the Kilmore – Wallan By



Status

Pass with planning work commencing in July 2011 and consultation underway.

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Kilmore Residential Growth strategy

Implement regulatory measures to ensure septic systems comply with present standards.


MSS Clause 21.05-3 Kilmore Residential Growth strategy

Investigate the need for Neighbourhood Character statements or overlays within the Kilmore urban area.


MSS Clause 21.05-3 Kilmore Commercial Development strategy

Review the objective specified in the previous Municipal Strategic Statement to encourage and facilitate development along the rear of those properties backing onto the Kilmore Creek as an area housing cafes and other specialty shops with an open view of the creek. Such review to involve consultation with traders to see whether this objective is still warranted.


Urban Design Framework completed for the retail precinct with a high priority for overlay controls along Sydney Street.

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Kilmore Horse Industry strategy

Review access arrangements between the racecourse and nearby properties used to stable horses trained at the racecourse.

The Kilmore Strategy Plan addressed this issue in part (Section 4.3.10) and urges the protection of the equine industry in acknowledgement of its importance to Kilmore. Amendment C66 (May 2010) introduces a DDO to facilitate the co-existence of accommodation and horse stables in the area.

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Broadford Industrial development strategy

Review the need for additional industrial zoned land in conjunction with consultation about the future of the industrially zoned land north of the freeway on ramp (west side of freeway).

Broadford Structure Plan not as contingent on other factors as the other towns and it could be fast tracked as a higher priority including this issue. The State Motor Cycle Sports Complex and Surrounds Master Plan is under preparation and it includes land east of the freeway which is owned by Council.

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Broadford Residential Growth strategy

Ensure all contaminated sites identified. Broadford Structure Plan not as contingent on other factors as the other towns and it could be fast tracked as a higher priority.

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Wallan Town Centre Development strategy

Review the opportunities to improve the standard of Bentinck Street and the zoning of adjoining properties.

To form part of the Wallan Structure Plan pending the outcomes of the Logical Inclusions Review

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Wallan Residential Growth strategy

Review impact of Hidden Valley on William Street.

To form part of the Wallan Structure Plan pending the outcomes of the Logical Inclusions Review



Status

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Wallan Industrial Development strategy

Lobby to provide north-bound exit ramps and south-bound entrance ramps for the freeway at Wallan/Wallan East.

S173 Agreement in place as part of Wallara Waters, Additional transport planning to occur as part of VicRoads, Hume Freeway study (Logical Inclusions / Growth Area Planning) as part of the Wallan Structure Plan pending the outcomes of the Logical Inclusions Review

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Wandong-Heathcote Junction Township Growth and Development strategy

Lobby to improve the standard and safety standards of roads around Wandong Heathcote Junction accessing the Mt Disappointment forest areas.

It is premature to undertake the Wandong-Heathcote Junction Structure Plan until the outcomes of the Logical Inclusions Review for Beveridge and Wallan are known. Once done, there are many requests for zoning changes that should be considered as part of that review.

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Pyalong Township Growth strategy

Resolve development issues for the Ladderhill Road industrial area.

No longer considered relevant or a high priority.

MSS Clause 21.05-3 Beveridge

Review the impact of the Beveridge West Golf Course Residential development on both the facilities and infrastructure within Beveridge and the area south to Gunns Gully Road.


MSS Clause 21.05-3 Beveridge

Ensure the completion of the Restructure Plan for the lots in the township on the west side of the freeway.


MSS Clause 21.05-3 Strategy Implementation

Development Contribution Plan Overlays (or their equivalent) will be introduced following completion of the government’s review of the Development Contribution process in early/mid 2002.

SGS prepared some indicative rates for Wallan, Kilmore and Broadford in 2005 but this is now superseded by the UGB and PSP work. Development Contributions remain a critical requirement but will be absorbed into the respective structure plans. While further work will therefore be completed on development contributions as part of growth area planning and structure plans, this issue remains a high priority.


The completion of a strategy for the Hume Corridor which will address the issue of future growth management, transport and infrastructure provision at a local, regional and State level.

While still relevant, the UGB and Growth Corridor issues as well as the Regional Blueprint have overtaken this as a specific issue.


Introducing Development Contribution Plans for the Shire taking into account the variables associated with projected growth and development patterns in the north and south of the Shire

SGS prepared some indicative rates for Wallan, Kilmore and Broadford in 2005 but this is now superseded by the UGB and PSP work. Development Contributions remain a critical requirement but will be absorbed into the respective structure plans. While further work will therefore be completed on development contributions as part of growth area planning and structure



Status

plans, this issue remains a high priority.


Actively work with, encourage and assist State and Commonwealth Governments in carrying out Neighbourhood Renewal of selected public housing areas.

To be absorbed into individual town structure plans.


Organise, participate in and encourage widely based community participation in a consultation exercise to:

- Identify areas suitable for neighbourhood renewal;

- Plan for and implement appropriate infrastructure improvements and social programs to assist disadvantaged residents.

To be absorbed into individual town structure plans


Current Strategic Planning Work Program

Further Strategic Work Program

Council Reference

Further Strategic Work /Other Actions Status

Scheme Amendment Implement part of the recommendations of the Kilmore Strategy Plan into the Mitchell Planning Scheme as part of Amendment C79.

Amendment C79 has been exhibited and submissions have been considered by Council. A Planning Panel has been appointed and the Hearing is expected to be held in March 2012.

Scheme Amendment Implement the recommendations of the Heritage Study into the Mitchell Planning Scheme as part of Amendment C56.

Amendment C56 is being prepared and finalised for exhibition and remains a High Priority.

Structure Plans (Part)

Localised analysis of the King/William Street precinct in north east Wallan given a settlement pattern of larger lots that are under pressure for more intense development.

Brief being prepared and finalised for this area as a short term High Priority.

Structure Plans (part)

Localised review of development plans prepared by consultants for the land south and east of Wallara Waters in Wallan.

Development expectations in the area elevates this to a High Priority.

Hume Corridor Plan Prepare response to state government plan for the corridor.

High Priority as Ministerial announcement imminent.

Urban Design Framework

Review, finalise and implement the recommendations of the Kilmore Strategy Plan as it relates to the Urban Design Framework for the town.

Amendment to be prepared and finalised for exhibition as a Medium Priority.

Precinct Structure Plans

Liaise with GAA on the development and implementation of the Lockerbie North Precinct Structure Plan and implement into the Mitchell Planning Scheme.

Amendment to be prepared and finalised with GAA as a High Priority.


Liaise with GAA on the development and implementation of the Lockerbie Precinct Structure Plan (only partly within Mitchell Shire) and implement into the Mitchell Planning Scheme.



Liaise with GAA on the development and implementation of the Beveridge Central Precinct Structure Plan and implement into the Mitchell Planning Scheme.



Council Plan 2009 - 2013

Further Strategic Work and Other Actions

Council Plan Reference

Further Strategic Work /Other Actions Status

Arts and Culture Progressively implement the recommendations of the Heritage Study in the Mitchell Planning Scheme after due planning process is undertaken.

An amendment is being prepared to implement the Heritage Study and remains a high priority.

Arts and Culture Develop and implement a Strategy in accordance with the Mitchell Shire Heritage Policy to guide Council’s actions in the areas of historical and cultural activities.

An amendment is being prepared to implement the Heritage Study and remains a high priority.

Development Adequately resource Statutory Planning activities to support a rapidly growing Shire.

Continuing – High Priority

Development Increase the percentage of planning applications determined within 60 statute days.

Continuing to monitor and review

Development Prepare and implement a program of Strategic Land Use Planning Activities (including the preparation of an Equine Precinct Plan for Seymour).

Yet to be fully completed although Amendment C74 (November 2010) introduced a DDO to facilitate the co-existing use of accommodation and horse stables within south east Seymour.

Development Undertake review process on the re–zoning of Industrial land Seymour.

Yet to be completed and will be absorbed into the Seymour Structure Plan pending resolution of the levy bank.

Development Providing sufficient resources to enable implementation of the new residential zones

No longer relevant as state government has not released the new zones


Mitchell 2020 Community Priorities

Sustainable Development

Short Term (1 – 2 years)

Medium Term (2 – 5 years) Long Term (5 – 9 years)

Planning and Policy Development

Develop and implement a Development Contributions Strategy which establishes a strategic approach to the collection and allocation of open space contributions from developers

Review Mitchell’s Municipal Strategic Statement to reflect the priorities identified in the Community Plan

Participate in the preparation of the Growth Area Framework Plan and a suite of Precinct Structure Plans for that part of the northern growth corridor of metropolitan Melbourne that incorporates the Shire of Mitchell, including Beveridge.

Strengthen planning policy to encourage Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD)

Implement structure plans and urban design frameworks aimed at enhancing the liveability of Mitchell Shire

Apply environmentally sustainable design principles and practices to all development.

Review and implement processes and actions that ensure Council’s own operations are a model of leadership in this regard.

Support the development of a new major activity centre, proximate to Beveridge.

Prepare Structure Plans for the regional centres and major towns.

Plan for the collection of development contributions and for the orderly delivery of capital works projects.

Establish growth boundaries around each primary settlement.

Discourage new development outside of nominated settlements.

Discourage new development on smaller lots located outside of the primary settlements of the Shire to minimise detrimental environmental impacts, protect landscapes and agricultural land and enhance the sustainable delivery of services.

Service Delivery

Implement and enforce Council’s planning policies which aim to achieve sustainable development

Ensure that sustainable outcomes underpin the structure and design of new communities.

Seek opportunities to secure alternate renewable sources of energy that enhance sustainability and reduce carbon emissions.

Protect distinctive landscape and environmental features of Shire from inappropriate development.

Utilise Council’s property portfolio strategically to further the sustainable development of the municipality

Support the integration of significant natural resources into the regional open space systems of the area.

Support sensitive infill development.

Preserve and enhance the established and strong sense of identity and character of each settlement.

Conserve and enhance the built form and heritage that distinguishes each town by supporting respectful infill which contributes to the character and identity of settlements.

Recognise the longer-term strategic changes and improvements in the accessibility of the southern part of the shire.

Address capacity, safety and conflict issues particularly on the Northern Highway through Wallan and Kilmore.

Support the provision of a high quality wireless and or fibre network into emerging new communities.

Increase the diversity of available housing options to meet the diverse and changing needs of the community

Support a sustainable approach to the growth and development of settlements and rural land use through the adoption of a hierarchy of settlements with clear primary roles.

Ensure each settlement in Mitchell is a compact and distinctive place as well as being great places to visit and or live.

Support efforts to attract visitation and tourism based on Mitchell’s heritage character.

Improve the integration of stations with the proximate community, particularly at Kilmore and Wallan.

Support enhancements to the primary arterial road network.

Ensure walking and cycling infrastructure is incorporated into the design and development of new neighbourhoods.

Support the competitive advantage of the rail connections throughout the Shire.

Develop a Design Awards scheme to promote high quality architectural design

Conserve and enhance public art, historic buildings and places in Council ownership


Advocacy and Community Education

Advocate to retain country character and protection of natural landscapes and cultural heritage

Advocate for State Government planning policies that support sustainable development and create greater certainty for land owners

Advocate for the early delivery of infrastructure development to ensure it keeps pace with our ever growing and changing community.

Secure State and developer based infrastructure funding.

Advocate for the improved presentation of major infrastructure such as freeways and rail corridors in the Region

Promote Mitchell’s historic buildings and places through publications, the media and interpretive signage

Economic Prosperity

Short Term (1 – 2 years) Medium Term (2 – 5 years) Long Term (5 – 9 years)


Market the opportunities for new business in the area.

Further develop the tourism offer in conjunction with complementary attractions in the broader region and neighbouring municipalities.

Develop and implement the Mitchell Economic Development Strategy

Develop strategies aimed at increasing the employability of residents in the municipality

Develop and implement marketing strategies, structure plans and urban design frameworks for Mitchell’s activity centres and industry hubs

Ensure that sufficient suitably zoned land is provided to support the economic wellbeing of settlements.

Understand that the anticipated growth in the community will be matched by greater diversity of need and expectation in the areas of health, education, community service and recreation.

Service Delivery

Support local business associations.

Support the development of employment and training opportunities in the Shire.

Encourage new business and employment opportunities throughout the Shire.

Implement a Shop Front Improvement Program aimed at improving the presentation of shopping strips in partnership with traders

Enhance the ability of local business associations to undertake coordinated marketing and management of shopping precincts.

Facilitate access to volunteering, learning, mentoring and training opportunities as a pathway to ongoing employment.

Support an expansion of the range and depth of educational facilities and services in response to growth and the needs of the community at all stages in its lifecycle.

Support the development of the southern part of the Shire as a major centre of freight and logistics.

Support the diversification in rural land practice and production to maintain employment and value in the Shire.

Facilitate access to business training and networking and an online business development portal.

Facilitate access to financial literacy education programs.


Support the development of the equine industry, as a major economic, social, lifestyle and recreational sector in the Shire.

Encourage the growth of tertiary employment opportunities in the major centres of the Shire.

Support opportunities improve the quality of digital technology operating through the Shire.


Advocate for the identification and development of major, strategically located commercial and industry hubs in the Region to increase access to local employment.

Develop a campaign to highlight Mitchell-based business and encourage the community to “buy local”.

Make Mitchell more attractive to business by improving access to technology and services.

Facilitate inter-sector collaboration to increase training and employment opportunities.

Collaborate with the education sector to improve high school retention rates and increase the level of participation in further education.

Social Wellbeing



Develop and implement an integrated service development and infrastructure planning framework for Council support services

Develop and implement a Leisure Services Strategic Plan to respond the needs of all people living in Mitchell

Understand that the anticipated growth in the community will be matched by greater diversity of need and expectation in the areas of health, education, community service and recreation.

Develop and implement the Community Safety Strategy

Implement State legislation and local laws aimed at enhancing public health and safety

Work with other agencies and stakeholders to develop an integrated and coordinated approach to achieving positive health outcomes

Endorse and implement a Public Art Policy

Investigate use of health impact assessments to inform Council decision making

Service Delivery

Celebrate our local history and diversity and encourage the community to take pride in local areas

Support local community groups by providing information, training, meeting facilities and financial assistance through the community grants program.

Establish community networks and hold networking events where different community groups can share ideas and learn from each other.

Support and develop sports networks to enhance opportunities for the development of clubs.

Facilitate access to formal and informal volunteering opportunities

Extend use of community facilities to a range of groups

Facilitate access to volunteering, learning, mentoring and training opportunities as a pathway to ongoing employment.

Enhance neighbourhood character through parks and civic spaces that are safe, practical and enjoyable places to rest and socialise.

Support convenient access across the network of settlements to a greater range of health, educational, social and recreational facilities and services.

Support hubs of integrated community services that will be provided in the regional centres and larger towns.

Plan and deliver life stage services that meet the needs of Mitchell’s changing population

Support an expansion of the range and depth of educational facilities and services in response to growth and the needs of the community at all stages in its lifecycle.


via community and sports facility agreements, leases and licences which incorporate a flexible approach

Provide information about community services and activities through publications, the media and the internet

Recognise and celebrate community participation through Council publications and awards

Provide leisure and recreation facilities and activities that cater to Mitchell’s diverse community

Build the capacity of sports clubs by providing support and facilitating access to training

Enhance the safety of neighbourhoods by implementing crime prevention through environmental design principles, encouraging activity in public places, upgrading public lighting where needed and working with the police and other stakeholders on crime prevention and perceptions of safety

Develop and maintain community facilities that are multifunctional and accessible to the community in terms of cost, location, administration and design

Implement immunisation programs

Implement programs aimed at increasing active transport, such as TravelSmart and the Walking School Bus

Implement healthy eating programs and policies

Develop district, neighbourhood and suburban parks in strategic locations

Ensure all public open space and indoor activity areas, including parks are accessible to people with limited mobility, are equipped with public amenities that meet the needs of the community and are maintained in accordance with best practice

Ensure that facilities and structures in open spaces are consistent with our diverse community needs.

Develop walking and cycling paths along Mitchell’s creeks and rivers

Enhance public open space areas through continuing installation of drought tolerant grass, synthetic grass, landscaping, sports ovals and provision of public art in parks


Advocate to reduce the health inequities for vulnerable population groups such as Indigenous community members, recently arrived communities, homeless community members, people with disabilities and all people from culturally diverse backgrounds

Advocate for resources for district/regional sports complexes

Advocate for increased bulk billing medical services and Medicare offices to make claims processes more accessible

Provide information about walking cycling and public transport services in Mitchell through publications and directional signage

Develop and implement road and pedestrian safety education programs

Seek the enhancement of the quality and frequency of rail services.

Advocate for increased tertiary education facilities and programs in the Region.

Advocate for the provision of a full range of preventative as well as reactive health services, in a timely manner and in accessible locations.

Advocate for increased funding to close the life stage service gaps and to support key community groups through life stage transitions

Advocate for flexible funding models for community support services to facilitate integrated service delivery

Advocate for health interventions by utilising physical activity initiatives that extend use to hard to reach groups

Extend the network of physical activity opportunities in open spaces to attract a wide range of residents

Advocate for health services that meet the community’s cultural and life stage needs

Advocate for more affordable spaces to be made available for artists and arts organisations

Advocate for affordable transport options that are environmentally and socially sustainable

Increase and promote alternative forms of transport such as cycling and walking

Seek improvements to the urban


quality of train stations and their links to town centres.

Advocate for more frequent and weekend bus services to supplement the rail network and provide connection and integration of services for communities not located proximate to the rail line.

Environmental Sustainability



Avoid and minimise the removal of native vegetation

Minimise risk to people and property from fire

Develop policies, programs and management plans, aimed at increasing the biodiversity and conservation value of land within the municipality

Develop and implement planning policies aimed at protecting and enhancing Mitchell’s natural landscapes

Enhance the health of watercourses and the biodiversity of the area.

Protect agricultural land and floodplains.

Conserve and protect valued natural resources, including water, land, flora and fauna.

Identify suitable locations for the revegetation and connection of bio-links, including along watercourses.

Service Delivery

Administer waste services aimed at minimising the amount of waste transferred to landfill

Provide incentives such as financial assistance to encourage sustainable land management practices on private land

Undertake conservation works including weed and pest animal control on Council owned land

Maintain and improve Council’s drainage infrastructure to improve the quality of water discharged into Mitchell’s creeks and rivers

Promote environmentally sustainable practices through information, education and awards programs

Promote home grown and local food production

Enable opportunities for community members to contribute to community education based on their experiences of living sustainably

Implement the Storm Water Management Plan aimed at reducing the negative impact of storm water on Mitchell’s creek and rivers

Implement water sensitive urban design principles in the design of public places


Support local environment groups, including “Friends of” groups

Promote the environmental, historical and cultural values of Mitchell’s natural landscapes

Provide relevant information so the community can make informed choices to help minimise our environmental impact

Advocate for higher mandatory Ecologically Sustainable Design standards

Advocate for transport solutions that support reduced car use

Advocate for State and Federal investment in habitat and open space corridors in Mitchell

Facilitate community participation in environmental programs and events such as water monitoring, development of wild flower gardens, tree planting and conservation works

Mitchell Planning Scheme Review Final Consultant Report ... · PDF fileMitchell Planning...

Documents

Transcript of Mitchell Planning Scheme Review Final Consultant Report ... · PDF fileMitchell Planning...