The independent panel's report

8/17/2019 The independent panel's report

1/62

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 – Significant Landscape Overlays

1 April 2016


2/62

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217

Significant Landscape Overlays

1 April 2016

Brett Davis, Chair Lisa Kendal, Member


3/62

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016

Contents Page

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4

1.1 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 4

1.2 The Panel process .................................................................................................... 4

1.3 The subject area ...................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Background .............................................................................................................. 7

1.5 Issues dealt with in this report ................................................................................ 8

2 Planning context ......................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................. 10

2.3 Ministerial

Directions

and

Practice

Notes

.............................................................

10

2.4 Discussion and conclusion ..................................................................................... 11

3 Bendigo Landscape Assessment Study methodology ................................................ 12

3.1 The issues .............................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 12

3.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 21

3.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 24

3.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 25

4 Application of the Significant Landscape Overlay ...................................................... 26

4.1

The

issue

................................................................................................................

26

4.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 26

4.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 43

4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 48

4.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 49

5 Other matters ........................................................................................................... 50

5.1 Protection of environmental values in the study area ......................................... 50

5.2 Protection of the study area from development .................................................. 52

5.3 Fee Simple ............................................................................................................. 54

Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment

Appendix B Document list


4/62


List of Tables Page

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing .................................................................................... 5

List of Figures Page

Figure 1 Landscape Assessment area .................................................................................... 6

Figure 2 Amendment area ..................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3 Landscape Character areas ................................................................................... 18

Figure 4 Values Summary table ........................................................................................... 19

Figure 5

Proposed

revised

Significant

Landscape

Overlay,

Schedule

3

curtilage ................................................................................................................. 34


5/62


List of Abbreviations

CFA

Country

Fire

Authority

CSLAS Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study 2006

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (former)

EIIA Extractive Industry Interest Area

EPA Environment Protection Authority

EVC Ecological Vegetation Class

GRZ General Residential Zone

LAS Landscape Assessment Study

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

SLO Significant Landscape Overlay

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

the Study Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final

Report (2013)

UGB

Urban Growth

Boundary

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


6/62


Overview

Amendment Summary

The Amendment Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 – Significant Landscape Overlays

Common Name Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Landscape Assessment

Planning Authority City of Greater Bendigo

Authorisation Conditional 25 March 2014

Exhibition 18 June to 30 July 2015

Submissions Number of Submissions: 53

‐ 27

supported

the

Amendment,

or

supported

with

changes

‐ 22 objected to the Amendment; and

‐ 4 submissions raised a number of issues.

Panel Process

The Panel Brett Davis and Lisa Kendal

Directions Hearing City of Greater Bendigo offices, 16 November 2015

Panel Hearing City of Greater Bendigo offices, 27‐29 January 2016

Site Inspections Unaccompanied 16 November 2015 and 27 January 2016, accompanied 28 January 2016

Date of this Report 1 April 2016


7/62


Page 1 of 56

Executive Summary

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme (the Amendment) was prepared by the City of Greater

Bendigo (Council)

as

Planning

Authority.

As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to:

Introduce updates to the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clauses 21.08 and 21.10 to

reflect the strategic recommendations of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill

and Mandurang Valley Final Report (2013) (The Study) and to include the Study as a

reference document

Introduce two new schedules to the Significant Landscape Overlay (Schedule 3 and 4) to

the Big Hill and Mandurang areas.

The Panel has considered all written submissions as well as submissions and evidence

presented and

tested

during

the

Hearing.

Key issues raised in submissions included:

study purpose and methodology

extent and application of the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay

environmental protection and values

bushfire risk

protection of the study area from development

fee simple and compensation rights.

The Panel has reviewed the structure and content of the Schedules and the Study in detail.

It is

concerned

that

the

Study

is

hard

to

read,

the

justification

of

conclusions

is

unclear,

and

this has the potential to cause some confusion to all stakeholders. This was reflected in the

diverse submissions and opinions received.

The Panel has carefully considered the submissions and evidence presented to it in relation

to the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay and has identified that it has a

number of deficiencies. The Panel accepts that there is complexity in undertaking a

landscape assessment to determine landscape significance; however in this instance the

Panel considers it reasonable that the landscape must predominately be visible.

The Panel is of the view that the current extent of the Significant Landscape Overlay

mapping is far too broad, determination of the overlay curtilage is inconsistent and further

work is required to give confidence that the Significant Landscape Overlay is acceptable. The Panel found that while the Study did reference visibility, contours and elevation in relation

to the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, this was not translated into its

recommendations for the extent of the curtilage.

The Panel concurs with other Panel findings that any revision of the Significant Landscape

Overlay in the future should consider the inclusion of public land.

There was confusion by some submitters that the Significant Landscape Overlay was a tool

to restrict development. Development potential, particularly of Ravenswood Run was not a

matter for the Panel to consider at this Hearing. The Panel’s task is to decide whether or not

the application

of

a Significant

Landscape

Overlay

is

strategically

justified.


8/62


Page 2 of 56

The only expert evidence was called by representatives for Ravenswood Run and the Panel

placed significant weight on the observations of its expert Mr Haack.

Whilst the Council has demonstrated a substantial amount of work in relation to the

preparation of the Amendment, the lack of clarity of stated purpose, and translation of

findings into overlay controls has led the Panel to not support the Amendment in its current

form. The Panel found that the link or “nexus” between the Study and its translation into

the implementation of a Significant Landscape Overlay as exhibited was not justified.

The Panel has recommended deferment rather than abandonment. It does so

acknowledging the time, effort and ultimate cost in undertaking this type of Amendment.

The need to re‐exhibit the Amendment will be a judgement call based on the course of

action that the Council takes.

In relation to the Study, the Panel concludes:

There is no nexus between the Study, extent of the Overlay proposed and the Schedules.

The Study

process

would

be

more

reliable

and

convincing

if

the

study

team

had

undertaken a site inspection of the largest parcel of land in the study area

A landscape assessment study relying on secondary sources of information to

complement visual analysis and consultation should demonstrate evidence of this

throughout the document through, for example, a literature review, source references

and a bibliography.

It would be beneficial to have a greater understanding of comparative significance of the

landscape assessed, to help understand the relative importance of protection and

appropriate tools to achieve this.

The Study recommendations would be more robust if the report and study process

demonstrated more

clearly

how

the

findings

from

community

engagement

were

considered and integrated into the final recommendations.

The Study should be revised in line with the conclusions and an Executive Summary

prepared. The Executive Summary should then be used as a Reference Document.

In relation to the Significant Landscape Overlay the Panel concludes:

The application of the Overlay has been inconsistent – in some cases broadly applied and

in other cases irregular.

The Overlay should not be used as a tool to “lock out” development potential.

The Overlay controls do not increase the risk of bushfire as the planning scheme needs to

be read

in

its

entirety.

The comments provided by the CFA and Public Transport Victoria are appropriate once

revisions to the Amendment occur ‐ relevant permit exemptions for public land

managers should be included in any revised schedule

The Planning Scheme adequately provides for applications for stone extraction in the

study area.

In relation to the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3 – Big Hill, the Panel concludes:

Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3 as exhibited is not supported.

The application of Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 should be reviewed with

consideration of all landscape visibility and use of natural features to determine

boundaries and

a reduction

in

its

size.


9/62


Page 3 of 56

The Overlay should include the ridgeline and escarpment.

Consideration of the area to the south east of the exhibited area of Big Hill should be

considered for a future Amendment.

In

relation

to

the

Significant

Landscape

Overlay

Schedule

4

–

Mandurang,

the

Panel

concludes:

Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 as exhibited is not supported.

Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 should only be applied to the forest interface

to protect the landscape values of Mandurang.

Based on the reasons set out in this report, the Panel recommends:

The adoption of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 should be 1.

deferred pending further work.

The adoption of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang 2.

Valley

Final

Report

(2013)

(the

Study) as

a Reference

Document

is

not

supported

in its current form. The Study should be revised to include:

a) an Executive Summary with details of the Study findings and

recommendations.

b) clearly numbered subheadings, numbered tables, figures and maps, with

listing of all elements in an associated list of tables, figure or maps

c) clear definitions relating to landscape significance

d) a bibliography referencing all source material

e) a clear nexus should be demonstrated between the Study, the extent of

any Overlay and wording to the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedules.

The Significant

Landscape

Overlay

Schedules

as

exhibited

are

not

supported.

3.

Council should re‐examine the areas covered by the Significant Landscape

Overlay. The areas should be more carefully and logically defined so that land is

not unnecessarily included. This review should:

a) include significant landscape areas zoned Rural Conservation Zone and

Public Conservation and Resource Zone

b) include the ridgeline and escarpment at Big Hill and substantially reduce

the application to the remainder of the site at Ravenswood Run

c) use landscape features to determine the overlay curtilage

d) provide a logical boundary around the Box Ironbark forest and interface

properties


10/62


Page 4 of 56

1

Introduction

1.1 The Amendment

Greater Bendigo

Planning

Scheme

Amendment

C217

(the

Amendment)

was

prepared

by

Council as Planning Authority.

As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to:

introduce updates to the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clauses 21.08 and 21.10 to

reflect the strategic recommendations of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill

and Mandurang Valley Final Report (2013) (the Study) It also introduces two new

schedules to the Significant Landscape Overlay.

In particular the Amendment proposes to:

amend Clause 21.08 to be titled ‘Environment and landscape’.

amend Clause

21.08

‐1 ‘Overview’

to

include

reference

to

landscape

values

of

Big

Hill,

Mandurang Valley and Box Ironbark region.

amend Clause 21.08‐2 ‘Objectives’ to include an objective relating to the protection and

management of areas with significant landscape character and value.

amend Clause 21.08‐3 ‘Strategies’ to include a strategy relating to sensitive design and

development within areas of identified landscape value.

amend Clause 21.08‐4 ‘Implementation’ to update under ‘Zone and Overlay’, and under

‘Further strategic work’ removes reference to ‘completing a landscape assessment of

rural areas such as Big Hill and replaces with a reference to encourage further strategic

work to identify and investigate other areas of potentially significant landscape

character.

amend Clause 21.10 to include the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and

Mandurang Valley Final Report (2013) as a reference document.

insert the following new Schedules to the Significant Landscape Overlay at Clause 42.03:

SLO3 applies to Big Hill Significant Landscape Area, and

SLO4 applies to Mandurang Valley Significant Landscape Area.

Amend the Schedule to Clause 61.03 to insert reference to new planning scheme maps

for SLO3 on map nos 26SLO, 29SLO, 31SLO and 39SLO, and SLO4 on map nos 24SLO,

26SLO, 27SLO, 28SLO, 29SLO, 31SLO & 39SLO.

1.2

The

Panel

process

The Panel met in Council’s Bendigo offices on 27 ‐ 29 January 2016 to hear submissions

about the Amendment.

Those in attendance at the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1.


11/62


Page 5 of 56

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing

Submitter Represented by

City of Greater Bendigo Andrew Cockerall (Senior Strategic Planner) assisted by

Helen Knight

of

Planisphere

DEDJTR Richard Hancock

Big Hill Action Group Bruce Carpenter and Gill Rosier

Steve Lottkowitz

Ravenswood Run1 Paul Connor of Counsel instructed by Stephen Pole

(Spiire), who called the following expert witnesses:

‐ Peter Haack, Landscape Architect, Urbis Pty Ltd

Wendy Radford

Dr Jenny

Parrat

and

Dr

John

Togno

Sharon Munro Dr John Togno

Jarrod Taylor

Stanislaw Pelczynski and Barbara Pelczynska

Bendigo and District Environment

Council

Stuart Fraser and Gill Rosier

The Panel conducted an unaccompanied site inspection on 16 and 27 January 2016 and an

accompanied inspection (with Council, Mr Connor and community representatives) of the

Ravenswood Run

property

on

28

January

2016.

1.3 The subject area

Figure 1 depicts the subject area as outlined in red.

1

Ravenswood

Run

made

two

written

submissions

to

the

Amendment

through

different

consultants

Spiire

(submitter

16)

and through Tract (submitter 43).


12/62


Page 6 of 56

Figure 1 Landscape Assessment area

Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final Report,

2013, p15

The Amendment applies to land as shown in Figure 2.


13/62


Page 7 of 56

Figure 2 Amendment Area

Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final Report,

2013, p131

1.4 Background

Planisphere was engaged by Council to prepare the Study. The Study was undertaken over a

13 month period from January 2012 to February 2013.

The project brief from Council required a review of best practice landscape assessment to

inform its methodology. The Study was required to include a landscape management

framework which included statutory and non‐statutory approaches and management

actions.

It involved community engagement, a period of community exhibition to provide feedback

on the draft report, and regular meetings with a Project Reference Group and Steering

Committee.

Council intended the Study to act as a pilot study to develop a methodology for use in other

parts of the municipality


14/62


Page 8 of 56

1.5 Issues dealt with in this report

The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during

the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been

assisted by

the

information

provided

to

it

as

well

as

its

observations

from

inspections

of

specific sites.

The Panel has carefully considered the submissions and evidence presented to it in relation

to the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay and has identified that it has a

number of deficiencies. The Panel recommends that further work be carried out on the

Study and on the extent of the proposed overlay.

This report deals with the issues under the following headings:

Planning context

Bendigo Landscape Assessment Study methodology

Application of the Significant Landscape Overlay

Other matters.


15/62


Page 9 of 56

2

Planning context

Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the

Explanatory

Report.

The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of

the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies.

2.1 Policy framework

(i) State Planning Policy Framework

Council submitted that the Amendment is supported by the following clauses in the SPPF:

Clause 11 – Settlement

- Clause 11.12 – Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth

Clause 12

–

Environmental

and

Landscape

Values

- Clause 12.01‐1 Protection of Biodiversity

- Clause 12.04 Significant Environments and Landscapes

- Clause 12.04‐2 Landscapes

Clause 13 – Environmental Risks

Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 16 – Housing.

(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework

Council submitted that the Amendment supports the following local planning objectives:

Clause 21.02

‐1 –

Urban

Forest

Interface

is

supported

because

the

Amendment

seeks

to

further protect land within or adjoining these landscapes

Clause 21.05 – Settlement is supported because the Amendment seeks to protect and

maintain forested areas surrounding Bendigo

Clause 21.08 – Environment is supported because the Amendment will enhance and

complement existing strategies to protect the environmental assets of Greater Bendigo,

in particular the Box Ironbark region

Clause 22.01 – Development at the Urban – Forest Interface Policy is supported because

the Amendment will enhance protection for land which interfaces with Box Ironbark

forests

Clause 22.02

–

Rural

Dwellings

Policy

is

supported

because

the

Amendment

will

complement the objectives of this clause by ensuring that ‘any future development is

sensitively designed to minimise impacts on natural and landscape values’

Clause 22.08 – Highway Entrances and Boulevards Policy is supported because the

Amendment will specify design requirements for any development around Big Hill, as the

primary southern gateway to the City of Greater Bendigo

Clause 22.09 – Calder Freeway and Calder Highway Environs Policy is supported because

the Amendment will implement objectives to protect key viewing corridors including

views to and views from the Highway.


16/62


Page 10 of 56

(iii) Other planning strategies or policies used in formulating the Amendment

Council Plan

Theme 5: Sustainability

1. The

built

and

natural

qualities

that

make

Greater

Bendigo

an

attractive

and appealing place are valued and conserved

5.1 Protect and conserve Greater Bendigo’s natural environment and settings

for the future

Rural Areas Strategy (2009)

Future Strategic Work: Significant Landscape Overlay – A study for the Big Hill

escarpment, parts of the Mandurang Valley and areas of the Campaspe / Axe

Creek.

Loddon Mallee

South

Regional

Growth

Plan

Reference

12. Environment

Future Direction – Protect identified visually important landscapes and cultural

and built heritage places

2.2 Planning scheme provisions

(i) Zones and Overlays

The Amendment proposes to introduce two new schedules to the Significant Landscape

Overlay:

Schedule 3 ‐Big

Hill

Significant

Landscape

Area

Schedule 4 – Mandurang Valley Significant Landscape Area.

The purpose of the Significant Landscape Overlay is:

To identify significant landscapes

To conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes.

The schedules are proposed to be applied to land currently subject to the Farming Zone,

Rural Living Zone or Low Density Residential Zone.

The land may also be subject to other overlay controls, including the Bushfire Management

Overlay,

Design

and

Development

Overlay,

Environmental

Significance

Overlay,

Erosion

Management Overlay, Heritage Overlay, Restructure Overlay, Salinity Management Overlay

and Vegetation Protection Overlay.

2.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

Council submitted that the Amendment meets the relevant requirements of the following

Ministerial Directions and Planning Practice Notes:


17/62


Page 11 of 56

(i) Ministerial Directions

Ministerial Direction 11 ‐ Strategic Assessment of Amendments

The Amendment is consistent with Ministerial Direction 11 (Strategic Assessment of

Amendments)

The Form and Content of Planning Schemes (s7(5))

The Amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of

Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Act

The Panel has also identified as relevant:

(ii) Planning Practice Notes

PPN2 – Public Land Zones

The

Amendment

considers

application

of

an

overlay

on

public

land.

The

Practice

Note

states

that “in deciding whether to apply an overlay to land, the public land zones should be treated

in the same manner as other zones”.

2.4 Discussion and conclusion

While the Amendment generally meets the requirements specified in the Local and State

Planning Policy Frameworks, for reasons outlined in this report, the Panel concludes it does

not implement the objectives effectively and requires further work. This is discussed in

Chapter 3 and 4.


18/62


Page 12 of 56

3

Bendigo Landscape Assessment Study

methodology

3.1

The issues

The Panel Hearing and submission process raised issues about whether the methodology for

the Study was suitable for:

achieving the purpose of the study

determining landscape significance of the study area

justifying the conclusions and recommendations of the study, in particular application of

the Significant Landscape Overlay to parts of the study area.

The application of the Significant Landscape Overlay is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

3.2

Evidence and

submissions

Council submitted the Study divides the study area into different landscape character areas,

and uses a values framework to assess the significance of each of these character areas. It

submitted that the purpose of the Study was to:

gain a detailed understanding of the character and values of the Big Hill and

Mandurang Valley landscapes, and to develop a framework for their future

management as they continue to change over time.

The intent from the outset was for the Study to act as a ’pilot study‘, testing the

methodology for use elsewhere in the municipality.

Council submitted

that

the

Study

methodology

was

based

on

a process

developed

by

Planisphere over the last decade, and had been accepted by the “State government, multiple

Councils and Planning Panels, and underpins many successful planning scheme

amendments”. Council submitted that Planisphere has received State and national awards

from the Planning Institute of Australia and the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects

for their landscape assessment studies. Most recently the methodology has been used in

the six draft regional Landscape Assessment Studies (LAS’s) being undertaken by the State

government.

Council submitted that the Study is different to the regional Landscape Assessment Studies

in

that

it

is

a

local,

not

regional

scale,

study

and

it

“‘drills

down’

to

locally

Significant

Landscape Overlays, through a deeper and more localised exploration of values and

community sentiment ”.

The Study states that “this work stems from the City of Greater Bendigo Rural Areas Strategy

(2009), which identified these two areas as being the most at ‐risk from development

pressure” (p.10).

The Study methodology comprised the following steps:

Step 1: Identification of landscape character and landscape values

Step 2: Assessment of landscape significance and setting future character

directions


19/62


Page 13 of 56

Step 3: Understanding anticipated change in the landscape and

management issues

Step 4: Analysis of current planning control and policy gaps

Step 5: Preparation of a landscape management framework.

Council submitted that it refined the study area during the Study process:

The study area boundary was defined through desktop analysis and site

surveys undertaken by Planisphere, and confirmed through discussion with the

Project Reference Group and Steering Committee. The study area adopted

was based upon broad areas around Big Hill and Mandurang Valley identified

in the project brief, but modified to include key topographic features, areas of

public land and viewing corridors (refer to Final Report, p14). The study area

boundary reflects cadastral boundaries in all locations and adopts logical

edges such as roads and zone boundaries where possible.

Several submissions

commended

the

Study

as

a high

level

and

holistic

study

and

supported

the range of planning and non‐planning related management recommendations in the

report.

Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30) supported the Amendment and stated that:

The Council is to be congratulated on formulating a comprehensive landscape

management plan that acknowledges the significance of the landscape prior

to decision‐making about its land use.

Mr Lottkowitz (submitter 44) submitted that the landscape assessment study was a ’cutting

edge‘ process by Council, but noted that overall he felt that the report dealt inadequately

with the aspirations of the project.

A large number of submissions called for scientific studies and land management actions to

fill perceived gaps in the Study and proposed planning controls. This is discussed further in

Chapter 5 of this report.

There were a number of submissions supporting the Amendment as a tool for preventing or

restricting development in the Study area. This is discussed further in Chapter 5 of this

report.

Council submitted that three sources of information were used to inform the Study:

Field surveys

and

a visual

assessment

was

conducted

by

the

Study

team

to

identify

aesthetic and visual values of the study area

Secondary sources of information were reviewed, including historic, environmental,

scientific, cultural and social information or research material; and

Community consultation was undertaken to identify and understand how the

community values the landscape.

Each of these inputs into the Study process is discussed below.


20/62


Page 14 of 56

(i) Field surveys and visual assessment

Council submitted that the visual assessment was based upon site surveys undertaken by

the study team, through “driving all of the study area roads, walking a selection of

recreational access trails, stopping at viewing points and accessing a number of private

properties through arrangement with landowners”. The important viewing locations,

viewing corridors and scenic routes are identified in the Study (p. 56 – 64). The Study also

documented patterns of viewing, or “way in which all parts of the landscape is experienced ”.

Documentation of this assessment was presented in the Study through photos taken by

Planisphere, and those provided by the community.

(ii) Secondary sources / Scientific and expert evidence

A number of submitters were of the opinion that the methodology and study process did not

adequately consider scientific studies or specialist reports, and therefore that the Study did

not

provide

a

sound

basis

to

underpin

the

conclusions

and

recommendations

of

the

report.

The Bendigo and District Environment Council (submitter 9) noted that the assessment was

“happening at a very high level ” and there was lack of consideration within the Amendment

and supporting documentation of a number of significant matters including wildfire, salinity,

erosion, flora and fauna and geomorphology.

The Bendigo and District Environment Council (submitter 9), Bendigo Field Naturalists Club

Inc. (submitter 29), Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30), Gill and Mick Rosier

(submitter 42) and Dr John Bardsley and Ms Radford (submitter 49) submitted that the

report prepared by Phil Dyson (2004) Landscapes, Groundwater Systems and Salinity

Management in the Northern Sector of the Harcourt Granodiorite – Metamorphic Aureole

Complex, which

was

not

referenced

in

the

Study,

provided

valuable

information

and

recommendations relating to soil issues and management considerations for the study area.

Mr Connor of Counsel, on behalf of Ravenswood Run, objected to the Amendment in its

current form on the basis that the Study provided insufficient evidence to support its

recommendations.

Mr Connor also questioned the accuracy and currency of the information and data that the

Study relied on in drawing its conclusions, stating that “it is our understanding that Council’s

position has been largely formulated based upon the results of the Assessment and no other

specialist reports” and “…the information and data relied on in the preparation of the

Assessment appears

to

be

outdated

and

inconclusive”.

In response, Council submitted a reference to two specialist studies underpinning the

geological significance of Big Hill:

The geological significance of the Big Hill range is described in a number of

references.

Geology of Victoria, Geological Society of Victoria, 2003

Geological Survey Report 99, D.P. Cherry and H.E.Wilkinson, 1994.


21/62


Page 15 of 56

(iii) Community consultation

Council submitted that the community engagement process was implemented in accordance

with the Community Engagement Plan that was developed by Planisphere with guidance

from the Project Reference Group and Steering Committee. The approach to community

consultation and findings are documented in Chapter 3 of the Study.

Focussed engagement was undertaken through the Project Steering Committee and Project

Reference Group:

The Project Reference Group and Steering Committee were established at the

project commencement to provide focussed input at each project milestone.

The Project Reference Group included people with a specialist knowledge of

the area including representatives from Parks Victoria, Department of

Sustainability and Environment, Landcare groups, heritage organisations,

Farming Consultative Committee, Field Naturalists Club and Aboriginal Affairs

Victoria. The

Steering

Committee

included

representatives

of

relevant

City

of

Greater Bendigo departments, Councillors and DTPLI (now DELWP).

Broader community consultation was undertaken through various engagement tools and

methods, including Council’s website, a project blog, four community bulletins a survey,

community photographic exercise, media releases, two community workshops in both Big

Hill and Mandurang (ie a total of four workshops) and a public display of the draft Final

Report and media releases.

Council submitted that one of the Study team members, “also met individually with local

property owners, public land managers and heritage groups to research the cultural values of

the study

area.”

Big Hill Action Group (submitter 17), Gill and Mick Rosier (submitter 42) and Dr John

Bardsley and Wendy Radford (submitter 49) indicated strong support for the community

consultation process. Dr Bardsley and Ms Radford state that “thorough and broad

consultation was a hallmark of the Landscape Assessment Report ”.

Geoff and Beth Hosking (submitter 23) and Tom Harper (submitter 35) questioned the

effectiveness of the consultation process. In relation to the Mandurang area they submitted

that “they were not aware of many local people who had any knowledge of the Assessment

and how it would affect them.”

In response

to

questions

raised

by

Mr

Harper

about

the

number

of

participants

in

the

consultation process, Council clarified that 70 people attended workshops and 19 people

responded to a short survey.

Dr John Togno (submitter 25), representing Sharon Munro (submitter 21), submitted that

the town planning documents provided by the Council to community throughout the Study

and the Amendment process were not easy to understand and could be “threatening” to

those not familiar with the professional language. He suggested that the City of Greater

Bendigo could improve its communication with residents in relation to planning matters.

Mr Harper submitted that he doubted that many people would have “read the Assessment in

its

entirety

due

to

the

vast

amount

of

information

contained

within

its

200+

pages”.


22/62


Page 16 of 56

Mr Connor questioned the extent and level of influence that the Project Control Group and

the Steering Committee provided. Mr Connor suggested that the Steering Committee may

have unduly influenced the outcomes of the project.

In response to Mr Connor’s assertions, Council submitted that the establishment of a

Steering Committee and the Reference Group is part of the City’s standard approach to the

governance of such projects. Council stated that the process was designed to ensure that

there is ownership of the project across units within Council and external stakeholders.

(iv) Ravenswood Run

Ravenswood Run is the largest land holding in the study area, representing approximately

2,080 hectares and “constitutes between and one half of the proposed Significant Landscape

Overlay, Schedule 3 area”. Mr Connor, submitted that his client was:

not aware of any visit to the site by Council and its appointed consultant that

may have

informed

the

appropriate

preparation

and

finalisation

of

the

Assessment.

Mr Connor submitted that the visual assessment process was not adequate, as more detail

was required in relation to landscape and viewshed analysis.

Mr Connor submitted that the study process does not justify the conclusion that the “Big Hill

ridge line, the low lands and rolling hills to the south of the Big Hill Range” is a single

landscape character unit on the basis that more detail is required in relation to viewshed

mapping and landscape character profile before appropriate recommendations can be

determined.

Mr Connor

called

Mr

Haack,

a Landscape

Architect

from

Urbis

to

provide

expert

evidence

on

landscape significance. It was Mr Haack’s evidence that the mapping and overlay analysis

was overdone, and that the process was “light on ground assessment .”

Mr Connor submitted:

We do not believe that the characterisation of the Big Hill ridge line, the low

lands and rolling hills to the south of the Big Hill Range as a single landscape

character unit is justified by the process.

Council submitted that a visual assessment methodology based on detailed viewshed

mapping was not considered suitable for this type of landscape assessment study, as it

focused on

single

viewpoints.

Viewshed

mapping

was

not

required

by

the

study

brief:

It is a methodology appropriate for a Visual Impact Assessment and

determining the appropriate siting and design of new development within the

landscape…While useful in understanding the impact of development upon a

specific part of a landscape, it is not a holistic analysis approach.

Council submitted that it was not possible to visit all private land in the Study area. It

confirmed:

the study team made a brief visit to the Ravenswood Homestead. Otherwise,

the Ravenswood site has been viewed from publicly accessible locations and


23/62


Page 17 of 56

nearby sites. Aerial photography was also used to gain an understanding of

the site.

The Panel accepted an invitation to visit the Ravenswood Run property as part of the

Hearing process, and this site visit was undertaken by representatives of interested parties

on Thursday 28 January 2016.

During the site visit the Panel observed that the large property contained a number of

significant landscape features, including waterways, remnant vegetation, in particular River

Red Gums, areas of revegetation, heritage buildings, rocky outcrops, steep escarpments and

the Big Hill ridgeline.

The Panel observed that due to the large size of the property and undulating topography,

many of the features are not visible from publically accessible viewing points. During the

site visit it was confirmed by Ms Knight that the Study team had not undertaken a field

survey of the Ravenswood Run property.

(v) Determination of Landscape Significance

The Study mapped six landscape character areas (see Figure 3), and assessed their

significance with consideration of five values (p.80 – 93):

Visual

- Landscape features

- Edges or contrasts

- Views

Historical and Cultural

- Documented pre‐ and post‐contact heritage value

- Documented

in

heritage

registers

and

lists,

photographs

and

early

maps

Environmental / Scientific

- Documented environmental or scientific value

- Archaeological, flora and fauna habitats and geological values

Social

- Lifestyle, tourism, recreational or artistic

Economic

- Generation of income through agriculture or attracting visitors to the area.


24/62


Page 18 of 56

Figure 3 Landscape Character Areas

Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley, 2013, p. 43

Council submitted that:

Planisphere’s landscape assessment studies are discriminating – while the

character analysis covers large areas (often a whole municipality), the

identification of significant landscapes is generally confined to discrete

locations. This was a particularly important consideration in this Study

because it is intended as the first of several studies to cover other parts of the

city’s rural landscape.

(vi) Landscape values

Council submitted that landscape significance was determined in the Study through a

process of

developing

an

understanding

of

landscape

character

and

landscape

values.

Landscape significance was defined as “the designation of a particular landscape as special

or important arising from its landscape values, including aesthetic values and other

documented values such as historic, environmental, scientific, social or other values”.

The Study included a Values Summary table (Figure 4) which ranks the landscape values of

each landscape character area as higher, moderate and lower. The Study stated that “all

values are considered to have equal weight in determining the future management

objectives for a particular area” (p. 80), however in response to a question from the Panel

about the weighting of values, Ms Knight clarified that visual significance was the primary

driver.


25/62


Page 19 of 56

Figure 4 Values Summary table

Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley, 2013, p. 95

The Values Summary table concludes that:

Big Hill has higher visual, historic and cultural and environmental and scientific values,

with moderate to lower social values and economic values

Mandurang Valley is shown to have lower values for all apart from moderate historical

and cultural

values

the Bendigo Box Ironbark character area is rated as higher and moderate for all values.

Council submitted that it considered the landscape setting of the study area within the

context of the municipality to provide context and an indication of comparative significance

of the Study area. The Study includes a section on “General Character of the Greater

Bendigo Landscape” (p. 24 – 27) but does not, however, include a statement of comparative

significance of the Study area with other landscapes across the City.

Council submitted that the Central Victoria Landscape Assessment Study, which was

schedule to be completed in 2015 but which has not yet been finalised, would define which

“ places, features and views are most significant ” across the region.

The Study explains that “while it is possible to infer a ranking of significance” from the Values

Summary table, “(e.g. Higher could be taken to mean State, Moderate to mean Regional,

Lower to mean Local), it may be wiser to defer a definitive ranking until a landscape

assessment of the whole of Greater Bendigo has been undertaken (p. 94)”.

Numerous submitters identified a wide range values of the study area, predominately

relating to:

Managing development ‐ Reducing potential for negative impact of development,

maintaining a compact city, keeping development within the city/urban growth

boundaries


26/62


Page 20 of 56

Environmental values ‐ biodiversity, ecological, wildlife corridors, protection of remnant

vegetation, National/State Parks, reducing potential for fragmentation of remnants

Visual amenity ‐ aesthetic values, natural beauty, high visibility rural character, City in the

Forest, soften the urban edge boundaries, protection of pleasing outlooks

Heritage and

Social

values

–

health

and

wellbeing.

In relation to visual appreciation of the study area, a number of submitters stated that they

considered the landscape to have visual significance:

Rosemary Glaisher (submitter 8) submitted that “taking the broad view, there is what the

approaches to our beautiful city look like … there is a sense of passing through a relatively

unspoilt forest and blue timbered hills as you drive into Bendigo …”.

Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30) submitted that the Amendment will

complement and retain the magnificent entry to Bendigo, and that South Mandurang

“this is a unique forested area of Bendigo, valued by locals and visitors alike for its rural

amenity

and

pleasing

visual

outlook

afforded

by

the

Box

Ironbark

forests

and

the

flora

and fauna that they contain.

Gill and Mick Rosier (submitter 42) submitted that “… the Big Hill / Ravenswood

landscape is viewed as significant as the southern gateway to Bendigo, with its distinctive

landforms, heritage and cultural values, and for the retention of Farming Zone within this

area”.

Ms Parrat and Mr Togno (submitter 25), who are residents of Mandurang, stated that while

they appreciate that there are some in the community who would consider their property

visually appealing, “that appears to integrate with the local indigenous landscape. However,

this visual heritage landscape is only around 20 years old ” and the result of revegetation and

planting for

a personal

firewood

supply.

The National Trust of Victoria (submitter 40), supported the Amendment. The National Trust

maintains a register of significant places, and stated that “while the National Trust has not

classified the Big Hill and Mandurang Valley as a significant landscape, we appreciate the

work of Greater Bendigo City Council in redressing this knowledge gap and seeking planning

controls for this important landscape”.

In relation to visibility of a landscape in determining landscape significance, Council

submitted:

The Study methodology acknowledges the visibility of a landscape as a

contributing factor

to

determining

its

sensitivity

to

change

and

appropriate

management mechanisms. However, the visibility of a landscape is not a

factor in determining its significance (Final Report, p80). If a landscape is not

easily viewed, it is not considered that it is less significant as a result. The

ability to view a landscape does not negate its visual and other values.

A landscape which is not currently visible may be visible or visited in the future.

This might include additional walking trails, internal roads through the site or

viewing points.


27/62


Page 21 of 56

(vii) Community values

A number of submitters indicated that they understood the intention of the process was to

represent community values as a key determinant of landscape significance.

Dr Bardsley

and

Ms

Radford

(submitter

49)

submitted

that

they

understood

the

process

“is

about a subjective valuation of the landscape as a whole by the community as a whole”.

They concluded that the final Study reflected the community’s valuation of the landscape.

The Bendigo and District Environment Group (submitter 9) indicated that the assessment of

landscape significance is considered to be a subjective process, and the “opinions,

preferences, values, feelings and judgements of those who participated in the Big Hill

Mandurang Valley Final Report 2013 cannot be ignored as not being relevant to what

constitutes significance. The people find the landscapes significant ”.

In response to a question from the Panel about the relative weighting of community views of

the

landscape

significance,

Ms

Knight

on

behalf

of

Council

clarified

that

the

determination

of

landscape significance was “ultimately a professional opinion supported by data and

consultation.”

Under cross examination, Mr Haack gave evidence that, in his opinion, whilst Planisphere

has pioneered community engagement methods in landscape assessment; these can be

given too much weight.

In response to submissions and evidence Council stated that:

The value of community input has been clearly demonstrated during this Panel

hearing. We have heard submissions from the people who live in this area and

know it

intimately.

This

has

provided

the

Panel

with

information

that

would

not otherwise be evident or available.

We disagree with the Ravenswood submission that a study should be done by

experts in an objective fashion and without input from the community.

Many comments from the community do not reflect the study brief or scope,

but have been reported in the document nonetheless to record the community

views.

The assessment of landscape values undertaken in the Study in Chapter 4 is

based upon evaluation of criteria set out in the study method. Information

provided by

the

community

has

been

included

in

this

assessment

as

it

relates

to these criteria, where it is directly relevant to the Study assessment

methodology.

3.3 Discussion

In support of the Study methodology, Council explained that the landscape assessment

methodology was based on international best practice and has been accepted by the State

government, multiple Councils and Planning Panels. Council cited a number of panel reports

to support this position.


28/62


Page 22 of 56

In reviewing a number of these panel reports, the Panel identified that while the panel

reports accepted the landscape assessment methodology as “a credible methodology 2”, the

studies are not directly comparable as they were regional, as opposed to local, landscape

assessment studies.

Council also cited as relevant the six Landscape Assessment Studies that are currently being

undertaken by the State Government using the Planisphere methodology. Again it is noted

by the Panel that these studies are not directly comparable as they are being undertaken at

a regional scale.

The Panel notes that the Study is a local landscape study, not state or regional, that Council’s

intention was to run this as a pilot project for possible application in other parts of the

Municipality. As a local pilot study, an adjustment was made to the previously used

methodology to allow for “deeper and more localised exploration of values and community

sentiment ”. Council did not, however, explain any changes to the methodology in relation to

determination of

appropriate

management

recommendations.

On the basis that this is a pilot study for local landscape assessment studies, it is important

that effectiveness of the Study methodology for achieving the Study purpose be carefully

assessed, and modified as required for future application.

A review of the cited panel reports identified a number of issues relevant to this

Amendment, in particular appropriate application of the Significant Landscape Overlay.

These are discussed further in Chapter 4 of this report.

In preparation of the Study, the Panel notes that the consultant team undertook field

surveys and viewed the study area from a number of publically accessible viewing points,

and from

some

properties

within

the

Study

area.

Planisphere

explained

that

given

the

size

of the study area that it was not possible to visit all properties.

Given the significance Ravenswood Run, representing a large proportion of the study area

(over 2,000 hectares), much of which cannot be seen from publicly accessible viewpoints,

the Panel was surprised that there was no attempt by the Study team to undertake a site

inspection of this land.

Whilst the study team used aerial photography and assessed the property from publicly

accessible viewpoints, this would not have provided a full appreciation of the landscape

values of the Ravenswood Run. In doing so, it was apparent to the Panel on the

accompanied

site

inspection

that

vast

tracts

of

land

earmarked

for

the

Overlay

were

not

appropriate.

Mr Connor suggested that more detailed visual analysis was required, including viewshed

mapping. Council argued that viewshed mapping was not suitable for the Study, as it was

more suited to visual impact assessment. The Panel understands that viewshed analysis can

provide a detailed visual assessment, and there may be value in using this method in

conjunction with assessment of other landscape values.

2 Greater Geelong C177 Panel Report, June 2010, p50


29/62


Page 23 of 56

In relation to secondary source material:

The Study identified a number of source documents in Background Documents and

Policy Context (p17). The majority of these are Council strategic plans and the list does

not include any scientific studies or expert sources of information.

The Study

includes

a number

of

maps

and

information

about

landscape

characteristics

in

the Study area. For example Chapter 2 of the Study, Landscape Character, includes

figures and plans showing bioregions, topography and water form, geology, elevation,

slope, ecological vegetation classes and heritage assets. This section does not, however,

include reference to the significance of these assets or reference to any particular

sources of scientific data or research underpinning the information.

Chapter four of the Study includes Landscape Values tables for each of the Landscape

Character areas, and identifies the source of information for each of the identified

values. The sources of information identified include [field] survey, community, planning

controls, and in relation to heritage values it makes reference the heritage overlay or

Victorian Heritage

Register.

There

is

one

reference

to

DSE

in

the

table,

which

the

Panel

assumes refers to the State Department of Sustainability and Environment. Referenced

sources of information are generally not included. The tables do not clearly identify the

significance of values, such as heritage assets or ecological vegetation classes.

Appendix C of the Study includes detailed Character Area Analysis Papers for each of the

landscape character areas. Only occasional reference is made in the text to source

documents. Information relating to vegetation identifies the remnant ecological

vegetation classes, but with only occasional reference to status or significance. The

analysis of vegetation significance relates primarily to the character and visual impact of

the vegetation, rather than its scientific importance. Planning controls for each of the

landscape character

areas

are

presented

in

some

detail.

The

two

Big

Hill

Character

areas

include reference to two source documents in footnotes, one unspecified North Central

CMA document from 2005 and another titled “To Big Hill and Back ”.

The Study does not include a bibliography documenting secondary sources, so it is not

obvious to the reader that what these sources are and how they have been considered in

the Study.

Due to the lack of information in the Study about the source documents and data used it is

not possible for the Panel to form a judgement about the extent to which this material was

used in formulation of the Study. Nor whether the information used is accurate, outdated or

inconclusive.

The Panel agrees that the community engagement process undertaken by Planisphere was

comprehensive and appreciated by many members of the community. The community

consultation process provided the community with many opportunities to contribute to the

project, with a reasonable number attending workshops and a small number responding to

the survey.

However, the Panel understands that a number of submitters suggested that the

consultation process was not adequate and that many in the community were not aware of

the Study. Submitters also raised the issue that the town planning information provided by

Council was difficult to understand and could be ‘threatening’, and that the Study report was

too large

and

may

not

have

been

read

by

many

in

the

community.


30/62


Page 24 of 56

The question of over emphasis on community opinion was raised. Whilst it is stated by

Council that the Study is ultimately an expression of professional opinion informed by data

and consultation, there are a number of aspects of the Study process, submissions and

hearing which raise questions in the Panel’s view about whether this was achieved:

limited field

assessment

lack of reference secondary sources

several submitters indicating that they understood that the Study recommendations

would be subjective and based on community opinion

Landscape Significance and Values Assessment (Chapter 4 of the Study) identifies

‘community’ as a source of the majority of identified values

Inclusion of community submissions that do not relate to the study purpose (rather than

documented in an appendix or separate document) which can appear to give them

undue weight or significance

Mr Haack’s evidence that the process provided too much weight to community input.

Whilst the Study stated that in the determination of landscape significance all values are

considered equally, Ms Knight clarified that visual significance was the key determinant. The

Panel found it would be helpful if the Study clearly explained how the weighting of values

was applied.

This was illustrated in the time it took for Council to clearly articulate how the Values

Summary (Figure 4) worked. For example, in response to a question from the Panel about

the meaning of the ranking, in particular given Mandurang Valley which is ranked primarily

as ‘lower’, Ms Knight stated whilst Mandurang was listed as ‘lower’, this did not mean that

the landscape significance was ‘low’. This is an indication of relative significance, and was

still at

a level

warranting

inclusion

in

the

Significant

Landscape

Overlay.

The Panel found this logic hard to interpret. How the general public could interpret it is

another matter again. The purpose of ranking the character areas in the Study is not clear.

In fact, the Study concludes that “it may be wiser to defer a definitive ranking until a

landscape assessment of the whole of Greater Bendigo has been undertaken” (p. 94).

Council’s submission stated that the Study identified landscape significance with respect to

landscape context and comparative significance across the Municipality, yet the Panel found

no evidence of this in the Study.

It would have been valuable if the Study had explained the comparative significance of

landscapes in

the

study

area,

to

assist

with

understanding

how

the

subject

landscape

compares with other areas within the Municipality or beyond. This has implications for

application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, and this is discussed in greater detail in

Chapter 4 of this report.

3.4 Conclusions

Whilst the Planisphere methodology has been developed and tested over some time, and

references international best practice, this has previously been applied to regional and State

projects. As this Study was undertaken as a pilot to test the methodology for future local

landscape assessment studies, the Panel concludes that there are opportunities to refine the

process to

better

suit

local

application

of

landscape

significance

assessments.

The

Study


31/62


Page 25 of 56

does not clearly explain how community values were integrated with other inputs and

prioritised.

The Study requires revisiting to ensure that it is clearly understood and referenced

appropriately. The Panel is of the view that an Executive Summary is is required.

The Panel concludes the following in relation to the Study methodology:

There is no nexus between the Study, extent of the Overlay proposed and the Schedules.

The Study process would be more reliable and convincing if the study team had

undertaken a site inspection of the largest parcel of land in the study area.

A landscape assessment study relying on secondary sources of information to

complement visual analysis and consultation should demonstrate evidence of this

throughout the document through, for example, a literature review, source references

and a bibliography.

It would be beneficial to have a greater understanding of comparative significance of the

landscape assessed,

to

help

understand

the

relative

importance

of

protection

and

appropriate tools to achieve this.

The Study recommendations would be more robust if the report and study process

demonstrated more clearly how the findings from community engagement were

considered and integrated into the final recommendations.

The Study should be revised in line with the conclusions and an Executive Summary

prepared.

3.5 Recommendations

The adoption of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 should be 1.

deferred pending

further

work.

The adoption of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang 2.

Valley Final Report (2013) (the Study) as a Reference Document is not supported

in its current form. The Study should be revised to include:

a) an Executive Summary with details of the Study findings and

recommendations

b) clearly numbered subheadings, numbered tables, figures and maps, with

listing of all elements in an associated list of tables, figure or maps

c) clear definitions relating to landscape significance

d) a bibliography referencing all source material

e)

a clear

nexus

should

be

demonstrated

between

the

Study,

the

extent

of

The independent panel's report

Documents

Transcript of The independent panel's report