planning and 1987 panel report - glenelg shire council · planning and environment act 1987 panel...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Glenelg Planning Scheme

Amendment C73

24 May 2013

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 153 of the Act

Amendment C73 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme

Michael Kirsch, Chair

Amendment C73 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 24 May 2013

Contents Page

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Panel Hearing ................................................................................................... 1 1.3 The Panel’s approach .............................................................................................. 2 1.4 Issues dealt with in this report ................................................................................ 3

2 Background ................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Previous strategic projects ...................................................................................... 4 2.2 Glenelg Strategic Settlement Strategy, 2012 .......................................................... 5 2.3 Other background material ..................................................................................... 7

3 Planning Context ......................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Zones and Overlays ............................................................................................... 10 3.3 State planning strategies and documents ............................................................. 10 3.4 Other strategies and guidelines ............................................................................ 12

4 Threshold Issues ....................................................................................................... 13 4.1 Strategic justification ............................................................................................. 13 4.2 Environmental and landscape protection ............................................................. 19 4.3 Heritage conservation ........................................................................................... 21 4.4 Rural Conservation Zone Schedule 2 ..................................................................... 23

5 Settlement and Site Specific Issues ........................................................................... 25 5.1 Cape Bridgewater .................................................................................................. 25 5.2 Narrawong East ..................................................................................................... 28 5.3 Nelson .................................................................................................................... 29 5.4 Tyrendarra ............................................................................................................. 33 5.5 568 Gorae Road, Portland ..................................................................................... 35

6 Other Issues .............................................................................................................. 40 6.1 The structure and drafting of the amendment ..................................................... 40 6.2 References to the GSSS in the amendment .......................................................... 40 6.3 The GSSS and amendment processes ................................................................... 41 6.4 Council’s proposed revision .................................................................................. 42 6.5 Department of Primary Industries submission ..................................................... 42

7 Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................... 43 7.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 43 7.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 43

Appendix A List of Documents

Appendix B List of Submitters

Page i Amendment C73 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 24 May 2013

List of Abbreviations

BMO Bushfire Management Overlay

CFA Country Fire Authority

CSLAS Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study

DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

ESO Environmental Significance Overlay

GHCMA Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority

GSFP Glenelg Strategic Futures Plan

GSLUS Glenelg Strategic Land Use Study

GSSS Glenelg Sustainable Settlement Strategy

HO Heritage Overlay

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

R1Z Residential 1 Zone

RLZ Rural Living Zone

SLO Significant Landscape Overlay

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

TZ Township Zone

VCS Victorian Coastal Strategy

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions

WMO Wildfire Management Overlay

of 44 Amendment C73 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 24 May 2013

1 Introduction

1.1 The Amendment

(i) Content

Amendment C73 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme, as exhibited, proposes to:

Implement the Glenelg Sustainable Settlement Strategy, 2012 (GSSS) into the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) through revisions to Clauses 21.09 and 22.01;

Insert the Municipal Strategic Framework Map and revise the strategic direction statements at Clause 21.09 of the MSS to reflect the strategic directions of the GSSS; and

Insert Structure Plans for Portland, Heywood, Casterton, Dartmoor, Nelson, Cape Bridgewater, Narrawong, Condah, Sandford, Digby, Merino and Tyrendarra in the Local Policy for Growth Corridors (and Structure Plans) at Clause 22.01‐3.

The amendment affects all land within and immediately adjoining the settlements of Portland, Heywood, Casterton, Dartmoor, Nelson, Cape Bridgewater, Narrawong, Condah, Sandford, Digby, Merino and Tyrendarra, together with the Shire’s rural areas that are zoned Rural Conservation 2.

(ii) Exhibition

The amendment was exhibited between 22 November, 2012 and 2 January, 2013. Notices were placed in the Victorian Government Gazette, Portland Observer, Casterton News and Hamilton Spectator.

(iii) Authorisation

The amendment was authorised by the Minister for Planning on 10 August, 2012 (Authorisation No A02343). The Authorisation included:

Council should ensure that the Glenelg Settlement Strategy is adequately integrated into the Local Planning Policy Framework by incorporating a strategic review of the Glenelg Planning Scheme Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policies into your work program.

1.2 The Panel Hearing

(i) Appointment

This Panel was appointed under delegation on 6 February, 2013 pursuant to Section 153 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions in respect of the amendment.

The Panel consisted of Michael Kirsch (Chair).


(ii) Hearings and inspections

The Panel determined that a Directions Hearing was not required, but invited submitters to raise any procedural issues in a letter sent on 11 February, 2013. Submitters did not raise any issues and the Panel Hearing was subsequently held on 18 April, 2013 at the Glenelg Council Offices, Portland.

The Panel inspected the sites referred to in submissions and the surrounding areas, prior to the Panel Hearing.

A list of all documents submitted at the Panel Hearing is included in Appendix A.

(iii) Submissions

The Panel has 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 heard the parties listed in Table 1.

Submitter Represented by

Glenelg Shire Council Liz Regent and Tony Augunas

Ken and Jenny Dart Andrew Lacey

Martin Boyer and Friends of the Surry

Lex Chalmers

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing

A list of all submitters is included in Appendix B.

Mr Stokes had been scheduled to make a submission but was unable to attend the Hearing. He subsequently sent the Panel a further written submission dated 23 April, 2013 which the Panel has considered.

(iv) Additional material

During the course of the Hearing, the Panel sought additional background information from Council relating to issues that were discussed at the Hearing and raised in submissions. A consolidated set of additional information was received by the Panel on 1 May, 2013.

1.3 The Panel’s approach

The Panel has focussed on those elements of the amendment that were specifically raised in submissions and has not undertaken a comprehensive review of all elements of the amendment from ‘first principles’. There are major elements of the amendment, including some of the Structure Plans, that were not challenged in submissions and which the Panel has not reviewed. The Panel has not formed any views about the merits of those elements of the amendment that are not specifically discussed in its report.

The Panel has had to consider some very detailed submissions and in doing so has sought to group submissions and issues under key themes and to respond in that context. In addition,


some of the detailed issues are not matters that are directly relevant to the amendment or that can be addressed within it. Some of these issues are simply beyond the scope of the Panel to make recommendations about. This is particularly so in relation to perceived deficiencies in the coverage of environmental, heritage and landscape issues, as well as various additional provisions sought by submitters.

1.4 Issues dealt with in this report

Council identified the following key issues that were raised in submissions:

Lack of detail;

Inadequate references to heritage;

Insufficient identification of flood and bushfire risk;

Request further extensions to Rural Living Zone and its application;

Lack of additional planning controls such as overlays to mitigate environmental risks;

Too much emphasis on development at the expense of conservation values;

Not recognising the entire Shire coastline as being significant; and

References to other amendments that are not relevant to C73.

This report deals with the issues under the following headings:

Threshold issues, including: - Strategic justification; - Environmental and landscape protection; - Heritage conservation; and - Rural Conservation Zone Schedule 2.

Settlement and site specific issues, including: - Cape Bridgewater; - Narrawong East; - Nelson; - Tyrendarra; and - 568 Gorae Road, Portland.

Other issues, including: - The structure and drafting of the amendment; - References to the GSSS in the amendment; - The GSSS and amendment processes; - Council’s proposed revision; and - Department of Primary Industries submission.


2 Background

2.1 Previous strategic projects

Amendment C73 proposes to implement various findings and recommendation of the GSSS. Ms Regent on behalf of Council advised that the GSSS was the ‘culmination’ of the following strategic projects:

Glenelg Industrial Land Use Plan, 2007 (GILUP);

Glenelg Strategic Futures Plan, 2009 (GSFP);

GSFP Implementation Strategy (2009);

Glenelg Strategic Futures Infrastructure Study, 2009 (GSFIS);

Glenelg Environment Strategy 2010 (GES);

Glenelg Waste Water Management Plan, 2009 (GWWMP);

Glenelg Transport Plan, 2009 (GTP);

Portland Airport Master Plan, 2009 (PAMP);

Portland Bay Coastal Infrastructure Plan, 2007 (PBCIP);

Portland Integrated Growth Plan 2011 (PIGP);

Glenelg Strategic Land Use Study Volumes 1 and 2, 2010 (GSLUS);

Green Triangle Region Freight Action Plan, 2009 (GTRFAP);

Port Land Use Strategy, 2009 (PLUS);

Great South Coast Regional Strategic Plan, 2010 (GSCRSP);

Glenelg Shire Business Retention and Expansion Program, January 2010 (GSBREP); and

Glenelg Shire Tourism Research Report, August 2011 (GSTRR).

Ms Regent indicated that the GSSS was principally informed by the Glenelg Strategic Futures Plan, 2009 and Glenelg Strategic Land Use Study, 2010 (Volumes 1 and 2) which addressed the outcomes of previous studies and provided the strategic basis for the directions outlined in the GSSS.

The Panel commends Council for the significant amount of strategic work that it has completed and that it continues to undertake.

Glenelg Strategic Futures Plan, 2009

Ms Regent provided the following overview of the Glenelg Strategic Futures Plan (the GSFP):

The Glenelg Strategic Futures Plan (GSFP), completed in 2009, provided a framework for future land use and development in the Glenelg Shire. The GSFP was in preparation from 2005‐2009 and during this time submissions were invited from the general public on a number of occasions. Approximately 160 submissions were received and considered as part of the preparation of this document. The GSFP examined the following matters in the shire:

Industrial Land Use

Current economy and future potential

Urban infrastructure constraints

Environmental management and climate change

Current population and future growth


Following analysis of the above matters, the following key issues arose for the Shire:

Houses on rural zoned land

Pressure for development on periphery of towns

Active coastal erosion

Future impacts of climate change

Wildfire management

Provision of reticulated sewer and water services to small towns

Ongoing vitality of small towns

Recognition of flood prone land

Appropriate sites for industry

The GSFP provided a recommended approach for each of the above issues. The report recommended that the approaches identified be incorporated into the Glenelg Planning Scheme.

Ms Regent also provided a table that summarised the key strategic recommendations in the GSFP together with an update of Council’s actions to implement the recommendations.

The Panel notes that the GSFP is based on a range of earlier and concurrent studies and provides the basis for the GSSS. However, there are inconsistencies between the GSFP and the GSSS and the rationale for these inconsistencies is not always apparent.

Glenelg Strategic Land Use Study, 2010 (Volumes 1 and 2)

Ms Regent provided the following commentary on the Glenelg Strategic Land Use Study (the GSLUS):

One of the recommendations of the GSFP was to undertake a sustainable settlement/rural zones review to determine the appropriate settlement pattern for Glenelg Shire. The Glenelg Land Use Study 2010 provides the analysis of land use constraints required to determine the appropriate settlement pattern for the Glenelg Shire.

The Glenelg Land Use Study examined the current land use, physical impediments, land fragmentation, subdivision and building permit activity, forecast demand and supply of land, soil characteristics and challenges and options for each respective zone.

Ms Regent advised that the purpose of the GSLUS was to assess the detailed zoning issues raised in the GSFP. Although the GSLUS includes a significant amount of detailed information, its relationship with the GSSS was not readily apparent to the Panel. While it will provide valuable information for other investigations, the Panel was not certain that it has much use as a ‘standalone’ document.

2.2 Glenelg Strategic Settlement Strategy, 2012

Ms Regent provided the following commentary on the Glenelg Strategic Settlement Strategy (the GSSS):


The Glenelg Sustainable Settlement Strategy represents the culmination of recent strategic work undertaken in the Shire. It was a recommendation of the Glenelg Strategic Futures Plan 2009 that a settlement strategy be prepared to guide future development within the settlements. The Glenelg Sustainable Settlement Strategy provides a response to the changes to settlement trends and economic growth in the shire and provides a roadmap for the strategic planning of Glenelg Shire settlements for the next 25 years.

Study Objectives

The GSSS considered a range of existing analysis undertaken in the Shire and, together with input during consultation, aimed to provide strategic direction for future development within the Shire.

Consultation

The draft GSSS was exhibited between 16 April 2012 and 25 May 2012. Exhibition included a press release, newspaper notices, notices in public buildings, letters to government agencies, businesses and previous submitters to the Strategic Futures Plan. A series of public meetings were held in most of the townships and separate meetings were held with individual landholders and various authorities.

The above‐mentioned communication methods have yielded written submissions, which have been reviewed at the end of the consultation period. The public exhibition of the strategy has resulted in recommended changes from the April 2012 draft. A total of 53 written submissions were received.

Study outcomes and recommendations

The GSSS recommended a number of changes to update the Glenelg Planning Scheme to provide for sustainable development in the Shire into the future. These recommendations are identified on Structure plans for the settlements and within the strategic direction for each settlement.

Implementation of the recommendations of this strategy will require a range of changes to the Glenelg Planning Scheme. This amendment considers amendment of the Local Planning Policy framework to incorporate the new strategic direction for the shire identified in the GSSS. Changes to zones and controls will be considered as separate planning scheme amendments.

Ms Regent advised that the GSSS was revised in response to submissions received as part of the consultation process, although the number and extent of revisions were limited.

The Panel notes the GSSS was derived from a range of studies referred to earlier (particularly the GSFP) and that it represents a ‘summary’ of those studies. The Panel also notes that the GSSS does not contain the level of detail that might be expected given the extent of the background studies. Notably, the GSSS contains few definitive planning strategies but includes many references to further investigations that are required in support of possible future zone and overlay amendments.

The Panel believes that the GSSS is best understood through reference to the GSFP which provides more detail and in which the recommendations are more transparent. However, there are inconsistencies between the two documents and it is not always apparent from


where some of the material in the GSSS was derived. This was an issue raised in submissions and discussed later in this report.

2.3 Other background material

(i) Planning Scheme amendments

Council and submitters made reference to various planning scheme amendments that have been abandoned, or have been referred to the Minister for Planning for approval.

These included:

Amendment C52 which sought to implement landscape protection controls and was split into two parts following exhibition. Part 1 is yet to be decided by the Minister, while Part 2 was abandoned by Council.

Amendment C55 which sought to implement heritage protection controls and was split into two parts following exhibition. Part 1 (individual sites) was referred to a Panel, while Part 2 (precincts) was abandoned by Council.

Ms Regent advised that Council was preparing three new amendments as part of the program of implementing the GSSS:

Amendment C75 (a ‘corrections’ amendment) that was awaiting authorisation at the time of the Hearing;

Amendment C75 (to implement the MSS review) that is yet to be authorised; and

Amendment C78 (which will include some of the Rural Living and other rezonings recommended in the GSSS) that is yet to be authorised.

(ii) Other Council projects

Ms Regent provided an overview of various other Council projects including the MSS review that was completed in 2010 and other current projects including the Rural Zones Review and Bushfire Management Project.

Rural Zones Review

The Rural Zones Review project is currently underway and is intended to address a number of key issues, many of which were raised in submissions to Amendment C73. These issues include housing on rural zoned land, pressure for development on the periphery of towns, active coastal erosion, climate change, wildfire management, industrial sites, landscape protection and the proximity of plantation to townships. Importantly, the project will review the suitability of the Rural Conservation 2 Zone that was discussed in submissions.

Glenelg Bushfire Management Report

The purpose of this study is to identify the future risk for Cape Bridgewater, Nelson and Dartmoor and to determine where dwellings and accommodation uses can be located.


3 Planning Context

3.1 Policy framework

(i) State Planning Policy Framework

Many elements of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) are relevant to the amendment and submissions. The key elements are described below:

Clause 11.02‐1 (Supply of urban land) seeks to ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, retail, industrial, recreational, institutional and other community uses.

Clause 11.02‐3 (Structure planning) supports the preparation of structure plans that: - Take into account the strategic and physical context of the location. - Provide the broad planning framework for an area as well as the more

detailed planning requirements for neighbourhoods and precincts, where appropriate.

- Facilitate the logical and efficient provision of infrastructure and use of existing infrastructure and services.

Clause 11.05‐1 (Regional settlement networks) promotes the sustainable growth and development of regional centres, including Portland.

Clause 11.05‐3 (Rural productivity) seeks to prevent inappropriately dispersed urban activities in rural areas, including housing, through the following strategies:

Prevent inappropriately dispersed urban activities in rural areas.

Limit new housing development in rural areas, including: - Directing housing growth into existing settlements. - Discouraging development of isolated small lots in the rural zones from

use for single dwellings, rural living or other incompatible uses. - Encouraging consolidation of existing isolated small lots in rural zones.

Clause 11.05‐5 (Coastal settlement) supports sustainable coastal development and includes the following strategies:

Encourage urban renewal and redevelopment opportunities within existing settlements to reduce the demand for urban sprawl.

Identify a clear settlement boundary around coastal settlements to ensure that growth in coastal areas is planned and coastal values protected. Where no settlement boundary is identified, the extent of a settlement is defined by the extent of existing urban zoned land and any land identified on a plan in the planning scheme for future urban settlement.

Direct residential and other urban development and infrastructure within defined settlement boundaries of existing settlements that are capable of accommodating growth.

Clause 12.02‐1 (Protection of coastal areas) seeks the recognition and enhancement of the value of the coastal areas to the community and ensure sustainable use of natural coastal resources.


Clause 12.02‐2 (Appropriate development of coastal areas) seeks to ensure that development conserves, protects and enhances coastal biodiversity and ecological values.

Clause 12.04‐2 (Landscapes) supports the protection of landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identity and sustainable environments.

Clause 13 (Environmental risks) includes policies relating to climate change and bushfire.

Clause 14.01‐1 (Protection of agricultural land) supports the protection of productive farmland which is of strategic significance in the local or regional context.

Clause 15.01‐1 (Urban design) supports urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity.

Clause 15.01‐5 (Cultural identity and neighbourhood character) promotes the recognition and protection of cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place.

Clause 15.03‐1 (Heritage conservation) supports the conservation of places of heritage significance.

Clause 16.02‐1 (Rural residential development) includes the strategy:

Reduce the proportion of new housing development provided in rural areas and encourage the consolidation in existing settlements where investment in physical and community infrastructure and services has already been made.

Clause 17.03‐1 (Facilitating tourism) encourages tourism development to maximise the employment and long‐term economic, social and cultural benefits of developing the State as a competitive domestic and international tourist destination.

Where relevant, these policies are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report.

(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework

Municipal Strategic Statement

The existing Municipal Strategy Statement (MSS) includes background material and higher order policies in Clause 21.01 – 21.08.

Clause 21.09 provides objectives and strategies under the themes of Economic development (Industry, Agriculture, Forestry and timber production, and Fishing industry), Environment (Protection of catchments, waterways and ground water, Conservation of native flora and fauna, and protection of coastal areas and heritage), Urban development, Infrastructure, Tourism and Retail. It also includes objectives and strategies for individual settlements, including Portland, Casterton, Heywood, Dartmoor and Nelson.

The MSS is very brief and provides limited direct guidance for managing the Shire’s urban areas and settlements. It is notable that it does not include structure plans for any of the Shire’s towns, including Portland. Some of the material typically found in a MSS is provided in Clause 22, which includes more comprehensive objectives and policy statements.

Local Planning Policy

Clause 22 includes local planning policies under the themes of Settlement, Environment, Economic Development, Infrastructure and Particular Use and Development.


Clause 22.01 (Settlement) includes policies relating to Urban growth, Townscape, Growth corridors, Excision of dwellings in rural areas and Dutton Way. The Growth corridors theme includes policies relating to Portland, Heywood and Casterton.

Clause 22.02 (Environment) includes policies relating to Land management and protection, Wetland areas, Fire Hazard, Coastal areas and High quality agricultural land.

Clause 22.03 (Economic Development) includes policies relating to Primary industries, Industrial development, Port of Portland, Tourist development, Portland business areas and Portland Central City.

Clause 22.04 (Infrastructure) includes policies relating to General infrastructure provision, Road construction and access in Rural Zones, Residential Infrastructure requirements, Water infrastructure and Transport.

Clause 22.05 (Particular Use and Development) includes policies relating to Industrial development landscaping requirements.

3.2 Zones and Overlays

The amendment does not include any rezoning or overlay proposals, although it foreshadows possible future rezonings and the application of overlays.

3.3 State planning strategies and documents

In addition to the reports and documents discussed in Section 2 of this report, there are other higher order strategies that are relevant to the Panel’s consideration of the amendment and submissions.

(i) Victorian Coastal Strategy, 2008

The Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS) is a ‘Policy Guideline’ document in the SPPF and must be considered by planning authorities where relevant.

The VCS (refer to Figure 1 below) identifies Portland as a ‘regional growth centre’ with ‘high growth capacity’ – meaning that ‘large scale residential growth can be accommodated within and beyond current zoned urban limits’. The VCS identifies Heywood as having moderate growth capacity – meaning that it has ‘some growth potential beyond existing urban zoned land or through infill but within defined settlement boundaries’. Nelson is identified as ‘Low growth capacity’ – meaning that ‘growth contained within existing urban or appropriate zoned land primarily through infill capacity and renewal within defined settlement boundaries’.


Figure 1 Victorian Coastal Strategy, Figure 12 b: Coastal Settlement Framework

In relation to ‘other coastal settlements’ the VCS indicates that:

There are a variety of areas which include subdivisions and clusters of housing in rural areas which don’t formally constitute a settlement. The objective is to manage these in relation to environmental impacts within existing limits of current development.

The VCS includes the following ‘policies’:

1 Identify a clear settlement boundary around coastal settlements to ensure that growth in coastal areas is planned and coastal values protected. Where no settlement boundary is identified, the extent of a settlement is defined by the extent of existing urban zoned land and any land identified on a plan in the planning scheme for future urban settlement.

2. Ensure coastal settlements and growth are appropriately planned and managed by: - supporting a network of diverse settlements as outlined within the

Coastal Settlement Framework to provide for a broad range of opportunities and diversity;

- implementing and reviewing coastal settlement boundaries as part of the settlement planning process, consistent with the Coastal Settlement Boundaries Planning Practice Note, and having regard to the best available information on sea‐level rise and climate change risks and impacts;


- implementing the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study, State Overview Report, 2006 into relevant planning schemes;

- directing residential, other urban development and infrastructure within defined settlement boundaries of existing settlements that are capable of accommodating growth; and

- encouraging urban renewal and redevelopment opportunities within existing settlements to reduce the demand for urban sprawl.

3 Maintain existing non‐urban breaks between all coastal settlements to support community identity, sense of place and limit urban sprawl.

4 Avoid linear development along the coastal edge and major transport routes and within rural landscapes to preserve areas between settlements for non‐urban use.

5 Retain non‐urban uses between settlements and protect visually significant landscapes, views and vistas.

6 Ensure development is sensitively sited and designed and respects the character of coastal settlements.

3.4 Other strategies and guidelines

The Panel has also had regard to various other State strategies and guidelines including:

The Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study, 2006;

Practice Note: Rural Residential Development, 2012;

Practice Note: Implementing a Coastal Settlement Boundary, 2006;

Practice Note: Writing a Municipal Strategic Statement, 2010; and

Practice Note: Incorporated and Reference Documents, 2000.


4 Threshold Issues

This section discusses the ‘threshold’ or ‘key’ issues raised in submissions that are fundamental to the strategic justification and overall content of the amendment.

4.1 Strategic justification

(i) What is the issue?

The issue is whether there is adequate strategic justification for the amendment.

(ii) Submissions and evidence

Ms Chalmers opposed the amendment and sought a recommendation that it be abandoned. She submitted that:

Amendment C73 is fundamentally flawed as it is based on an unrealistic growth scenario for the municipality and fails to properly address the interconnection of strategic planning issues facing the Shire.

It has not responded to relevant policy parameters or recognised the significance of constraints associated with fire hazard areas, the maintenance of the productivity of farmland generally and farmland of strategic significance in particular. It has not considered the limited infrastructure basis for growth in rural clusters and many smaller settlements.

Ms Chalmers submitted that:

The GSSS and amendment are contrary to the Planning and Environment Act, 1987, the SPPF and various state policy documents including the VCS;

Plans for Portland, Tyrendarra, Cape Bridgewater and potentially Narrawong East (in the amendment) are contrary to Section 4.2 of the VCS;

Elements of the GSSS and amendment are inconsistent with the GSFP and GSLUS, including coastal areas, Cape Bridgewater, Portland, Dartmoor, Nelson, Tyrendarra and Narrawong;

The proposed extent and location of the Rural Living Zone have not been adequately justified;

The proposed expansion of settlements such as Portland, Heywood and Casterton, including the large areas identified for the Rural Living Zone, have not been justified in light of a population growth rate of 0.4%; and

The nomination of land for investigation purposes in the Structure Plans gives it an elevated status that is not warranted.

Mr and Mrs Boyer raised general concerns about the amendment and their view that it was inconsistent with the VCS and SPPF, particularly in relation to coastal areas and environmental impacts. They also raised specific issues in relation to Narrawong East.

Mr Stokes also raised concerns about the adequacy of the amendment and GSSS, submitting that it did not give a balanced representation of the Shire’s assets. He raised various concerns in relation to environmental and heritage protection and the proposals for specific settlements and areas.


(iii) Discussion

Before discussing the strategic merits of the amendment and the GSSS, it is appropriate that the Panel provide some introductory comments on the amendment and the submissions that opposed it.

Firstly, it is evident that some submitters are frustrated with Council’s past administration of the planning scheme and particularly Council’s decision to abandon elements of Amendments C52 and C55. While the Panel acknowledges these concerns, they do not influence its assessment of Amendment C73. The Panel’s focus is on the planning merits of the amendment and the submissions.

Secondly, some submitters have unrealistic expectations of what Amendment C73 is intended to achieve and what, in practical terms, it will achieve. The amendment will not address all of the planning issues confronting the Shire, and it is not intended to. It is a very limited response to some of the recent strategic work undertaken by Council relating to settlement and rural area planning. It proposes very modest revisions to the existing LPPF, most of which foreshadow the need to undertake further investigations in support of possible future zoning and overlay amendments.

Thirdly, Amendment C73 is the first amendment in the process of implementing the GSSS and other background documents. Council advised that it is undertaking additional strategic work and preparing supplementary planning scheme amendments. Many of the issues raised in submissions will be relevant to the further strategic work and future planning scheme amendments to be prepared by Council. Importantly, submitters will have the opportunity to review those amendments and make submissions.

Consistency with State policy

Ms Chalmers submitted that various elements of the amendment were inconsistent with State policy, particularly coastal policy, and cited various elements of the VCS and the SPPF. Ms Regent assessed the amendment against the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 and the SPPF, and concluded that the amendment was strategically justified.

While the Panel acknowledges Ms Chalmers’ concerns, it notes that the amendment only proposes limited revisions to the Planning Scheme and does not include any rezonings or overlay changes. As discussed earlier, the amendment essentially introduces a program of further investigations that will be required in support of future amendments. In this context, the amendment cannot simply be dismissed as being contrary to State policy. As Ms Regent indicated, this further work will lead to future planning scheme amendments to implement specific zoning and overlay changes, and these processes will provide opportunities for more comprehensive consideration of relevant policies, including those referred to by Ms Chalmers.

Nevertheless, the Panel agrees that some elements of the amendment (that were specifically challenged in submissions) do raise ‘State policy’ issues, including:

the proposal to identify the application of the Rural Living Zone to large areas currently zoned Rural Conservation 2 Zone, and to Narrawong East and Nelson;

the proposals to identify the application of the Township Zone to Cape Bridgewater and to provide for urban expansion beyond the existing developed area; and


the proposal to identify the application of the Township Zone to undeveloped areas in Nelson.

These issues are discussed in later sections of this report.

Consistency between the GSSS and the GSFP and GSLUS

Ms Chalmers noted: ‘The GSSS is a sort of Trojan horse being “inserted” into the planning scheme. It does not reflect the rigour of the GSFP although it claims to be descended from it.’ She highlighted a number of inconsistencies between the two documents. Mr Stokes also noted that the GSSS was inconsistent with other work completed by Council.

The Panel agrees that the GSSS does not include all of the detail within the GSFP and GSLUS and in some cases departs from these documents. As discussed previously, the GSSS is essentially a ‘summary’ document, albeit one that includes some additional and revised material drawn from Council’s further analysis of various issues. Council’s submission did not detail the variations between the GSFP and the GSSS and the reasons for them. As the Panel commented during the Hearing, this information would have been useful.

In relation to the GSSS, Ms Regent advised that minor changes were made following its public exhibition, and that these were limited to Narrawong East and Cape Bridgewater. These changes are reflected in the amendment.

Whether the GSSS and amendment are consistent with the GSFP and GSLUS is not a key test of the amendment. While the background documents are relevant insofar as they provide strategic justification, the Panel has primarily had regard to the broader policy framework, including the SPPF and documents such as the VCS. In situations where the background documents (particularly the GSSS) support elements of the amendment that are arguably inconsistent with the policy framework, the Panel has highlighted them in this report.

The Panel does not agree with Ms Chalmers’ observation that the GSSS is a ‘Trojan horse’ being inserted into the planning scheme. As discussed earlier, the amendment essentially introduces a program of further strategic work and very few definitive policies. The Panel also notes that the GSSS is only intended to have the very limited role of a Reference Document. Nevertheless, the Panel has concerns about how the GSSS is referred to in the amendment and discusses this in Section 6.2 of this report.

Population growth and residential development

Ms Chalmers submitted that the GSSS provides for a higher rate of population growth than can be justified within some of the settlements and added that the provision of additional land for residential development was driven by landowners. She concluded that ‘The GSSS has not determined the “supply and demand for residential zoned land” or “where development is to be directed” but has apparently assumed that the demand exists because there were “numerous submissions” to the GSFP’.

Neither the amendment nor the GSSS include any detailed population projections or assessments of future residential land requirements. However, the Panel does not believe that this is a significant issue given that the amendment does not include any ‘residential’ rezonings. The amendment does, however, include references to possible future residential development areas and rezonings. These include:


The exhibited Portland Structure Plan which identifies a significant area to the west of the town where the option of future residential development is to be preserved;

The exhibited Dartmoor, Nelson, Cape Bridgewater, Condah, Sandford and Merino Structure Plans which identify areas to be investigated for the Township Zone; and

The exhibited Tyrendarra Structure Plan which identifies an area to be rezoned Township Zone to reflect smaller lots and existing land uses.

The exhibited Structure Plans for Digby, Heywood, Casterton, Narrawong and Narrawong East do not include any references to additional residential development in new or expanded areas zoned Residential 1 or Township.

The only unqualified support for a residential rezoning that can be found in the amendment is in the exhibited Tyrendarra Structure Plan which foreshadows the application of the Township Zone to a small area. This is discussed in Section 5.4 of this report.

Importantly, any future ‘residential’ rezonings will need to be consistent with the SPPF policies relating to land supply and demand. For example, Clause 11.02‐1 (Supply of urban land), includes the following strategies:

Ensure the ongoing provision of land and supporting infrastructure to support sustainable urban development.

Ensure that sufficient land is available to meet forecast demand.

Plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15 year period and provide clear direction on locations where growth should occur. Residential land supply will be considered on a municipal basis, rather than a town‐by‐town basis.

Planning for urban growth should consider:

Opportunities for the consolidation, redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas.

Neighbourhood character and landscape considerations.

The limits of land capability and natural hazards and environmental quality.

Service limitations and the costs of providing infrastructure.

Council has committed to conducting further investigations before seeking to rezone any additional ‘residential’ land and the Panel believes that these investigations will provide the opportunity for land supply and demand, population growth and other relevant issues to be considered.

For these reasons, the Panel does not agree that the lack of detailed population projections or assessments of residential land requirements are reasons for the amendment not to proceed.

The identification of ‘investigation’ areas

As discussed above, the amendment identifies a range of investigations relating to possible future zoning and overlay changes. Ms Chalmers submitted that ‘Leaving the resolution of suitability for development to future rezoning battles is in my view an abrogation of municipal responsibility, and Amendment C73 structure plans raise more questions than they answer.’ Mr and Mrs Boyer submitted that ‘Rezoning old developments to more accurately


reflect current land use is not always an appropriate measure as these developments may be inappropriate or contrary to Victorian Coastal Strategy or the State Planning Policy Framework’.

Council is seeking to implement a range of completed strategic work and has chosen to do this through a series of amendments, commencing with Amendment C73. This amendment will progressively implement this strategic work and some future investigations that are underway or will be undertaken in the future. These future amendments will introduce the detailed zoning and overlay changes that Ms Chalmers would have preferred to be included in Amendment C73. For example, Amendment C78 will seek to rezone various areas to Rural Living.

Some Councils opt for a single amendment to introduce new policy material together with zoning and overlay changes, while others like Glenelg have chosen to do them progressively through a series of amendments. There is no right or wrong approach to implementing strategic work and Glenelg’s approach is an entirely appropriate option.

Implicit in Ms Chalmers’ submission is a concern that including a reference in the LPPF to a possible future rezoning provides a level of strategic support prior to the rezoning being considered and justified. While this is a legitimate concern, the Panel notes that with the exception of the reference to applying the Township Zone in the Tyrendarra Structure Plan, the amendment simply identifies areas and issues that are to be investigated and does not foreshadow what the outcome of those investigations will be. On this basis, the Panel does not believe that these elements of the amendment provide any implicit strategic support for the rezoning proposals that are to be investigated.

However, the Panel notes that the legends in many of the Structure Plans refer to these investigation areas as ‘proposed’ new zonings, whereas the text in the maps refers to them as areas or matters to ‘investigate’. In order to improve consistency within the Structure Plans and to ensure that the need for further investigations is clear, the Panel believes that the references in the legends to ‘proposed’ zones should be replaced with ‘investigation areas’. For example, the legend in the Merino Structure Plan should be changed from ‘Proposed Township Zone’ to ‘Township Zone – Investigation Area’. This would be consistent with the text on the plan that includes: ‘Investigate proposed future Township Zone expansion’.

In relation to the submission from Mr and Mrs Boyer regarding the rezoning of existing development, the Panel agrees that applying zones that simply reflect existing land uses and/or subdivision patterns will not always be appropriate. There will be situations where the existing land uses and/or subdivision patterns will be inconsistent with planning policies (this can be the case with proposals to apply the Rural Living Zone to defacto rural residential development in remote rural areas) and where different zoning approaches are required. The Panel is satisfied that the further investigations foreshowed in the amendment in support of future rezonings will provide an opportunity to take these issues into account.

Rural Living Zone

Ms Chalmers raised a number of general concerns about the extent of the proposed Rural Living Zone areas in the amendment. She also raised issues about the impacts of this land


use on agriculture, noting that ‘Scattered dwellings are costly to service, lacking social and economic infrastructure’. She submitted that the proposals were inconsistent with Ministerial Direction No 6: Rural Residential Development, although the Panel notes that this Direction was revoked in May 2012.

The amendment includes numerous references to applying the Rural Living Zone, including the Portland 1, Portland 2, Heywood, Dartmoor, Nelson, Narrawong East, Digby and Merino Structure Plans. All of these references, with the exception of Portland 1 and 2 and Narrawong East, foreshadow investigations into the suitability of applying the Rural Living Zone. Portland 1 and 2 and Narrawong East identify areas that are simply designated ‘Proposed Rural Living Zone’. As discussed in the previous section, the Panel is concerned that designating these areas as ‘Proposed Rural Living Zone’ implies a level of strategic support that has not been demonstrated. As previously recommended, these designations should be modified to: ‘Rural Living Zone ‐ Investigation Area’.

The Panel also notes that Clause 21.09 includes the following implementation action under the theme ‘Portland’:

These strategies will be implemented by:

Rezoning fragmented rural land in the Rural Conservation Zone Schedule 2 (RCZ2) to the Rural Living Zone and converting remaining RCZ2 areas into the Farming Zone.

Again, this action is premature in light of the need to undertake further investigations and to provide adequate strategic justification in support of any future rezoning of these areas. For this reason, the reference should be removed from the amendment.

Changing the designation of these three rezoning proposals and removing the implementation action will clearly indicate that further analysis of the suitability of the Rural Living Zone is required, as is the case with the other Structure Plans that refer to the Rural Living Zone.

The Panel notes that the rezoning of these areas will need to be accompanied by detailed strategic analysis including the consideration of the relevant elements of the SPPF and the Practice Note: Rural Residential Development, 2012. This type of analysis was not presented to the Panel in respect of Amendment C73, but should accompany proposed Amendment C78 or other future amendments that seek to apply the Rural Living Zone. The Panel also assumes that the use of the Rural Living Zone in rural areas will be assessed as part of the Rural Zones Review project.

While the Panel shares Ms Chalmers’ general concerns about the potential implications of applying the Rural Living Zone, it notes that the amendment does not include any rezonings and is satisfied that the exhibited provisions (together with the changes recommended by the Panel) will adequately highlight the need for further investigations in support of any rezoning proposals.

(iv) Conclusion and recommendation

Conclusion

While the Panel acknowledges the concerns of submitters about a perceived lack of strategic support for the amendment, it believes that these concerns are overstated given that:


The amendment only proposes limited changes to the current planning scheme, and is principally focused on identifying further investigations that are required in support of possible zoning and overlay changes; and

The further investigations and planning scheme amendments foreshadowed by Council will provide opportunities for more comprehensive assessments of the policy framework and other relevant issues.

Nevertheless, the Panel believes that some elements of the amendment should be revised to ensure that the need to further investigate various rezoning proposals is more explicit.

Recommendation

The Panel recommends that Amendment C73 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme be modified to:

Replace references to ‘Proposed’ zones in the legends of the relevant Structure Plan Maps in Clause 22.01 with ‘Investigation Area’.

Remove the following implementation action from Clause 21.09:

‘Rezoning fragmented rural land in the Rural Conservation Zone Schedule 2 (RCZ2) to the Rural Living Zone and converting remaining RCZ2 areas into the Farming Zone’.

4.2 Environmental and landscape protection

(i) What are the issues?

The general issues are whether the amendment adequately responds to environmental constraints and risks and whether it adequately protects the Shire’s environmental and landscape values.

The existing planning scheme includes various ‘environmental’ strategies and policies in the LPPF that are supported by a range of ‘environmental’ overlays. The amendment does not remove or diminish any of these provisions, but does include some limited additional LPPF material.


Ms Chalmers submitted that there has been inadequate consideration of a range of environmental factors and that the amendment will lead to the incremental loss of environmental and biodiversity assets. She particularly emphasised the threats to coastal areas and added that Council typically supports development at the expense of the natural environment.

Mr and Mrs Boyer submitted that more ‘environmental’ overlays needed to be applied within the Shire to address landscape, wetland, waterway, fire and flooding issues. They sought an extension of the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 (ESO1) to cover the ‘entire dune system’ and the extension of the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) to include wetlands to the north of the primary dunes.

In relation to environmental protection, Ms Regent submitted that:


GSSS strategic directions and structure plans contain numerous references regarding environmental protection. Examples include protection of Wattle Hill Creek, coastal environmental values at Cape Bridgewater and coastal dunes and wetlands at Narrawong. The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) has previously stated in relation to the GSSS that environmental issues can be addressed in consultation with DSE during the preparation of rezoning amendments. The conservation issues relevant to an area will be more closely examined during the preparation of such amendments.

In relation to flood and bushfire risks, Ms Regent submitted:

Flood information including Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority mapping and recent flood studies for Portland, Casterton and Narrawong areas have been considered and incorporated into the Structure Plans proposed to be included in clause 22.01. In addition to the recognition of flood risk areas, the structure plans identify locations where residential land cannot be developed due to this issue and recommends consideration of alternate land for residential development. C73 and GSSS do not preclude the future identification of additional areas of flooding risk. Such investigations would be undertaken in consultation with relevant bodies such as GHCMA.

Bushfire risk is managed through application of the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) in the Glenelg Planning Scheme. The BMO is an overlay managed by the State Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD). It is understood that this overlay map is currently being revised and will soon be updated. The CFA are also consulted during the preparation of planning scheme amendments. The CFA have been consulted during the preparation of the GSSS and provided support for the strategy. Further detailed discussion will occur when planning scheme amendments are proposed to rezone land in accordance with the recommendations of the GSSS.

In relation to ‘the lack’ of additional environmental overlays, Ms Regent submitted that:

The GSSS recognises the importance of mitigating environmental risk such as flooding, bushfire and managing environmental values such as those associated with protecting catchments and waterways.

C73 proposes to recognise these values in local strategies and objectives of clause 21.09 and in structure plans where this information was available at the time of the preparation of the GSSS. In addition to the environmental risks identified in the GSSS and hence this amendment, environmental risks will continue to be managed as they are in the zones and controls of the Glenelg Planning Scheme. If rezonings are identified in the GSSS, consideration will be given to current overlays that affect the site and surrounding land.

In relation to protecting coastline values, Ms Regent submitted that:

The GSSS recognises that heritage, coastal landscapes and natural resources are key assets of Glenelg Shire. A rewrite of the MSS that is currently being undertaken would expand on these themes. A rewrite of Local Polices would then flow from the new MSS and would address these issues in greater detail.


GSSS does not need to elaborate on existing statements regarding protection of landscapes. C52 Part 1 would implement CSLAS recommendations, whilst GSSS contains statements that could justify future studies to extend SLO beyond Part 1 areas.

Ms Regent noted that there were no ‘environmental’ objections to the amendment from any of the relevant agencies and that none of them had sought any changes to the exhibited provisions. She also noted that various agencies, including the Country Fire Authority, were involved on the preparation of the background reports and provided input to them.

(iii) Discussion

Consideration of environmental factors

As discussed in relation to the ‘strategic justification’ for the amendment, the Panel is generally satisfied that the amendment either takes account of environmental factors or provides an opportunity for them to be taken into account in the further investigations proposed by Council. As Ms Regent advised, the Department of Sustainability and Environment is satisfied that environmental issues can be addressed during the preparation of future rezoning amendments.

In terms of flooding, the Panel accepts Council’s advice that the most recent flood mapping is reflected in the Structure Plans and notes that the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority did not make a submission on the amendment.

In terms of bushfire, the Panel notes that significant areas within the Shire are subject to the Wildfire Management Overlay (WMO) and that bushfire risk was a consideration in various background reports including the GSFP that identified ‘wildfire management’ as a significant issue. As Council indicated, the WMO/BMO is being reviewed by the State government and any revisions are expected be introduced later this year. Finally, the Panel notes that the CFA lodged a submission but did not object to the amendment or raise any issues associated with bushfire.

Additional environmental protection overlays

Whether or not there should be additional environmental overlays in the planning scheme is not a matter that the Panel can usefully comment on. The amendment did not propose any overlays and it is not open to the Panel to recommend that any be applied or extended as part of this amendment.

Nevertheless, the Panel notes that the existing LPPF includes various strategies and policies that seek to protect environmental and landscape values, including those along the coast and those associated with waterways. Whether or not there is a need for additional overlays is a matter that Council should consider as part of its next planning scheme review.

4.3 Heritage conservation


The general issues are whether the Planning Scheme adequately protects the Shire’s heritage and whether the amendment and GSSS should provide greater protection.


The existing planning scheme includes overarching heritage protection policies in the SPPF, while the MSS and the Local Planning Policies include numerous references to protecting heritage values and assets, including a specific heritage theme in Clause 21.09. The Planning Scheme also applies the Heritage Overlay (HO) to approximately 160 sites.

The amendment carries over all of these existing references in the LPPF, including the heritage theme in Clause 21.09, and does not make any changes to existing Heritage Overlays.

(ii) Submissions

A number of submissions expressed concern about the lack of attention to heritage issues in the amendment and GSSS.

Mr and Mrs Boyer submitted that the GSSS ‘has little to say about heritage’ and identified various areas where heritage values were being eroded.

Mr Stokes had similar concerns about the GSSS and the amendment and noted that they lacked heritage conservation strategies. Mr Stokes submitted that:

The ‘heritage based tourism’ reference in the Municipal Strategic Framework Map at Clause 21.09 needed to be supported by implementation strategies;

There was a community perception that Council was reluctant to introduce additional heritage protections;

The implementation of heritage studies and planning amendments has been inadequate; and

Further heritage protection and supporting actions were necessary in various areas including Portland, Casterton, Heywood, Merino, Digby, Sanford, Condah, Nelson and Cape Bridgewater.

Ms Chalmers provided a discussion of past Council actions relating to heritage protection issues, including various studies and planning scheme amendments. She drew comparisons between Council’s handling of these amendments and Amendment C73, and raised cost, timing, process and effectiveness issues. She submitted that the references to heritage in the GSSS and the amendment were superficial and would not support ‘the already limited Local Policies’. She also submitted that the amendment would ‘re‐balance the whole scheme toward development at the expense of conservation’.

Ms Regent provided an overview of past heritage studies and planning scheme amendments initiated by Council and submitted that:

Heritage values have been addressed specifically in clause 21.09 (Environment‐Heritage) of this amendment. Detailed heritage provisions are addressed in existing specific controls within the planning scheme under the Heritage Overlay provisions in clause 43.01.

Glenelg Planning Scheme amendment C55 recently reviewed the heritage items protected under the planning scheme and proposed in excess of 80 additional heritage places, updating the heritage provisions of the scheme. The proposed amendments to 21.09 support further protection of heritage values in the shire in the Shire if appropriate in the future.


(iii) Discussion

It seems that implementing additional heritage protection in the planning scheme has been a problematic process for Council, and the Panel can understand the frustration of submitters about the lack of progress with Amendment C55.

However, it was not the intention of the GSSS or Amendment C73 to address heritage issues to the extent sought by some submitters. The amendment is focussed on implementing an overarching settlement strategy based on structure plans for specific settlements and rural areas. More detailed heritage protection measures, such as the application of the Heritage Overlay, will need to be undertaken through other processes and other amendments.

The Panel is satisfied that the general heritage references in the LPPF and amendment are adequate to ensure that heritage is a consideration in the assessment of permit applications. The Panel also notes that the amendment does not diminish this existing protection. Whether the Heritage Overlay needs to be applied to additional sites is a matter for Council and the community, and is not something that the Panel can usefully comment on.

4.4 Rural Conservation Zone Schedule 2


The issue is whether the amendment should propose the replacement of the Rural Conservation 2 Zone with the Rural Living or Farming Zones.

As discussed earlier, the exhibited Clause 21.09 includes an implementation action supporting the rezoning of ‘fragmented rural land’ in the Rural Conservation Zone Schedule 2 to the Rural Living Zone and converting the remaining Rural Conservation Zone Schedule 2 areas into the Farming Zone. The relevant areas are identified on the Portland Structure Plan 2 within the exhibited Clause 22.01 (refer to Figure 2 below).


Mr Stokes opposed the proposed rezoning of areas from Rural Conservation 2 to Rural Living or Residential 1, noting that the Rural Conservation Zone should be expanded rather than contracted and that any rezoning proposal should be accompanied by an environmental and cultural study. Ms Chalmers expressed similar concerns about removing the Rural Conservation 2 Zone. Mr Lacey, opposed the rezoning of land from Rural Conservation 2 to Farming Zone submitting that it would appear to be a ‘nonsense’ to strategically identify an area of de facto rural residential development as being suitable for the Farming Zone (refer to Section 5.5 of this report).

(iii) Discussion

The Rural Conservation 2 Zone is applied to a large rural area in the south of the Shire. It has a minimum subdivision area of 2 hectares and includes the ‘Conservation Values’:

To establish sustainable agricultural and horticultural uses based on the productive capabilities of the soil and to discourage the location of non soil‐based activities which would result in the loss or under‐use of agricultural land.


Although the Panel is not familiar with the background to the zone schedule, it seemed to be common ground at the Hearing that it had not achieved its intended ‘agricultural’ purpose and that it had become a defacto rural residential zone. Council is reviewing the zone as part of the Rural Zones Review project together with a number of other issues that affect the Shire’s rural areas. The Panel supports this initiative and notes that it will provide an opportunity to address the issues raised in submissions about this zone.

Figure 2: Portland Structure Plan 1 Exhibited Clause 22.01

As discussed in Section 4.1 of this report, the Panel has concerns about the exhibited references to rezoning land from Rural Conservation 2 to Rural Living and has recommended various changes to highlight the need for further investigations, particularly in light of relevant elements of the SPPF and the Practice Note: Rural Residential Development, 2012. The Panel has adopted a similar position in relation to the exhibited references to applying the Farming Zone. These issues will be dealt with through other processes and investigations and it is important that Amendment C73 not pre‐empt future decisions.


5 Settlement and Site Specific Issues

This section of the report discusses the issues raised in relation to specific settlements and sites. Some submissions raised environmental, heritage and landscape issues in relation to specific areas that the Panel has dealt with in general terms in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this report.

5.1 Cape Bridgewater


The issues are whether the existing developed area in Cape Bridgewater should be rezoned Township Zone and whether there should be additional urban development beyond the boundaries of what currently exists.

Cape Bridgewater is a small coastal settlement 19 kilometres south‐west of Portland. It is a ‘low density’ residential settlement within in a highly scenic setting and is currently zoned Rural Conservation 2. The GSFP noted that Cape Bridgewater has 42 dwellings and a small number of tourism facilities (in 2008). It also identified wastewater management and access as key constraints. The GSSS supports continuing infill development, a community hub and new tourist facilities and accommodation, although not all of this is explicit in the amendment. The GSSS and amendment also propose that the existing zoning be reviewed and that the application of a Design and Development Overlay be considered.


Mr Stokes noted that Cape Bridgewater is not a ‘town’, although it is referred to as such in the GSSS. He also noted that the draft GSSS showed a proposed Township Zone similar in size to the current settlement but that the adopted GSSS and the amendment showed a much larger area proposed for the Township Zone. He opposed the rezoning of the settlement for ‘aesthetic, conservation and economic reasons’ and submitted that the Rural Conservation 2 Zone should be retained, together with the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay.

Ms Chalmers highlighted Cape Bridgewater as an example of where the GSSS and amendment are inconsistent with the GSFP, particularly in relation to zonings. She submitted that the proposed application of the Township Zone was contrary to the VCS and the GSFP. Ms Chalmers also submitted that Cape Bridgewater (and other coastal settlements) should have a ‘coastal settlement boundary in accordance with the Practice Note: Implementing a Coastal Settlement Boundary, 2006.

Ms Regent confirmed that Council’s decision to expand the possible application of the Township Zone beyond the existing developed area followed its consideration of submissions on the draft GSSS.


(iii) Discussion

The GSFP (refer to Figure 3 below) found that there should be a ‘clear demarcation between the smaller residential lots at Cape Bridgewater and the larger rural lots in the surrounding area’, and recommended that:

Smaller lots should be rezoned Rural Living to reflect existing land use and demarcate between this area and the surrounding area; and

The Rural Conservation Zone Schedule 1 in the surrounding area should be reviewed as part of the Rural Zones Review.

Importantly, it noted that:

The Victorian Coastal Strategy does not recognise Cape Bridgewater as a settlement; therefore it is considered that there is no opportunity for further residential development beyond that already created for this purpose.

The GSSS and amendment (refer to Figure 4 below) propose that the Township Zone be investigated instead of the Rural Living Zone, and that this investigation area extend beyond the existing developed area.

As discussed in Section 3 of this report, neither the SPPF nor the VCS identify Cape Bridgewater as a coastal settlement with capacity for expansion. Consequently, the VCS objective is to manage Cape Bridgewater ‘in relation to environmental impacts within existing limits of current development’. In this context, the Panel does not believe that there is any policy support for allowing urban development beyond the existing developed area. On this basis, any investigation of alternative zones should be confined to the existing developed area and should not include the ‘undeveloped’ areas to the west of Blowhole Road or to the south of the Nicholson Road alignment that are included in the exhibited Structure Plan.

Figure 3: GSFP Figure 31 Cape Bridgewater recommendations


The Panel also has reservations about applying the Township Zone in preference to the Rural Living Zone or retaining the Rural Conservation Zone given the wider range of permissible uses (including commercial and industrial uses) and the potential for higher density development. The Panel was not presented with any detailed material in relation to this ‘zoning’ issue and is not satisfied that there is a prima facie case for applying an alternative zone, let alone the Township Zone. The Panel believes that the zoning issue requires further analysis by Council, particularly in the context of the SPPF and the VCS.

Figure 4: Exhibited Cape Bridgewater Structure Plan, Clause 22.01

The Panel also believes that any investigation of alternative zones for Cape Bridgewater should consider whether a coastal settlement boundary should be applied in the event that an ‘urban’ zone can be justified. Although Ms Regent rightly submitted that a settlement boundary was not required where urban zones were in place, the Panel believes that applying a settlement boundary in conjunction with urban zones provides greater certainty and transparency. This would be consistent with the Practice Note: Implementing a Coastal Settlement Boundary, 2006.

For these reasons, the Panel recommends that the Structure Plan be revised so that it provides for a broader review of the current zone and alternative zones, and that the area to be reviewed is limited to the area of existing development.

(iv) Recommendation


Replace the designation ‘Proposed Township Zone’ in the legend to the Cape Bridgewater Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 with:

‘Investigation area for possible rezoning’.


Reduce the area on the Cape Bridgewater Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 recommended for the designation ‘Investigation area for possible rezoning’ to reflect the area of existing development.

Replace the reference ‘Future investigation of Township Zone’ on the Cape Bridgewater Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 with:

‘Investigate the suitability of the existing Rural Conservation 2 Zone and assess alternative zones and the application of a coastal settlement boundary’.

5.2 Narrawong East


The issue is whether the Narrawong East area should be identified for the Rural Living Zone.

The exhibited Narrawong East Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 identifies an area at Narrawong East as ‘Proposed Rural Living Zone’ (refer to Figure 5 below). The area is currently zoned Farming and consists of a number of lots to the north and south of the Princes Highway.

This proposal is not referred to in the GSFP or the GSLUS. The GSSS includes it on the proposed Structure Plan map but does not include any supporting text or justification. Ms Regent advised that this proposal is a result of a landowner submission to the exhibited GSSS.

Figure 5: Exhibited Narrawong East Structure Plan, Clause 22.01‐3



Mr and Mrs Boyer opposed the application of the Rural Living Zone in this area, citing concerns about impacts on the primary dune system along the southern edge of the affected properties.

Ms Chalmers raised a number of general concerns about the extent of the proposed RLZ areas in the amendment and raised issues about the impacts on agriculture, noting that ‘Scattered dwellings are costly to service, lacking social and economic infrastructure’.

(iii) Discussion

Proposed Rural Living Zone

As discussed in Section 4.1 of this report, the Panel has reservations about identifying land as ‘Proposed Rural Living Zone’ as part of Amendment C73. In the case of Narrawong East, there are two issues:

Firstly, the designation will apply to vacant lots on the north side of the Princes Highway that are currently zoned Farming and would become available for new dwellings if rezoned; and

Secondly, Council has not demonstrated that there is a strategic basis for applying the Rural Living Zone to de facto rural residential areas.

In the absence of these issues having been addressed and in light of the Panel’s concerns about designating ‘proposed zones’ in the amendment, there is inadequate justification for identifying the land at Narrawong East as ‘Proposed Rural Living Zone’. Instead, this designation should be modified to: ‘Rural Living Zone ‐ Investigation Area’, as recommended in Section 4.1 of this report.

Impacts of development

In relation to the Boyer’s submission, the Panel does not agree that the proximity of the lots on the south side of the Princes Highway to the primary dunes is, by itself, a reason for it to oppose the Rural Living Zone. These lots already have dwellings and the Rural Living Zone provisions provide a reasonable basis on which to control any additional development that might impact on the dunes. The Panel also notes that the dunes are predominantly located on Crown land and are subject to the existing Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1.

5.3 Nelson


The issues are whether the amendment should provide for the future expansion of the Township Zone to the south‐east and the application of the Rural Living Zone to the west.

Nelson is a small settlement on the Glenelg River, approximately 60 kilometres west of Portland. It has electricity but no reticulated water, sewerage or gas. The GSFP estimated that it has a permanent population of approximately 200 people and a significant number of visitors during peak holiday periods.



Ms Chalmers submitted that the expansion of Nelson proposed in the GSSS and amendment is contrary to the VCS which identifies Nelson as a settlement having ‘low growth capacity' with further growth to be contained within existing zoned urban areas. She expressed particular concern about the possible extension of the Township Zone to the south‐east and the proposed application of the Rural Living Zone to the west.

Mr Stokes expressed concern that development in the west of the town would impact on the landscape character of the Glenelg River.

(iii) Discussion

The GSFP relied on the findings and recommendations of the Nelson Urban Design Framework, 2010 (Nelson UDF) and summarised the UDF recommendations on Figure 6 below.

It noted that:

The key constraint to further development at Nelson is the lack of infrastructure such as sewer and water. The town has been identified in the Victorian Coastal Strategy as having low growth capacity with further growth to be contained within existing zoned areas.

The key elements of the GSSS and amendment (refer to Figure 7 below) include:

the possible long term expansion of the town to the south‐east and the rezoning of this area from Farming to Township; and

the proposed rezoning of land from Farming to Rural Living to the west.

Figure 6: GSFP Figure 29 Nelson recommendations


Figure 7: Exhibited Nelson Structure Plan, Clause 22.01‐3

As discussed in Section 3 of this report, the VCS identifies Nelson as a coastal settlement with ‘Low growth capacity’. This is defined as:

Growth contained within existing urban or appropriate zoned land primarily through infill capacity and renewal within defined settlement boundaries.

In this context, the Panel has concerns about extending the Township Zone to the south‐east and applying the Rural Living Zone to the west (particularly with a subdivision minimum that will allow further subdivision and development). The Panel notes that the Township Zone investigation area is quite large and would represent a significant expansion of the current urban area. In terms of the proposed Rural Living Zone, this would require the type of analysis discussed in Section 4.1 of this report and in relation to Narrawong East. Until this is done it would be premature to propose its rezoning, particularly with a 1 ha subdivision minimum. The Panel also notes that housing development on the periphery of settlements is an issue to be addressed in the Rural Zones Review.

For these reasons, the Panel is not satisfied that these proposals are consistent with the VCS and SPPF, or that they have been strategically justified. The Panel also notes that they are not discussed in any meaningful way in the amendment, GSSS or GSFP and were not addressed in Council’s submission to the Panel.

Consequently, the Panel believes that the reference to investigating the expansion of Nelson to the south‐east and applying the Township Zone should be deleted. The Panel is not satisfied that there is a prima facie case for this to be included in the planning scheme, even though it only foreshadows further investigations. It is difficult to imagine how a significant expansion of Nelson could be justified in light of the current policy context.


In relation to the proposed Rural Living Zone, the Panel notes that the area to the north of the Nelson–Portland Road consists predominantly of undeveloped, large lots, while the area to the south includes smaller lots developed with houses. The GSFP, GSSS and amendment do not provide any meaningful analysis of this proposal but it seems to the Panel that a rezoning (particularly with a 1 hectare minimum lot size) would allow permits to be sought for a significant number of new lots and dwellings.

In the absence of this issue having been adequately explored in the amendment and background documents and in light of the Panel’s concerns about designating ‘proposed zones’ in the amendment, it does not believe that there is adequate justification for identifying the land at Nelson as ‘Proposed Rural Living Zone’. Instead, this designation should be modified to: ‘Rural Living Zone ‐ Investigation Area’, as generally recommended in Section 4.1 of this report. In addition, the reference to considering a ‘minimum subdivision size of one hectare’ should be modified to reflect that while the Rural Living Zone might have merit in reflecting existing development and lot sizes, it should not allow for further subdivision or more intensive development.

As a consequence of these findings, other revisions will be required to the strategies in Clause 21.09.

(iv) Recommendation


Delete the reference on the Nelson Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 to ‘Investigate long term requirement for future expansion of Township Zone’ and the associated highlight on the map.

Replace the reference ‘Consider minimum subdivision size of one hectare, and create an open landscape character by requiring a generous setback from the road and side boundaries’ on the Nelson Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 with:

‘Investigate the suitability of applying the Rural Living Zone and requiring a generous setback from the road and side boundaries while limiting the opportunity for further subdivision and more intensive development’.

Delete the following strategy in Clause 21.09 under the theme ‘Nelson’:

‘Applying the Township Zone to existing developed areas and identifying areas for future expansion’.

Delete the words ‘and identifying areas for future expansion’ from the first implementation action in Clause 21.09 under the theme ‘Nelson’.


5.4 Tyrendarra


The issue is whether smaller lots in Tyrendarra should be rezoned Township.

Tyrendarra is a small settlement south of Heywood. It is on the Fitzroy River and the Princes Highway, and is approximately 4 kilometres north of the coast. It is currently zoned Farming and supports a small number of dwellings and some associated community facilities.


Ms Chalmers noted that the GSFP proposed that the Rural Living Zone should be applied to settlement while the GSSS and amendment proposed that the Township Zone be applied in the future. She expressed concern about applying the Township Zone which would ‘enable resubdivision in an unsewered elevated area above a floodplain’ and noted that additional development would be inconsistent with the VCS.

(iii) Discussion

The GSFP identified a number of ‘significant constraints’ in Tyrendarra, including:

The township is in the middle of the National Heritage listed Tyrendarra Lava flow, one of the most significant Aboriginal Cultural Heritage sites in Australia.

Biodiversity issues related to the special ecology of the lava flow.

Tyrendarra is not identified as a settlement in the Victorian Coastal Strategy, indicating that there is no significant growth identified for this location.

The land around the township is subject to flooding on three sides and accurate flood boundaries are yet to be determined.

The need to consider the application of a suite of overlays (e.g. Environmental Significance Overlays, Significant Landscape Overlays, Wildfire Management Overlays, Heritage Overlays and Flooding Overlays).

It concluded that ‘it may be more appropriate to apply the Rural Living Zone to the small lots at Tyrendarra as opposed to a residential zoning such as the Township Zone’ (refer to Figure 8 below).

The GSSS (refer to Figure 9 below) advocates rezoning existing small lots to Township, introducing a flood control and rezoning the sporting oval to Public Park and Recreation Zone. It contains very few references to the constraints identified in the GSFP, although it does refer to clarifying the extent of flooding. The Panel notes that the area identified on the Structure Plan for the Township Zone includes a large area bounded by Darlot Creek that appears from aerial photography to be undeveloped farming land.

As discussed in Section 3 of this report, neither the SPPF nor the VCS identify Tyrendarra as a coastal settlement with capacity for expansion. Consequently, the VCS objective is to manage Tyrendarra ‘in relation to environmental impacts within existing limits of current development’. In this context, the Panel does not believe that there is any policy support for allowing urban development beyond the existing developed area. On this basis, any


investigation of alternative zones should be confined to the existing developed area and should not include the undeveloped land around Tyrendarra.

Figure 8: GSFP Figure 33 Tyrendarra recommendations

The Panel also notes that the GSFP identified a number of ‘significant constraints’ most of which are not addressed in the GSSS or amendment. Until these constraints are analysed further it would be premature to identify a preferred zone.

While investigating whether the rezoning of existing development in Tyrendarra might have some merit, there is insufficient support in the amendment or background documents for the extent of the area identified in the Structure Plan and for the proposed application of the Township Zone.

Consequently, the Panel believes that the Structure Plan should be revised to delete the references to applying the Township Zone and simply include a general statement about investigating possible alternative zones.


Figure 9: Exhibited Tyrendarra Structure Plan, Clause 22.01‐3

(iv) Recommendation


Delete the two references to the ‘Township Zone’ in the Legend and body of the Tyrendarra Structure Plan at Clause 22.01, including the highlighted area on the map.

Include the following words in the body of the Tyrendarra Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 ‘Investigate whether an alternative zone should be applied to existing development’ with an arrow to the existing development south of the Princes Highway.

5.5 568 Gorae Road, Portland


The issue is whether this site and the surrounding area should be rezoned from Rural Conservation Zone Schedule 2 to Rural Living Zone.

As discussed in Section 4.1 of this report, the Rural Conservation Zone Schedule 2 allows a minimum lot size of two hectares subject to a permit and specifies the ‘Conservation Values’ as:


To establish sustainable agricultural and horticultural uses based on the productive capabilities of the soil and to discourage the location of non soil‐based activities which would result in the loss or under‐use of agricultural land.

The site is part of a broader area zoned Rural Conservation 2 that is identified in the exhibited Portland Structure Plan 2 (Portland Rural Conservation Zone Amendments) as:

Investigate appropriateness of rezoning Rural Conservation Zone 2 to Farming Zone to more effectively reflect current and potential land use.

(ii) Submissions

Andrew Lacey (on behalf of Mr and Mrs Dart) opposed the designation in the amendment and the GSSS that this site (and the general area) be investigated as a candidate for the Farming Zone (refer to Figure 10 below). He proposed that the GSSS (and consequently the amendment) be modified to include a notation that this site and some surrounding land (Mr Lacey’s option 1) be identified as ‘proposed Rural Living Zone’ or that it have the designation:

Investigate rezoning from Rural Conservation 2 Zone to Rural Living Zone to more accurately reflect current land use.

He provided a comprehensive submission that detailed the planning history of this property which was subdivided into five lots by way of a planning permit issued by Council in August 2004. The lots range in size from 2.5 to 7.3 hectares and are vacant, cleared land except for the parent lot that contains a dwelling. It is intended that the lots will be sold for development and use as rural living properties.

Figure 10: Aerial photograph of 568 Gorae Road (A) and surrounding area

Mr Lacey noted that the planning permit included conditions relating to the supply of electricity to each lot and the payment of a public open space contribution. He advised that a public open space levy had been paid to Council in 2005 and that electricity services have been provided to each lot at a total cost of approximately $28,000. He submitted that these factors established that the lots were created for residential purposes.


Mr Lacey advised that the owners opposed the possible rezoning of their land to Farming in anticipation that it would be difficult to obtain planning permits for dwellings under that zone. Consequently they had recently lodged planning permit applications for dwellings on the four undeveloped lots.

Mr Lacey submitted that it was nonsense to strategically identify this area which is characterised by defacto rural living development as a future candidate for the Farming Zone’. He added that the purposes of the Farming Zone could no longer be achieved and that the established land use patterns in the area were more consistent with the Rural Living Zone. He also noted that the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) that applied to the site also applied to the broader area (including areas identified for the Rural Living Zone in the GSSS and amendment) and was not a reason to oppose its application to the Dart’s property.

Mr Lacey proposed three options for creating a ‘satellite rural living precinct’ and applying the Rural Living Zone (with a preferred option 1) that sought to aggregate existing small lots and dwellings, including the Dart’s property.

Ms Chalmers raised a number of general concerns about the extent of the proposed RLZ areas in the amendment (without specifically referring to the Dart submission or property), raising issues about the impacts on agriculture and noting that ‘Scattered dwellings are costly to service, lacking social and economic infrastructure’.

Council did not support the submission and Ms Regent advised that:

The land owned by the submitter, 568 Gorae Road Gorae, is 23ha. An approval to subdivide the land was issued in 2004 under the then provisions of the Environmental Rural Zone which allowed 2ha minimum lot size.

Inclusion of the submitter’s property in RLZ would create a small island of RLZ without including properties up to Berrys Road. Some of these properties have areas of 30‐40 hectares and still have agricultural potential. Consequently, the GSSS appropriately proposes to include these properties in FZ.

Ms Regent also advised that the application of the Farming Zone would be consistent with the preliminary investigations undertaken as part of the Rural Zones Review.

(iii) Discussion

The Panel understands the concerns of Mr and Mrs Dart and acknowledges the costs incurred by them to create lots that they assumed would be suitable for dwellings. However, the issue before the Panel is whether this site (potentially in combination with surrounding land) warrants being identified in the planning scheme as a possible candidate for the Rural Living Zone.

In forming its view about this, the Panel has had regard to Clause 16.02‐1 (Rural residential development) which includes a number of strategies, including the following that are particularly relevant:

Reduce the proportion of new housing development provided in rural areas and encourage the consolidation in existing settlements where investment in physical and community infrastructure and services has already been made.


Demonstrate need and identify locations for rural residential development through a housing and settlement strategy.

Ensure planning for rural living avoids or significantly reduces adverse economic, social and environmental impacts by:

Maintaining the long‐term sustainable use and management of existing natural resource attributes in activities including agricultural production, water, mineral and energy resources.

Protecting existing landscape values and environmental qualities such as water quality, native vegetation, biodiversity and habitat.

Minimising or avoiding property servicing costs carried by local and State governments.

Discouraging development of isolated small lots in rural zones from use for rural living or other incompatible uses.

Encouraging consolidation of existing isolated small lots in rural zones.

Ensure land is only zoned for rural living or rural residential development where it:

Is located close to existing towns and urban centres, but not in areas that will be required for fully serviced urban development.

Can be supplied with electricity and water and good quality road access.

It is clear that these strategies seek to confine rural residential development to areas in proximity to existing settlements and that new rural residential areas should be consistent with a housing and settlement strategy. In the case of this proposal, the Panel would characterise the site and area as being reasonably distant from Portland (the nearest settlement) and clearly in a rural area rather than an extension of an existing settlement. The Panel also notes that there are other potential rural residential areas identified in the GSSS that are significantly closer to Portland.

Although the site and area have some characteristics that would be suitable for rural residential development (such as access to services, sealed roads, an agglomeration of smaller lots) these ‘advantages’ do not outweigh the locational disadvantage of being relatively isolated and distant from Portland.

The Panel is also guided by the DPCD Practice Note: Rural Residential Development, May 2012 which includes some threshold tests for assessing rural residential proposals. These include:

Strategy: Does rural residential development fit into the overall strategic planning of the municipality?

Housing need: How much rural residential development is required to provide appropriate housing diversity and choice to meet housing needs?

Location: Where should new rural residential development take place?

In the absence of this type of analysis (and ignoring the distance from an existing settlement) the Panel is not satisfied that this site and area should be identified as an ‘investigation area’ for rural residential development, let alone be identified for rezoning to Rural Living.

Mr Lacey argued that applying the Rural Living Zone would simply recognise the existing subdivision pattern and development in the area. While this is partly true, it would nonetheless provide opportunities for additional dwellings to be constructed. Importantly,


however, adopting this approach throughout the Shire would likely result in large scale rezonings and many additional dwelling entitlements in locations potentially unsuitable for rural residential development. As discussed in Section 4.1 of this report, the Panel assumes that existing small lot development in the Shire’s rural areas is an issue that will be considered as part of Council’s Rural Zones Review project.

The Panel is satisfied that the exhibited reference to investigating the rezoning of land to Farming Zone from Rural Conservation 2 Zone (including the Dart’s property and surrounding area) is appropriate.


6 Other Issues

This section discusses other submissions and general issues associated with the content, drafting and structure of the amendment.

6.1 The structure and drafting of the amendment

(i) Discussion

The Panel notes the existing LPPF is a disjointed and poorly structured document that has been overtaken by more recent approaches to drafting planning schemes. This is reflected in the Practice Note: Writing a Municipal Strategic Statement, 2010 that provides a recommended MSS format, including the use of Local Area Plans. Underpinning this Practice Note is the view that much of the material that is typically included in Clause 22 should be repositioned into Clause 21. A number of planning schemes have been rewritten on this basis, with some doing away with Clause 22 in its entirety.

Amendment C73 splits the implementation of the GSSS between the existing Clause 21.09 and the existing Clause 22.01. Ms Regent advised that this was an interim arrangement given that the LPPF was in the process of being rewritten and restructured, and that the final format of the LPPF had not yet been determined. On this basis the Panel is prepared to support the exhibited LPPF structure although it is clearly inconsistent with the Practice Note and should be revised as part of the LPPF re‐write.

Having reviewed the LPPF in the context of submissions, the Panel believes that Clause 22.01 can be repositioned into a revised Clause 21 that includes provision for Local Area Plans (in fact all of Clause 22 could be repositioned). There is also a pressing need to consolidate the various strategies and policies under a logical and transparent set of headings so as to avoid the current situation where references to themes or places (Portland, for example) are found throughout the LPPF. In addition, the drafting of objectives, strategies, implementation actions and policies in the current LPPF and the amendment is often at odds with the conventions in the Practice Note.

The Panel encourages Council to consolidate all of its ‘settlement’ and ‘local area’ provisions within Clause 21 as part of its LPPF rewrite and to ensure that the structure and drafting of the new LPPF are consistent with the Practice Note: Writing a Municipal Strategic Statement, 2010.

6.2 References to the GSSS in the amendment

(i) Discussion

The amendment includes a number of ‘implementation’ and ‘policy’ references to the GSSS in the exhibited Clauses 21.09 and 22.01. These references typically include the words ‘Referring to the strategic directions of the Glenelg Sustainable Settlement Strategy 2012’ (in the case of Clause 21.09) or elevate the status of the GSSS to that of a policy (in the case of Clause 22.01).


The Panel believes that this approach is inconsistent with the DPCD Practice Note: Incorporated and Reference Documents, 2000 which establishes that a document must be ‘incorporated’ if it is to be used to guide the exercise of discretion. It is clearly not Council’s intention that the GSSS be incorporated. Instead, it has quite rightly sought to include the relevant material from the GSSS into the LPPF as objectives, strategies and policy, and to include it as a Reference Document at Clause 22.01. In this context, any references to the GSSS that seek to use it in the ‘exercise of discretion’ or elevate it to the status of a policy should be removed from the amendment. Any material in the GSSS that Council intends to rely on should be specifically included in the planning scheme.

Where these references also include a strategy (there are many examples in Clause 21.09), the strategy can be retained but the reference to the GSSS should be removed. For example, the reference relating to ‘interface management’ in the following example can be retained as a strategy, but the reference to the GSSS should be deleted:

Referring to the strategic directions of the Glenelg Sustainable Settlement Strategy 2012 to encourage effective management of the interface between plantations and townships.

The Panel also notes that the amendment includes references to implementing other background documents such as the ‘implementation’ action in Clause 21.09:

To implement the Portland Bay Coastal Infrastructure Plan 2007 and Portland Integrated Growth Plan 2011.

These types of references to other background documents should also be removed.

Finally, the Panel also notes that the amendment does not include the GSSS as a Reference Document in the MSS, presumably because the current MSS does not make provision for including them. The revised MSS being prepared by Council should make provision for including reference documents and include the GSSS as such.

(ii) Recommendation


Delete any references to the GSSS (or other background documents) from Clauses 21.09 and 22.01 where that reference provides for its use in the exercise of discretion or elevates it to the status of a policy.

6.3 The GSSS and amendment processes

(i) Discussion

Some submitters expressed concerns about the GSSS consultation and implementation processes. These seem to have been the result of Council making changes to the GSSS following its consideration of submissions and concerns about the merits of those changes. There also seems to have been some confusion about the respective status and roles of the GSSS and the amendment.


The process adopted by Council in preparing and finalising the GSSS is a matter for Council. However, it is not unusual for Councils to exhibit a draft strategy and to change it following its consideration of submissions.

In terms of the exhibition of the amendment, the Panel is satisfied that Council has met the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987.

6.4 Council’s proposed revision

Discussion

Council proposed a minor revision to the exhibited Glenelg Strategic Framework Map at Clause 21.09 to correct a reference to the Portland to Warrnambool rail service. The Panel supports this correction.

Recommendation


Correct the reference to the Portland to Warrnambool rail service in the Municipal Strategic Framework Map at Clause 21.09 as proposed by Council at the Hearing.

6.5 Department of Primary Industries submission

The Department of Primary Industries requested that future planning scheme amendments make provision for a 25m separation between the existing gas pipeline PL196 and future dwellings in the Rural Living Zone in Portland. Council agreed to accommodate this request in the future.


7 Conclusion and Recommendations

7.1 Conclusion

Amendment C73 seeks to implement elements of the significant amount of strategic work undertaken by the Glenelg Council over the past decade. Council advised that this process will continue in the future as further amendments are prepared to implement other elements of this work.

The amendment is largely based on the Glenelg Sustainable Settlement Strategy, which in turn was based on various other reports, mainly the Glenelg Strategic Futures Plan. The amendment and Glenelg Sustainable Settlement Strategy identify a range of future actions and investigations intended to underpin the preparation of further planning scheme amendments.

The Panel supports this approach and encourages Council to progress and finalise these further investigations. This is particularly so in terms of the Rural Zones Review project, upon which the resolution of a number of issues will be reliant.

The amendment attracted a relatively small number of submissions but they were well considered and raised important issues. Some of these issues were outside the scope of the amendment and were not matters that could be addressed as part of this process. Nevertheless, the Panel encourages Council to monitor and, where necessary, improve the performance of the planning scheme, particularly in relation to environmental protection and heritage conservation.

The Panel has recommended a number of changes to the exhibited amendment, mainly to improve consistency within it and to confirm that further investigations are required in support of some of the proposed zone and overlay actions.

More importantly, the Panel has expressed concerns about the possible expansion of Cape Bridgewater and Nelson in light of coastal settlement policy in the State Planning Policy Framework and the Victorian Coastal Strategy. The Panel was not presented with any material that convinced it that there was a strategic basis for expanding these settlements.

Overall, the Panel commends Council for the extensive amount of strategic work that it has undertaken in recent years and for its commitment to current and future studies. The Panel also encourages Council to continue its implementation of this work, including the preparation of further amendments to its planning scheme.

7.2 Recommendations

For the reasons set out in this report, the Panel recommends that Amendment C73 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme be adopted as exhibited subject to the following modifications:

1 Replace references to ‘Proposed’ zones in the legends of the relevant Structure Plan Maps in Clause 22.01 with ‘Investigation Area’.

2 Remove the following implementation action from Clause 21.09:


‘Rezoning fragmented rural land in the Rural Conservation Zone Schedule 2 (RCZ2) to the Rural Living Zone and converting remaining RCZ2 areas into the Farming Zone.’

3 Replace the designation ‘Proposed Township Zone’ in the legend to the Cape Bridgewater Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 with:

‘Investigation area for possible rezoning’.

4 Reduce the area on the Cape Bridgewater Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 recommended for the designation ‘Investigation area for possible rezoning’ to reflect the area of existing development.

5 Replace the reference ‘Future investigation of Township Zone’ on the Cape Bridgewater Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 with:

‘Investigate the suitability of the existing Rural Conservation 2 Zone and assess alternative zones and the application of a coastal settlement boundary’.

6 Delete the reference on the Nelson Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 to ‘Investigate long term requirement for future expansion of Township Zone’ and the associated highlight on the map.

7 Replace the reference ‘Consider minimum subdivision size of one hectare, and create an open landscape character by requiring a generous setback from the road and side boundaries’ on the Nelson Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 with:

‘Investigate the suitability of applying the Rural Living Zone and requiring a generous setback from the road and side boundaries while limiting the opportunity for further subdivision and more intensive development’.

8 Delete the following strategy in Clause 21.09 under the theme ‘Nelson’:

‘Applying the Township Zone to existing developed areas and identifying areas for future expansion’.

9 Delete the words ‘and identifying areas for future expansion’ from the first implementation action in Clause 21.09 under the theme ‘Nelson’.

10 Delete the two references to the ‘Township Zone’ in the Legend and body of the Tyrendarra Structure Plan at Clause 22.01, including the highlighted area on the map.

11 Include the following words in the body of the Tyrendarra Structure Plan at Clause 22.01 ‘Investigate whether an alternative zone should be applied to existing development’ with an arrow to the existing development south of the Princes Highway.

12 Delete any references to the GSSS (or other background documents) from Clauses 21.09 and 22.01 where that reference provides for its use in the exercise of discretion or elevates it to the status of a policy.

13 Correct the reference to the Portland to Warrnambool rail service in the Municipal Strategic Framework Map at Clause 21.09 as proposed by Council at the Hearing.

Appendices Page 1 of 2 Amendment C73 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 24 May 2013

Appendix A List of Documents

Document No.

Date Description Presented by

1 18/4/2013 PowerPoint presentation Council

2 18/4/2013 Submission Council

3 18/4/2013 DPCD letter of Authorisation Council

4 18/4/2013 Maps of sites referred to in submissions Council

5 18/4/2013 Map of Narrawong East Council

6 18/4/2013 Submission on behalf of K and J Dart Andrew Lacey

7 18/4/2013 Appendices Andrew Lacey

8 18/4/2013 Submission and attachments Lex Chalmers

9 18/4/2013 VCS extract Lex Chalmers

10 18/4/2013 Princetown Structure Plan – Corangamite Planning Scheme

Lex Chalmers

11 18/4/2013 Regional Bushfire Planning Assessment Barwon South‐West Region

Lex Chalmers

12 18/4/2013 Strategic directions for the Great South Coast Lex Chalmers

13 24/4/2013 Late submission Gordon Stokes

Appendices Page 2 of 2 Amendment C73 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 24 May 2013

Appendix B List of Submitters

No. Submitter

1 Martin and Helen Boyer

2 Martin Boyer, Friends of the Surry Inc.

3 Ken and Jenny Dart

4 Lex Chalmers

5 Country Fire Authority

6 Department of Primary Industries

7 Gordon Stokes