summary of submissions · 2016. 4. 8. · eso1 eso3 • eso4 . objects to the amendment. •...

Submissions Received to Amendment C101 – Review of the Environmental Significance Overlay

No Submitter Property Address

Current ESO

Proposed ESO Summary of submission Response to submission

1. Norman and Yvonne Dinnage

128-150 Worns Lane, Yarrambat

ESO1 ESO1 • Objects to the amendment. • Consider that their property

does not fit the description of core habitat.

• Consider it should be removed from ESO1.

• A small corner of the site is proposed to be included in ESO1. It is considered this is a boundary mapping error. The balance of the current ESO1 applying to the site is proposed to be removed.

Proposed Response • Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to

Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..

2. Rossley Gardner

85 Bourchiers Road, Kangaroo Ground

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Advises that street name is spelt incorrectly on the maps produced by DELWP.

• Considers that the watercourse on the property is a ditch that he dug on the property and it should not be formalised as a watercourse.

• The spelling of the street name on the planning scheme maps prepared by the State Government has been noted. This can be corrected at a later stage.

• The small drainage line has existing erosion evident and therefore should be covered by the overlay.

Proposed Response • Advises State Government of the correct

spelling of Bourchiers Road. • No changes required as the application of

ESO4 is appropriate. 3. Maureen

Christie and Peter Christie

16 Research-Warrandyte Road, Research

None ESO4 • Concerned with the application of ESO4 and retention of vegetation in the vicinity of a drainage culvert.

• At the request of the submitter information was provided further explaining the intent of ESO4 and the bushfire clearance provisions.

• The extent of the waterways ESO is based on data provided by Melbourne Water and their assessment of a waterway as defined under the Water Act 1989. It is important to protect drainage lines, including those underground. Where waterways have been piped underground the riparian location and its


Current ESO


values often still exist above the pipe. In the future the waterway may be ‘daylighted’ i.e. returning former smaller creeklines and waterways which have been barrel drained and run underground to the ‘daylight’. Opening up former smaller waterways so that they are exposed and available as habitat and linear corridors. Ensuring development is appropriately set back from underground pipes will enable ‘daylighting’ projects to happen in the future.

• A mapping error was noted. Research Creek is incorrectly mapped for 170m around the CFA station. Correcting this will result in the overlay being removed from this property.

Proposed Response • Correct waterway alignment and remove

ESO4. 4. Catherine

Foote

280 Mine Road, Cottles Bridge

ESO1 ESO1 • Supports the amendment. • Suggests more education is

required on wildlife friendly fencing.

• The support for the amendment is noted.

5. Banyule City Council

N/A • Supports the amendment and has no concerns.


6. John and Mary Traficante

41-51 Bannons Lane, Yarrambat

ESO1 ESO2 • Concerned with the application of a small portion of ESO2 to the northern corner of the property.

• Seeks a review of the application of the overlay.

Proposed Response Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..


Current ESO


7. Luc De Paw

420 Bald Spur Road, St Andrews

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Object to the amendment. • Wishes to ‘opt out’ of the

amendment on the basis that enough restrictions already apply to the property.

• The submission does not provide any specific reasons why the new overlay should not be applied to the property. ESO1 already applies to the whole property and the proposed ESO1 will cover the same area.

• The Planning and Environment Act 1987 establishes a framework for planning the use, development and protection of land in Victoria in the present and long-term interests of all Victorians. It requires that each municipal council prepare a planning scheme in a prescribed format and it directs when and how planning schemes must be reviewed. Planning schemes are required to continue to achieve the objectives for planning in Victoria and give effect to the objectives and vision of Council.

8. Bronwyn Mclaren

35 Rangeview Road, St Andrews

None ESO2 • Objects to the amendment. • Considers Council should not

apply an overlay to her property when development has been approved at 380 Buttermans Track that will cause more environmental damage than any vegetation removal undertaken on her property.

• A permit was issued for the subdivision of 385 Buttermans Track, St Andrews in 2013.

• The submission does not provide any specific reasons why the overlay should not be applied to the submitter’s property.

9. Michael Reymond

137 Scenic Cres, Eltham North

ESO1 ESO3 • Objects to the amendment and wishes for it to be excluded.

• Considers that no reasons

• ESO1 currently applies to the property and this has been translated into ESO3.

• The strategic justification for the amendment is contained within the explanatory report for


Current ESO


have been provided for application of the overlay.

the amendment.

10. Parks Victoria • Advises that any comments on the amendment will be included within a submission from DELWP.

• The comments are noted.

11. Lee Harper

55 Kangaroo Ground-St Andrews Road, Kangaroo Ground

None ESO2 • Concerned the overlay is proposed to apply to vineyards on the property.

• An ESO should not apply to grape vines. Proposed Response • The boundary of ESO2 will be amended to

remove its application from the grape vines on the property in accordance with new mapping advice provided by Abzeco.

12. Yarra Ranges Shire Council

N/A • Supports the amendment. • The submission provides

details on Yarra Ranges proposed ESO amendment.


13. Helen Rossi

31-41 De Fredericks Road, Yarrambat

ESO1 Deletion ESO1

• Concerned with the western part of the property will remain in ESO1 when most of the existing ESO1 is proposed to be removed from the site.

• Does not consider this part of the property contains any significant vegetation.


14. David Nicholls

170 Barreenong Road, Cottles Bridge

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Considers that the exemption from requiring a permit for the removal of vegetation for works undertaken by or on behalf of Parks Victoria and Melbourne Water as public land managers should not apply to indigenous species,

• The proposed exemptions in ESO4 will enable Parks Victoria and Melbourne Water to carry out day to day management works, waterway improvements or works required to mitigate flooding without requiring a planning permit.

• Clause 52.17 currently provides a statewide exemption for the removal of shelter belts as stated below:


Current ESO


on the basis that they provide valuable benefits to landscape, bank stability, controls of tunnel erosion and provision of shade and habitat.

• Raises queries regarding the existence of shelter belts and woodlots in the Shire.

Planted vegetation The native vegetation has been planted or grown as a result of direct seeding for Crop raising, Extensive animal husbandry, aesthetic or amenity purposes, including: agroforestry (the simultaneous and substantial production of forest and other agricultural products from the same land unit), shelter belts, woodlots, street trees, gardens or the like. This exemption does not apply if public funding was provided to assist in planting or managing the native vegetation and the terms of the funding did not anticipate removal or harvesting of the vegetation.

15. Colin Hall

92 -110 Hillmartin Lane, Diamond Creek

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2

• Accepts the proposed application of ESO1, but is concerned with the application of ESO2.

• Is concerned that the application of the ESO is locking up his land through stealth.

• ESO1 currently applies to part of the property and the area that the proposed ESO1 will apply to, will be reduced.

• The land is included within Site 38 in the Abzeco Report.

• See response to Submission 7 in relation to the application of overlays.


16. Tom Jenkins

35 and 65 Laughing Waters Road, Eltham

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Raises a number of general

concerns relating to restrictions on land, water damage, increased rates, road widths, and a previous planning permit.


Current ESO


17. Matrix Planning on behalf of Eltham College

1660 Main Road, Research 5 and 25 Eltham-Yarra Glen Road, Research

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2

• Objects to the amendment. • Raises concern with how

removal of the current ESO1 is mapped in the amendment.

• Removal of existing ESO1 form the main campus land is supported.

• Concerned that areas proposed to be included in ESO2 contain little to no vegetation.

• Is concerned that the ESO will impact on the College’s ability to carry out works in accordance with its approved Master Plan by requiring a permit for new buildings and works and vegetation removal.

• Has requested that the schedules contain an exemption from the buildings and works permit requirement similar to what is provided for land included in SUZ1, provided works are in accordance with the Eltham College Master Plan.

• As set out within the explanatory report and information sheet the intention of the amendment is to replace the current ESO1 in its entirety with new ESO1, ESO2 or ESO3. In order to reduce confusion and as correctly noted by Matrix Planning the planning scheme maps accompanying the amendment only show the deletion of the current ESO1 where it is to be deleted and not replaced by new ESO1, 2 or 3. This was discussed with the DELWP mapping team which prepared the maps and was considered the appropriate way to map the amendment for the purpose of exhibition. Any future maps prepared for approval will also show the complete deletion of the current ESO1.

• Amendment C65 was a ministerial amendment that included Eltham College in a Special Use Zone 4 and incorporated the Eltham College Master Plan 2011 into the planning scheme. The Schedule enables the use and development of the land for an education centre in accordance with the approved Masterplan. Buildings and works still require a planning permit, but a permit application is exempt from notice and review provided the proposal is in accordance with the Masterplan. The schedule to SUZ1 already contains an exemption for buildings and works, and accordingly this exemption


Current ESO


has been included in the schedule to ESO1. No such exemption currently exists for Eltham College and therefore it would be inappropriate to include this exemption in the schedule to ESO1.


18. Sharon Turner

63 Taylor Road, Hurstbridge

None None • Supports all the changes proposed by the amendment.


19. Norman Deards

55 Dewar Drive, Hurstbridge

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Does not consider that the area shown as ESO4 contains significant biodiversity anymore as it is a drainage channel.

• See response to Submission 3 regarding the application of ESO4 to drainage channels.

20. Lawlor and Loy on behalf of Willgo Developments

Everleigh Views Estate, Diamond Creek

ESO1 ESO3 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers that ESO3 and

ESO4 should not apply to any part of the Everleigh Views Estate, Diamond Creek as the land has been developed in accordance with an approved planning permit, that included vegetation removal.

• Does not consider ESO4 is required to protect any drainage lines, waterways or catchments within the Estate and will place an unreasonable burden on the future owners of lots 17 to 26.

• Mapping error, the waterway is now piped under a road and daylighting is not possible due to the subdivision design. Proposed Response

• Remove this section of ESO4 south of the boundary with 120 Grassy Flat Rd.

• Refer to Attachment 3 for site review.


Current ESO


21. DELWP Various • Supports the amendment. • Seeks minor modifications to

the schedules to address the following matters: o Concern that the

schedules don’t provide an exemption for management works to be undertaken by Parks Victoria on reserves that don’t have a management plan.

o Parks Victoria and Melbourne Water exemptions should be in all schedules.

o Makes some minor wording suggestions for ESO2 building and works permit requirements, ESO1, 2 and 3 decision guideline additions, ESO4 objective amendment.

• It is agreed that the exemption should be amended to included vegetation removal and fencing to address land management works required in smaller reserves that don’t have an approved management plan.

• All schedules contain an exemption for works undertaken by a public authority. ESO4 contains an additional exemption for waterway improvement works undertaken by Melbourne Water, which isn’t applicable to the other schedules.

• It is considered the trigger for works within 5 metres of any native vegetation is easier to administer and enforce, as proponents don’t always have TPZ or SRZ details when enquiring whether a planning permit is required. The Australian Standard should be a tool used for assessment of planning applications, not a permit trigger.

• The additional wording suggested for inclusion in the decision guidelines is considered to be appropriate.

• The objective relating to public access is to be deleted as it does not correspond directly to the purpose of the ESO. Proposed Response

• Amend the exemption for works undertaken by a public authority.


Current ESO


• Add the additional wording suggested to the decision guidelines.

• Delete the second last objective in ESO4. 22. MA Verhoeven

on behalf of V Axton and Anthony Kilner and Jane Miller

34, 45 and 55 Gumtree Road, Research

none ESO1 • Objects to the amendment. • Consider the application of

ESO1 is unjustified and ignores bushfire risk.

• Considers existing SLO2 would more appropriate for the site or ESO2 provided exemptions are included for dead trees, Kunzea bush, 6 metre firebreaks along internal roads.

• Under the Nillumbik Planning Scheme a range of exemptions from the need for a planning permit currently exist for the purpose of clearing vegetation for bushfire protection measures (Clause 52.48). These will not be altered as a result of Amendment C101 and residents will still be able, and encouraged to manage fuel loads on their properties in accordance with the existing provisions of the scheme.

• The variations to the planning provisions would not vary the existing bushfire risk management provisions as they relate to vegetation, siting and design. Within all planning schemes across Victoria, as-of-right vegetation clearance distances are specified which allow residents to remove vegetation for bushfire risk management and these do not need to be repeated in the schedules to the ESO.

• The ESO header clause contains an exemption to enable vegetation to be removed without a permit for firefighting measures, periodic fuel reduction burning, or the making of a fuel break or firefighting access track up to 6 metres wide.

• The schedule to Clause 52.17 includes an exemption for the need for a permit to destroy, lop or remove Kunzea ericoides (Burgan), however the ESO does not contain this


Current ESO


exemption, and a permit will be required for its removal in areas affected by an ESO.

• The request for application of SLO2 to properties in Gumtree Road is noted, however the properties are already proposed to be included in SLO13 as part of Amendment C81.


23. Jen Pearson

110 Meander Road, Hurstbridge

• The submission relates to the proposed removal of ESO1 from Lot 1 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge and what would be more suitable for development on the site.

• The proposed removal of ESO1 from Lot 1 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge has been identified in the report prepared by Abzeco. A small portion of the site will be retained in ESO3.

• The balance of the submission appears to relate to concerns with the future development of the site for housing. Amendment C85 that proposes to rezone the land form PUZ 2 - Education to Township Zone and introduce a Development Plan Overlay. The amendment has been approved by the Minister for Planning.

• Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco. for Lot 1.

24. Nillumbik Landcare Network

• Supports the amendment. • The support for the amendment is noted.

25. Wattle Glen Residents Association

• Support the amendment on the basis that it will help protect the environmental

• The support for the amendment and in particular its expansion into areas of Wattle Glen is noted.


Current ESO


values within the Shire’s Green Wedge areas as well the waterways and some linking residential areas.

• Particularly supportive of the application of ESO4 on Watery Gully Creek and expansion of ESO1 to areas of Wattle Glen not previously covered.

• Seek an extension of ESO1 south to meet up with Watery Gully Creek Reserve.

• Any further application of ESO1 to other areas has been noted and will be further considered as part of a future amendment following appropriate analysis.


26. Ken and Beth Crompton

104 Scenic Crescent, Eltham North

ESO1 ESO3 ESO4

• Commends Council’s objective of protecting and enhancing a diverse array of flora and fauna species and their habitat.

• Argues, however, that the proposed methods of protecting flora and fauna could be improved.

• Argues that the application requirements for vegetation removal are too onerous, impractical and will discourage residents from planting native vegetation.

• Regarding the restrictions on vegetation removal within the proposed ESOs: o Argues the restrictions will

hamper property owners

• The support given for the objectives of the amendment are noted.

• A planning overlay can only deal with the threat posed by development (buildings and works and vegetation removal). Threats such as foxes, feral cats and pesticides are outside the scope of an ESO and Amendment C101. Council’s Biodiversity Strategy 2012 sets out all threats to the Shire’s Biodiversity and includes a detailed Action Plan. The Plan includes actions to work with real estate agents.

• The list of application requirements for vegetation removal is introduced with the phrase “as appropriate to the satisfaction of the responsible authority”. This phrase has been inserted to allow Council to reduce the application requirements when appropriate.

• See response to Submission 22 regarding bushfire provisions.


Current ESO


from properly managing their properties for bushfire prevention purposes.

o States the restrictions will present issues of liability from fire damage for owners, insurance companies and Council.

o Questions whether the restrictions override the exemptions on the removal of vegetation contained within Clause 52.48 (Bushfire Protection: Exemptions)

o States a belief that the proposed ESO will not be applied to public land and that this will damage Council’s credibility.

o Questions the rigour and veracity of the ecological research underpinning the proposed mapping of the ESOs.

o Requests it be acknowledged that application of the ESO is unfairly placing the burden of protecting biodiversity for the benefit of all only on property owners with

• The proposed ESO schedules are being applied to land, regardless of its ownership.

• The proposed mapping of the ESOs is based on ecological reports by suitably qualified and experienced ecologists.

• The ESO is the primary planning scheme mechanism provided by the State Government to enable Council’s to protect biodiversity values from the adverse effects of development. In addition to using the ESO, Council runs a range of non-planning scheme programs and policies to promote and protect ecological diversity, including the Land Management Incentive Program, Sustainable Agricultural Rebate, Trust for Nature Rebate, workshops and field days. Council also works in partnership with local Landcare and Friends Groups to deliver varies projects.

• Long standing planning case law establishes that increase or decrease in property value will not be entertained as a ground of objection to a planning scheme amendment. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires consideration of social and economic effects, however, this consideration relates to broader economic considerations, rather than private financial effects, such as property valuation. The ESO already applies to this property and has for over 20 years. The proposed amendment replaces the current ESO1 with ESO3.

• Council has strong working relationships with Parks Victoria and Melbourne Water and


Current ESO


land in an ESO. o States application of the

ESO will reduce property values and suggests Council consider actions it can take to enhance the value of properties in the ESO area.

o Urges Council to take a more positive and common sense approach to protecting biodiversity, which might include actions such as:

o Promoting the Shire’s flora and fauna via an interactive website which allows residents to record observations and records

o Linking in with The Atlas of Living Australia

o Engage residents with bodies such as Melbourne Water and State Wide Integrated Flora and Fauna Teams

o Act with local real estate agents to promote properties within an ESO as a desirable place to live.

frequently work in partnership to deliver biodiversity projects.

• Council also adds and supports community groups and individuals to enter data into the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas. It is acknowledged that further work needs to be done in this area and Council officers are currently working towards this.

• The suggestions for protecting biodiversity are noted.

27. Cath Giles

265 Flat Rock Road,

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2

• Appreciates the opportunity to comment on the amendment.

• The land is currently wholly within the existing ESO1. The proposed amendment will


Current ESO


Hurstbridge • Comments that C101 proposes to apply predominantly the ESO1 (Core Habitat) and some ESO2 (Buffer Habitat) to her property.

• Argues that whilst application of the ESO2 may be appropriate to her property, the environmental values on the site are not sufficiently high to justify application of the ESO1.

significantly reduce ESO coverage on the site, including to remove the developed area from ESO coverage.


28. Len Renouf

1185 Skyline Road, Christmas Hills

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• States that 30% of his property does not have native vegetation on it and should not be included in the proposed ESO.

• Expresses the following concerns regarding the objectives of the proposed ESO1 (Core Habitat) that: o An objective to protect

and enhance the ecological values of land containing Core Habitat is unclear, as is an objective to protect potential connections from the creek corridor to community facilities, other open space trails and the regional open space

• The amendment proposes to apply the ESO1 (Core Habitat) to the whole property and to apply a small area of ESO4 (Waterways) associated with drainage line on and in proximity of the property.

• The intent behind the use of the wording ‘enhance’ is to allow for the identification of opportunities through a planning permit to ‘enhance or improve’ the environmental significance of an identified site, this could include weed control, better protection through land management actions and sometimes species specific action.

• The reference to public access and recreational use is made in relation to public land, not private land.



Current ESO


network. o An objective to encourage

public access and recreational use along waterways may diminish private ownership rights and privacy.

29. Felicity Roberts

5 Ceduna Court, Yarrambat

ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Opposes the proposed application of the ESO2.

• Argues that the property is largely cleared and consequently therefore proposed application of the ESO2 is not appropriate.

• Opposes a requirement in the proposed ESO2 that barbed wire fencing will require a planning permit on the basis that barbed-wire fencing is required on cattle farms.

• Argues that the application requirements in the proposed ESO2 for buildings and works are excessive and place an inappropriate burden on applicants, particularly by way of requiring costly technical reports.

• The site is currently completely within the ESO1 and it is proposed that the entire site be placed within the ESO2 (Buffer Habitat) with the addition that a small area of ESO4 be applied to a waterway in the north of the property.

• The property falls within Site 54 in the Abzeco Study that has been identified as low to moderate (buffer) habitat.

• Barbed wire fencing is not required to contain cattle. Electric fencing and 5 strands of plain wire is more effective. A landowner can apply for a permit if these requirements are not suitable for their particular circumstances.

• The subject site is already within the Rural Conservation Zone: Schedule 3 and the ESO1, which together generally require a planning permit for development and vegetation removal. Therefore, it is not expected that the owner will experience any notable increase in planning permit requirements.

• See response to submission 26 regarding documents required to be provided with an application.

Proposed Response


Current ESO


Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..

30. Anthony and Scarlett Klasens

5 Ceduna Court, Yarrambat

ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Same as submission 29 • See response to submission 29.

31. Sally Andrews

10 Rankin Street, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 • Opposes the proposed application of the ESO1 (Core Habitat) to her property on the basis that the property is urban in character.

• Particular mention is made of the property being landscaped, largely cleared of vegetation and located within the 60km/h speed limit zone for Panton Hill.

• Comments that given the more urban character of her property, it would be more fitting to apply the ESO3 (Environmentally Significant Habitat in Township and Residential Areas) to her property.

• The property is currently totally within the existing ESO1 and it is proposed that the whole property be placed in the new ESO1 (Core Habitat).

• The subject site is located over 300 metres outside the Panton Hill UGB and as such is green wedge land within the Rural Conservation Zone: Schedule 3, rather than being within the Township Zone that applies the township of Panton Hill. It is therefore, in planning terms, not considered appropriate to apply the ESO3, which is tailored to townships and residential areas, to the site.


32. Asplan Town Planning on behalf of Save-A-Dog Scheme

292 Bannons Lane, Yarrambat

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• States that no ESO currently exists over the developed section of the property and that the amendment proposes to apply the ESO2 to this section of the property.

• States the ESO2 should not be applied across the

• The ESO1 is currently applied to much of the property. Whilst most of the building area on the site is not currently affected by the ESO1, there is what appears to be one sizeable covered section of the kennels which is nearly completely covered by the overlay.

• Amendment C101 proposes to apply ESO coverage to the whole site, which includes the


Current ESO


developed section of the property, as its application will not have any environmental benefits and will unnecessary impose additional planning permit requirements.

• Expresses concern that the amendment proposes to apply two schedules (ESO2 and ESO4) to the same portion of the site.

ESO2 (Buffer Habitat), some ESO1 (Core Habitat) and a small section of ESO4 (Waterways). The buildings on the site will be within the ESO2.

• It is common and accepted planning practice to apply two schedules of the same overlay to the same land. Each proposed schedule of the ESO has a different focus. For example, the ESO2 has a focus on protecting buffer habitat, whilst the ESO4 is specifically tailored to protecting waterways.

• It is important to note that if both schedules require a planning permit for a proposed development, only one permit is required and the permit is assessed against the objectives of both overlays.


33. Anthony L. Bramley and Pamela W. Bramley

1 and 2/210-226 and River Avenue, Plenty

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • States the proposed

amendment does little to protect biodiversity.

• With reference to the planning history of their property and nearby land, argues that the amendment represents a continuation of efforts by Council to remove their rights as property owners.

• States there are three to four patches of bushland in the

• Much of the submitter’s site, including the dwelling area, is currently within the ESO1. Amendment C101 proposes to apply the ESO1 (Core Habitat) to the whole property and the ESO4 (Waterways) to land along the rear property boundary of the site, which is the Plenty River.

• See response to Submission 7 relating to the application of planning scheme overlays.

• Amendment C101 extends coverage of the ESO in the immediate area to include areas of bush land not currently covered by an ESO, including some land at the front of the


Current ESO


area which are not included in the proposed amendment, which indicates that Council is being inconsistent in its proposed application of the ESOs.

• Expresses concern that the proposed ESOs will hinder efforts by residents to manage their properties for bushfire management purposes.

• Expresses concern that the proposed ESOs will do nothing to prevent activities which are affecting wildlife, such as the shooting of fauna and dogs killing fauna.

• States that ecological damage is also being caused by poor wildlife management on the part of the relevant authorities.

• Questions the veracity of the ecological findings underpinning the proposed changes to the ESO at their property, particularly because the recent drought has killed many trees and the owners have not found any evidence of rare or endangered species on the property.

submitter’s property which extends onto four neighbouring properties.

• See response to Submission 22 relating to bushfire provisions.

• The scope of the ESOs is only limited to protecting biodiversity against the impacts of development. However, this is a significant threat and the ESO’s are an important mechanism to protecting biodiversity values.

• Issues relating to wildlife management are beyond scope of Amendment C101.


34. Greg Frantal 109-129 ESO1 ESO1 • States that proposed • Currently, the existing ESO1 is applied to the


Current ESO


Hillmartin Lane Diamond Creek

ESO2 ESO4

application of the ESO1 (Core Habitat) to his property is an error as the site does not fit the criteria for core habitat.

• Seeks a review of the proposed application of ESO1.

whole property. Amendment C101 proposed to retain application of ESOs to the whole property, but modify application to being part ESO1 (Core Habitat), part ESO2 (Buffer Habitat) and part ESO4 (Waterways) based on recommendations within the Abzeco review.

• The proposed ESO1 (Core Habitat) will only cover a small section of the developed part of the property.


35. Mr and Mrs F. J. Bauer and Aldo Bilotta and Amalia Bilotta

13-23 Nyora Road, Eltham and 1-11 Nyora Road, Eltham

ESO1 ESO2 • Object to the proposed amendment.

• Argue that Amendment C101 is unjust by proposing to introduce additional and tighter controls which will have the major effect, over time, of encouraging fuel loads and greater spread of wildfire.

• Argue that the protection for vegetation provided in the proposed ESO Schedules is contrary to other sections of the Nillumbik Planning Scheme, which emphasise the importance of planning and land management to reducing the risk of bushfire.


• The proposed amendment is consistent with the following objective of planning in Victoria as set out in Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987: To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity and to facilitate development in accordance with this objective.

• The proposed amendment has no affect regarding the status or ownership of land.


Current ESO


• Point out that the Panel Report for Nillumbik Amendment C74 (Oct. 2011) noted the contribution made by vegetation on private property to increasing fire hazard.

• Comment that climate change is expected to worsen bushfire conditions, which heightens the possible adverse consequences from applying vegetation protection controls.

• State the proposed amendment is not consistent with the “objectives of planning in Victoria” as set out in Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

• Argue that if the proposed amendment is approved, the affected land will essentially be reserved for public purpose and consequently landowners should be compensated.

36. Mahala Ebery

140 Meander Road, Hurstbridge

• Objects to the amendment and in particular the proposed removal of ESO1 from a portion of Lot 1 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge as this will make way for development of

• See response to Submission 23 regarding ESO removal from Lot 1.

• The Diamond Creek is proposed to be included within ESO4 with a 50 metre buffer.


Current ESO


the site. • States that whilst there is no

significant vegetation on-site, the proposal ignores the significance of a buffer region for the Diamond Creek corridor.

37. Peter and Olga

Ohanessian

90 Couties Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Object to the amendment. • Strongly object to any part of

the property being placed in the ESO1 (Core Habitat) as at ground level, the area proposed to be included within the ESO1 essentially comprises pasture and one part also includes a Council managed horse trail.

• Question the accuracy of mapping of the proposed ESO1 (Core Habitat).

• Strongly object to the proposed application of the ESO4 to their property on the basis that the area in question only flows with water when there is substantial rainfall and is otherwise primarily improved pasture.

• Approximately two-thirds of the property, including the existing dwelling is currently within the existing ESO1 schedule. The proposed amendment significantly reduces ESO coverage on the property, including to remove the ESO1 from the dwelling and most, if not all, of the outbuildings. Only two small areas of the new ESO1 (Core Habitat), as well as two applications of the ESO4 (Waterways) are proposed.

• Refer to response to Submission 3 regarding application of ESO4.


38 Margaret Mussellwhite

514 Kangaroo Ground-St Andrews Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers large areas of the

property cleared and do not contain indigenous

• The property is currently completely covered by ESO1 and will be replaced by proposed ESO1.

• ESO4 is proposed to apply to a small corner


Current ESO


vegetation. • Does not consider anything

on the property warrants ESO4.

• Does not understand how property was identified as Core Habitat.

of the property and appears to form part of the buffer area from an adjoining waterway. This appears to be a mapping error with two small creeks at the head of the gully on the adjacent property to the south.

Proposed Response • Remove the two small creek sections at the

head of the gully on adjoining 9 Rankines Rd. Correcting this will result in the overlay being removed from this property.

39 David Bailey

9 Joslyn Drive, Research

None ESO2 • Seeks a review of ESO2 to the property as the property contains minimal vegetation.

• ESO2 is proposed to apply only to the boundary.


40 Bill Mulcahy

502-506 Kangaroo Ground – St Andrews Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Particularly opposes

application of the ESO1 (Core Habitat) and ESO4 (Waterways) to his property on the basis that the property is within the confines of the township of Panton Hill, it has no remnant indigenous vegetation or biodiversity and it has no waterways that form riparian habitat corridors.

• Provides a history of the property and surrounding land and a summary of past and current management of the land, including the planting of

• The whole of the submitter’s property is currently within the existing ESO1. It is proposed to place the whole site within the ESO1 (Core Habitat) and apply the ESO4 (Waterway) to a very small area of land on the eastern edge of the property.

• The Nillumbik Planning Scheme places the property outside of the Panton Hill township. It is located approximately 240 metres outside the Panton Hill Urban Growth Boundary and is within a green wedge zone (Rural Conservation Zone: Schedule 3), rather than the Township Zone.

• See response to Submission 3 regarding ESO4 application.

• The proposed application of the ESO4 is to a small area on the submitter’s property and


Current ESO


200 non-indigenous trees. • States that the land on his

property which is identified for inclusion in the ESO4 (Waterways) is not a waterway as described in literature supporting the amendment, but more so an ‘erosion scour’ that emanates from a Council culvert in Rankin Street.

• Queries whether it is proposed to apply the ESO4 to all, or just part, of his property.

forms part of the buffer area from an adjoining waterway.

Proposed Response • See response to submission 38 regarding

ESO4 changes. • Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to


41 Mun Rosewarne

54 Mannish Road, Wattle Glen

None ESO3 56 – ESO1 ESO2

• Supports the amendment, particularly the proposed application of the ESO1 (Core Habitat) and ESO2 (Buffer Habitat) to 56 Mannish Road.

• Provides a list of plants and animals seen at 56 Mannish Road.


42 Gary and Dessa McMillan

5 Yarralla Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2

• Object to the amendment, particularly on the grounds that the proposed application of the ESOs will hamper fire management of their property.

• State that bushfire management of the property is paramount and any restriction of the removal of noxious weeds or dead wood


• The proposed ESO does not restrict landowners from controlling noxious plants and weeds.

• Council’s Open Space Team is due to undertake Box Clearance and Hazard tree works in this area. The issue has also been referred to Council’s Emergency Risk Coordinator for further consideration.


Current ESO


on the ground will impede bushfire management.

• Complain about the amount of dead wood in the road reserve of Yaralla Road, arguing that this poses a serious bushfire risk.

• Object generally to more planning provisions being applied to their property.

• State that the amendment documentation is ‘vast’ and complicated.

• Council implements an annual Bushfire Mitigation (Fire Prevention) works program.

• The Municipal Fire Management Planning Committee reviews the Municipal Fire Management Plan on an ongoing basis. This plan informs council as to where the most effective works can be carried out to mitigate bushfire risk on roadsides.

• A range of treatments will be applied where practical to primary and secondary roads as follows:

Slashing Box clearance Proactive tree assessment Woody weed removal

• Other treatments undertaken on roadsides include:

Managing regrowth in the fire affected areas In collaboration with local CFA brigades, undertaking planned burns to compliment other vegetation management works.

• The priority for works on Council reserves have also been developed using a risk based approach. This has considered possible ignition sources such as power lines, history of ignitions within the reserves, the ability for fire to spread from the reserve combined with the proximity of assets such as houses, schools etc. and size of the reserve to give a relative rating of risk and priorities for works.

• Council also works in collaboration with the community and other members of the Municipal Fire Management Planning


Current ESO


Committee in delivering community education, arson prevention, infrastructure upgrades and other programs

• See response to Submission 7 regarding the application of planning scheme overlays.

• An information sheet was prepared and provided to all affected landowners to further explain the proposed changes. All property owners were able to contact Council and discuss the amendment with officers if they required further explanations.

Proposed Response • Bushfire risk issues raised for Yaralla Road,

Panton Hill have been referred to Council’s Emergency Risk Coordinator for further consideration.

43 Roy Clarke

540 Kangaroo Ground – St Andrews Road, Panton Hill

None ESO4 • Objects to the amendment. • Argues that application of the

ESO1 (Core Habitat) is not justified because the property is not sufficiently vegetated and is in close proximity to the township of Panton Hill.

• Argues application of the ESOs increases the risk of bushfire and makes it harder for landowners to obtain property insurance.

• Provides photos of his property to support his submission

• The property is not proposed to be included in ESO1. A small portion of the land is proposed to be included in ESO4.

• The Nillumbik Planning Scheme places the property outside of the Panton Hill township and outside the Panton Hill Urban Growth Boundary within a green wedge zone (Rural Conservation Zone: Schedule 3), rather than the Township Zone.

44 Julie Fink

14 Warringah Crescent,

N/A N/A • Raises concerns in relation to the proposed removal of

• The Ecology Australia report recommended that areas identified as Site 61 and Site 62 be


Current ESO


Eltham thirteen properties from the ESO1 overlay and not including them in the ESO3.

• The submitter notes that some of these properties provide the best remnants of native vegetation, have never been cleared and retain their original grasses, orchids, lilies and trees.

• The submitter notes that we should be protecting where possible what little remains of the original vegetation particularly when it is so near to Meruka park and Karingal Yalloc Creek environs.

removed from the ESO as they do not support sufficient vegetation to remain within the overlay.

Proposed Response Refer to Attachment 3 for site review.

45 Bryan Walters

140 Barreenong Road, Cottles Bridge

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2

• Requests the proposed amendment be modified to apply the ESO1 (Core Habitat), rather than ESO2 (Buffer), to his property.

• The majority of this property is cleared with either planted or juvenile trees and therefore does not meet ESO1 criteria.


46 Brian Hamill

160 Henley Road, Kangaroo Ground

None ESO1 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers that Council has

been underhand in exhibiting the amendment over the Christmas holidays.

• The submission does not provide any specific reasons why the overlay should not be applied to the property.

• The process and timeframes of giving notice of a planning scheme amendment are set out in the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Exhibition of the amendment commenced at the beginning of November 2015, two months prior to the commencement of the Christmas


Current ESO


period, with a total of three months provided for interested owners and occupiers to make submissions. Exhibition of the amendment complies with and far exceeds the statutory requirements of the Act.

47 Heather Traeger


ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Opposes the proposed application of the ESO 1 (Core Habitat) and ESO4 (Waterways) on the property and considers it will increase fuel load, assist populations of pest plants and animals, imposes additional permit requirements and will devalue the property.

• Argues that the timing of exhibition of the amendment was unacceptable as many people have been busy or away during the Summer break. Requests the exhibition period be extended.

• States that the proposed application of ESOs to her land is akin to applying the Environmental Zone, which is unacceptable.


• The proposed ESO does not restrict landowners from controlling noxious plants and weeds and feral animals.

• See response to Submission 26 regarding property values.

• See response to Submission 46 regarding exhibition timeframes. The exhibition period will not be extended.

• An Environmental Zone does not exist in the Victoria Planning Provisions.

48 Gary Waite


Partially ESO1

ESO2 deletion

• Objects to the amendment. • Particularly opposes the

proposed application of the ESO1 and ESO2 to his property for the following reasons:

• The amendment proposes the partial removal of the ESO1 from the northwest corner of the property, with the remaining section to be covered by the ESO2. The small section of the north boundary eastern portion and the south boundary have the proposed overlay.


Current ESO


o The proposed application of the overlays is unjustified as the land primarily comprises improved pasture with some exotic vegetation and there is insufficient indigenous habitat.

o The proposed mapping of the ESOs appears at too broad a scale to accurately map biodiversity values and has wrongly identified captured canopy vegetation on abutting properties, as being on the submitter’s property.

o The existing zone, the RCZ3, already adequately protects environmental values with its permit triggers.


49 Steve Chapman

5 Hewitts Road, Strathewen

Partially ESO1

ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• The submitter has no objection to the proposed application of ESO1 and ESO4, but has the following concern with the proposed application of ESO2:

• Changes to ESO2- the submitter provided a map outlining a series of 5 paddocks within the proposed

• The proposed changes to the ESO on the subject property are within the existing footprint of the existing ESO1.

• One of the objectives of the ESO2 is to buffer core habitat areas, hence this is the purpose for retaining an environmental control in this area.

Proposed Response Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by


Current ESO


ESO2 area. The submitter objects to a small area next to the main road been included in the ESO2 given it is a clear paddock; The submitter has no objection to the proposed controls in paddock 2 as this area has been fenced off to protect the area around the stream; the submitter has a strong objection to the inclusion of paddocks 3, 4 &5 being included in ESO2.

Abzeco..

50 Richard Butler

270 Alma Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 Deletion ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment, in particular ESO2.

• The submitter believes that the overlays will devalue the property.

• ESO1 currently applies to the whole property. A large portion of the property is proposed to be removed from the existing ESO1.



51 Elizabeth Maxsted

Haleys Gully Road, Hurstbridge

• Objects to the proposed removal of the ESO from Lot 1 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge.

• Considers that the site is a significant wildlife corridor and Council is ignoring the Hurstbridge people who will be affected by development of the site.

• States that Council is only

• See response to Submission 23 regarding Lot 1 Graysharps Road.


Current ESO


removing application of the ESO in order to make money from the site.

52 Marie Connellan

55 Research-Warrandyte Road, North Warrandyte

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Requests a buffer zone on their property as they have had three significant fires in the immediate area and need livestock to keep the land clear of grass.

See response to Submission 22 regarding bushfire provisions.

53 Colin and Debra Henderson


None ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Argues that the amendment

will impose Bend of Island style restrictions on their property, will increase the fire risk, restrictions regarding fencing have the potential to affect the livelihood of farmers in the area that farm sheep and goats, the proposed application of the ESO will devalue the property.

• The proposed planning controls have been reviewed and it is noted that the waterway doesn’t connect in the mapping. This is an error in the data and should be amended.


• The Bend of Islands is included within a Special Use Zone – Schedule 2 in the Planning Scheme and applies to a unique and highly sensitive environmental area. The zone contains a number of requirements relating to both vegetation and siting and design in order to ensure residential use of the land is consistent with the need for protection of the native bushland environment. The SUZ 2 contains a number of requirements that are not considerations in the ESO.


Proposed Response • Amend ESO4.

54 John and Thelma Huitt

880 Yan Yean Road, Doreen

ESO1 ESO2 ESO4 Deletion

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers it is morally wrong,

• Part of the property is covered by an existing ESO1, it is proposed that this will largely be removed with a small area proposed to be


Current ESO


too complex, imposed on ratepayers only to appease a small section of the community.

covered by an ESO2 and the waterway to have ESO4.


55 Olive McIntosh

10 Shanklin Street, Hurstbridge

• Objects to the proposed removal of some of the existing ESO in the Hurstbridge area, particularly from Lot 1 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge.

• States that the Hurstbridge Township Strategy noted that the old Hurstbridge High School site provided a buffer to significant bushland to the west and given this, the submitter expresses concern that the amendment proposes to remove the ESO from the site.

• The areas of ESO in question are important to protecting the biodiversity values of floodplains along the Diamond Creek

• Argues application of ESOs to the Diamond Creek corridor plays a significant and strategic role in protecting the biodiversity of the creek

• Argues that tributaries into the Diamond Creek need to protected so as to provide

• The purpose of the Environmental Significance Overlay amendment is to ensure that the overlay belter identifies and protects the biodiversity values of the Shire. The proposed changes reflect the findings of recent strategic studies and reviews including new information on sites of significance.

• The proposed ESO4 along the Diamond Creek provides a greater protection than the existing waterways overlays.

• See response to Submissions 23 in relation to Lot 1 Graysharps Road.


Current ESO


proper protection downstream.

56 Maryanne and Graham Clark and family

70 and 90 Henley Road, Kangaroo Ground

None ESO1 ESO4

• Object to the amendment and consider it to be an infringement on their rights.

• The submitters indicate that the changes may implicate the value of the land and will change the way Kangaroo Ground is and has always been known.

• The submitters have safety concerns such as more snakes and dangerous wildlife on their doorstep and are especially concerned on what would be an increased risk of bushfires.



57 FG and P Norrie

104 Lavender Park, Eltham

None None • Objects to the amendment for the following reasons: o The proposed amendment

has not been exhibited to all residents and many are unaware of its impact.

o The amendment fails to recognise the fire risk and recommendations subsequent to Black Saturday, which has serious implications for fire risk in the Shire.

o The proposed amendment provides excessive control

• The submitter’s property is not affected by the amendment.

• See response to Submission 46 regarding exhibition. All property owners and occupiers affected by the amendment were directly notified. Additionally, the information was available at local libraries, the Hurstbridge Hub and Council’s website.


• A response has been provided to the Norries’s on their request for costs related to the amendment.


Current ESO


to Council regarding what people can and can’t do on their land.

o Residents can and have improved biodiversity values without Council having to apply ESOs

o The proposed amendment has been a costly waste of rates and an increase in red tape.

o Has requested information on the cost to date for preparing the report, printing and forwarding to ratepayers, cost to implement these new overlays, projected cost to administer and run these programs.

58 John Young

40 Yeomans Road, Kangaroo Ground

None ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• The submitter objects to their property being included in the new ESO1. They accept ESO2 and ESO4.

• The submitter believes that the introduction of the Core habitat overlay will place adverse restrictions on the use of their land and the purpose of their established property and will significantly reduce its value.


59 David Norden 63-67 Old ESO1 ESO1 • The submitter is concerned Proposed Response


Current ESO


Diamond Creek Road, Diamond Creek

removal about the proposed removal of the ESO1 covering the area bound by Old Diamond Creek Road and the Windy Mile.

• The submitters states that they don’t believe the following has been taken into account: o The Allendale Road

Wedge-tail Eagle that regularly patrols this area for food.

o The echidnas that live and feed off these properties covered by the ESO1.

o The Micro bats that nest in this particular area and the abundance of snakes, lizards, frogs, wombats and kangaroos in the area and the unique indigenous flora.

• Considers the ESO1 has had a particularly important influence on defining the land which surrounds it and cites several VCAT decisions.


60 Rod & Laurel Arndt


None ESO1 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • The submitter raises concerns

with exhibition over Christmas, bushfire safety and property devaluation.

• The submitter does not


• See response to Submission 46 regarding exhibition.



Current ESO


believe their property is core habitat as it has been cleared of understory and mostly scattered with mature and semi mature gum trees.


61 Catherine Jackson

35 Chase Road, North Warrandyte

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• The submitter objects to the property being included in ESO1 but accepts ESO4.

• Raises concerns with bushfire danger and effect on property value.

• The submitter notes that the property is surrounded by urban residential properties in which many domestic animals are kept and they wish to continue to do also.

• An introduction of the core habitat overlay and its excessive permit requirements will place adverse restrictions on the use of their land and will significantly reduce its value.

• The property is currently completely within ESO1 and the proposed ESO1 is also proposed to apply to the whole site.

• The proposed ESO1 schedule does not include any provisions relating to the keeping of domestic animals.

• See Submission 22 regarding bushfire provisions.

• See Submission 26 regarding property values.

62 Jennifer Young

250 Kangaroo Ground- St Andrews Road, Kangaroo Ground

None ESO1 ESO4

• The submitter states that the block is a pasture block only and isn’t a scrub or bush block.

• The submitters believes that they would need a permit to remove dead branches from their property and that this would have an impact on

• Part of the eastern half of the property is proposed to be included in ESO1.

• A permit will not be required to remove fallen branches. Fallen timber and ground litter (leaves and twigs) are vital to the health of our environment. This material provides hiding, basking and nesting places, homes for insects, and a source of food for animals and birds. It also plays an important role in the


Current ESO


pasture management. • The submitter strongly objects

to the recommendations and feels that Council needs to discuss this further with them.

recycling of nutrients into the soil as it slowly decomposes.


63 Wendy Moore

6 Thorns Road, Wattle Glen

ESO1

Part ESO1 deletion ESO1 ESO4

• The submitter states that there is no remnant bush on the property and there are plenty of healthy trees with grass underfoot. The submitter is concerned about the nature of the documentation required if vegetation is to be lopped or removed.

• The submitter believes the excessive red tape will cause more landowners to cut vegetation without a permit.

• The property is currently all covered by ESO1 and a small part of this is proposed to be removed by the amendment.

• The schedules include an ability for the planning authority to waive or reduce the documentation required to be submitted with a planning permit application.


64 Jenni Paterson

Duffs Road, Panton Hill

• The submitter does not make reference to a particular property.

• The submitter feels that these changes will alter their lifestyle and devalue their properties and believes they are unwarranted.


65 Brian Veerman

Duffs Road, Panton Hill


• The submitter thinks that it is a travesty of justice that




Current ESO


idealist can dictate to ratepayers and council on how land owners can reasonable use their properties.

• Mentions concerns with property values and high fire risk.

66 Greg Johnson

119 Bridge Street, Eltham


• The submitter strongly supports the proposed amendment and in particular notes that sustaining the environmental values in the shire is central to the Shire’s mission.

• Comments that habitat protection should be a central concern and ensuring the ESO’s are accurate and up to date is essential if Council’s planning permits are to be respected by VCAT.

• The submitter states that any development which might degrade habitat values should require a planning permit from Council.

The submitters support for the amendment is noted.

67 Samantha Eadie

120 Menzies Road, Kangaroo

None ESO1 ESO2

• Objects to the amendment for the following reasons: o They choose to live in a


• See response to Submission 53 regarding the


Current ESO


Ground

rural/ bushy area where the threat of bushfire during the summer is a reality, having to apply for a permit to remove or even clean up fallen debris puts a threat to their survival.

o They didn’t choose to live in an ELZ.

o They are concerned that their property values will decrease.

o The timing of the proposal is over the Christmas break.

Special Use Zone Schedule 2. • Refer to submission 26 regarding property

values. • See response to Submission 46 regarding

exhibition timeframes. Proposed Response Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..

68 Peter & Anne Burford

135 Arthurs Creek Road, Hurstbridge

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • The submitter would like an

independent panel to enquire and investigate these proposed changes.

• The submitter believes the proposal will put more pressure on the landholder and less on the council whose rates are now the highest in Victoria.

• The submitter raises bushfire safety as a concern.

• The submitter states they are yet to witness any feral pigs, deer or cats in the district, but kangaroos, wombats and


• All submissions will be referred to an independent Panel appointed by the State Government for further consideration.

• Upon review it was noted there was a mapping error where ESO2 does not extend to the southern boundary.



Current ESO


rabbits are in plague proportions, eroding embankments and degrading pasture and a constant danger to human life.

69 Simon & Sarah Keeble

55 Menzies Road, Kangaroo Ground

None ESO1 ESO4

• The submitter is opposed to the proposed amendments to the Rural Conservation Zone for their property.

• The submitter raises issues in relation to not being able to reduce fuel loads on their property.

• The submitter notes that they have undertaken pest plan and animal control and their own expense and have engaged a number of landcare experts to protect and regenerate their environment and have responsibly managed the fuel load on their property to ensure their ongoing safety.

• The submitter raises concerns that the overlay will effectively convert their property and the surrounding area into an Environmental Living Zone (ELZ).

• The submitter also raises the following issues: o Potential income stream

• The amendment does not propose any changes to the Rural Conservation Zone.


• There is no Environmental Living Zone in the VPP’s. See response to Submission 53 regarding Bend of Islands.

• Council provides financial assistance through the Land Management Incentive Program for landowners undertaking land care type activities. In addition a rate rebate is available for landowners with a Trust for Nature Conservation Covenant or for those eligible for a Sustainable Agricultural Rebate.


• The amendment does not propose any provisions that affect a land owners ability to keep domestic pets.

• The gully meets the definition of a waterway.


Current ESO


removed- they intend to turn the bottom of their property into paddocks at a later date for either horses, goats, sheep or alpacas. They are also concerned about giving up domestic pets.

o Property value will be reduced.

• The submitter disputes that they have a waterway/ watercourse on their property. They note they have a small gully which gets boggy once a year but it does not have any running water.

70 Paul Ray

325 Hildebrand Road, Cottles Bridge

None ESO1 ESO2

• The submitter considers that the changes are not necessary to protect the environment, place an unnecessary and heavy handed bureaucracy on rate payers and have the potential to lower the value of properties affected.

• The purpose of the Environment Significance Overlay provision in the VPP’s is to identify areas where the development of land may be affected by environmental constraints and ensures that development is compatible with the identified environmental values.


71 Rex Niven

15 Rockliffe Street, Eltham

None None • Supports the amendment. • The submitters support for the amendment is noted.

72 Lunda Harraway

20 Long Gully Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment and believes that it will devalue their property.

• The property has the current ESO1, and the proposed ESO1 will apply to the same area.



Current ESO


73 Mark McDonald

27 Cecil Street, Eltham

None None • Supports the changes and applauds the Shire’s efforts to protect the Shire from unnecessary development.

• The submitter notes that we need to ensure that Council continues to update it planning laws to allow VCAT to make decisions which correspond with the changes in the Nillumbik’s environment.

• The submitters support for the amendment is noted.

74 Charles Stutchbury

1/15 Brisbane Street, Eltham

None None • Strongly supports the adoption of all aspects of Amendment C101.

• The submitter notes that if the protection of the natural environment is not regularly reviewed, reinforced and upgraded it will be eroded by the unceasing urban sprawl and development.

• The submitter states that is necessary that Council put in measures to support and enhance the quality and health of our habitat, including waterways, flora and fauna.

• The submitter comments that it is essential that ESO4 areas are adopted fully with no further dilution or compromise.

• The submitters support for the amendment is noted.


Current ESO


75 Harry Whittley

745 Kangaroo Ground- St Andrews Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 Part deletion ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • The submitter notes that they

have a blanket overlay proposed, yet their next door neighbour hasn’t.

• Concerned about needing to apply for a permit for a fence.

The property is currently partly affected by ESO1. Part of this ESO is proposed to be removed from the property. Under the proposed amendment provisions a fence is exempt from the need for a permit, unless the exemptions cannot be met. The purpose of the changes to the fencing exemptions are to enable the safe movement of fauna whilst ensuring appropriate fencing for agricultural use. Proposed Response Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..

76 Eltham Gateway Action Group Inc

• EGAG support the proposed amendment and encourages Council to adopt the amendment.

• The group submits that it is particularly important that the whole of the waterways network in Nillumbik and not just the main rivers be recognised in the planning provisions to keep in line with current land and water management policy and practise.

• The group considers that by implementing new schedules and replacing the existing ESO1 with a number of more finely descriptive schedules, recognises that Nillumbik has

• The groups support for the amendment is noted.


Current ESO


a great diversity of land uses from urban to environmentally significant areas and also some buffer habitat between the two.

77 Mr & Mrs Tony & Catherine Lee


None ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers the amendment will

have a detrimental impact upon their property and is concerned with the spread of fire caused by unmanaged fuel sources



78 Bassett-Smith Farm

20-40 Bourchiers Road, Kangaroo Ground

ESO1 (no 40)

ESO2 • Seeks removal of proposed ESO2 and considers the amendment is not required.

• The submitter makes the following comments: o The proposed provisions

will prevent the property from continuing as a farm.

o The objectives of the RCZ already cater for the protection of buffer habitat and the proposed subdivision, vegetation and decision guidelines are the same as the RCZ.

o The amendment should only apply to public land.

• Considers the amendment provisions contravene the State Governments building and works requirements.

• The proposed amendment does not introduce any provisions that prevent agricultural land use.

• A planning scheme overlay implements a council strategy related to a particular issue (in this case environmental and biodiversity protection). Overlays typically have schedules to specify local objectives and requirements that are not contained in the Zone, as is the case with proposed ESO2.

• A schedule to an overlay can specify different permit exemption triggers for works, alterations and extensions than those contained in the Rural Conservation Zone. The proposed controls contained in the ESO are to ensure buildings and works to a greater size or depth are further assessed to minimize the impact of development on biodiversity. The proposed triggers are contained in the current ESO1 schedule.

• The proposed fence provisions require a 30cm


Current ESO


• Considers the proposed fencing provisions are inappropriate for livestock, in particular the 30 cm minimum ground clearance.

gap to be maintained between the ground level and the lowest wire to enable the safe movement of fauna whilst ensuring appropriate fencing for agricultural use.

• The overlay schedules contain exemptions for fencing. Any fence that cannot meet these exemptions will require a planning permit.

79 Sonia Broderick

45 Rodger Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• The submitter states they have not seen any threats to biodiversity since they purchased the property over 15 years ago.

• The submitter questions why they are not included in the Township Zone.

• Considers their property is not a site of significance.

The property is currently covered by ESO1. The proposed ESO1 will apply to the same area. The subject site is located outside the Panton Hill UGB and as such is green wedge land within the Rural Conservation Zone: Schedule 3, rather than being within the Township Zone that only applies the township of Panton Hill. The boundary between Nillumbik’s urban and rural areas is established by state government planning policy and is reflected in existing zone controls which are unaltered by this amendment. Proposed Response Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..

80 Simon Gough


None ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment and suggests there should be a new overlay designed to reflect residential with rural/conservation.

• The submission raises issues in relation to fire.

• No such overlay exists in the VPP’s. Councils can only apply overlays from the VPP’s.

• See response to submission 22 regarding bushfire provisions.


81 Esther Caspi

175-199 Ironbark Road Diamond Creek

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• The submitter vehemently objects to the application of the three new Environmental

• Property 1 is currently partly covered by the existing ESO1 and property 2 is completely covered by ESO1.


Current ESO


201-219 Ironbark Road, Diamond Creek

Significance Overlays on the lands in which they have an interest.

• The submitter wishes their submission to be heard by an independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.

• The submitter wishes to expand on their submission when heard by Council and again expand on their submission when heard at the independent panel.

• The submitter has requested a meeting with the mayor, deputy Mayor and all officers responsible for this amendment.

• The submitter requests that the existing overlay ESO1 be removed/ deleted completely from the above lands, which has occurred/ is occurring with other properties.

• Considers the burden of overlays renders the land to have no value.


• All submitters will be invited to address the Policy and Services meeting of Council that considers submissions.

• The Abzeco report does not identify the properties as sites to be deleted from the existing ESO, in accordance with the exclusion guidelines contained within the report.


82 David Sharpe


ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Seeks assurance that the proposed provisions do not have the effect of restricting or interfering with the use of the property as a farm and activities such as grazing,

• The existing ESO1 applies to part of the property. This part is proposed to be included in ESO2 with a small area proposed for inclusion in ESO1.

• The proposed amendment does not introduce any provisions that prevent agricultural land


Current ESO


farming, construction of stock fences, removal of vegetation for bushfire, conducting burn offs and the existing planning permission for a dwelling.

• Do not want the land to be subject to a reduced valuation.

use or grazing. • A local law applies to burn offs. • Under the proposed amendment provisions, a

fence is exempt from the need for a permit, unless the exemptions cannot be met.

• See response to Submission 22 regarding bushfire clearance provisions.


83 Margaret

Decker

165 Clintons Road, Smiths Gully

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • The submitter describes their

land as pasture with the area abutting Spanish Gully Road as lightly treed and considers they do not have any significant flora and fauna.

• The submitter believes the proposed overlays will remove their ability to keep horses and cattle, are designed to remove existing pasture and grazing land and make the area an extension of the Bend of Isles precinct.

• The proposed provisions do not alter the ability to graze animals.

• See response to Submission 53 regarding Bend of Islands.


84 Brian Gilkes

85 Ninks Road, St Andrews

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• The submitter requests that the property be exempt from the amendment and requests that other property owners in the Diamond Creek Valley, from the top of Ninks Road to the township of St Andrews, be personally consulted.

• All landowners and occupiers directly affected by the amendment were individually notified.

• The proposed provisions do not alter the ability to graze animals, keep domestic pets or keep horses.

• The overlay schedules contain exemptions for fencing. Any fence that cannot meet these


Current ESO


• The submitter also expressed concerns with implications for use of farmland, fencing, climate change, fencing, wastewater, domestic animals, weed invasion and bushfire clearance.

• Considers it not clear how the amendment addresses threats to the Shire’s biodiversity.

exemptions will require a planning permit. • See response to Submission 22 regarding

bushfire provisions. • The amendment can only address matters

relating to land use and development. Climate change and water management are further addressed within Council’s adopted Climate Change Action Plan 2010-2015 and Water Management Plan 2013.

• Council’s adopted Invasive Species Action Plan addresses weed management in the Shire. The amendment also provides an exemption for the removal of identified weeds.

• Council’s Biodiversity Strategy 2012 discusses threats to the Shires biodiversity. The objectives contained within the schedules set out how the amendment will address biodiversity threats.

85 Friends of the Diamond Creek, Hurstbridge

• The group supports the amendment.

• The group considers the ESO4 covering all Nillumbik waterways should have an increased buffer zone to at least 50m, on the basis that this will potentially give greater protection to the riparian zone, its waterways and wildlife from the impacts of proposed new developments, domestic and feral animals, weed infestation and lack of understanding of


• The overlay extent is proposed to be correlated to stream order with increasing distance, with increasing waterway size. A larger waterway will have a larger riparian zone. Placing the same overlay extent on a drainage line as a large waterway would not be appropriate.


Current ESO


the importance of our natural environment.

86 Jeff Pleyfell


ESO1 ESO1-deletion ESO3

• Objects to ESO3 being placed on their property.

• The submitter considers the overlay will detrimentally affect their property, remove their right as a landowner, devalue the land and create bushfire risk.

• The property is proposed to be removed from the current ESO1. It appears the ESO3 is a boundary error.



Proposed Response • ESO 3 will be removed from the property.

87 John Withers


None ESO1 ESO4


about fuel loads, bushfire safety, a fencing requirement of 200mm from ground level as animals such as sheep will escape, concerns with not being able to rebuild on the same footprint and impact on land values.



• The proposed fence provisions require a 30cm gap to be maintained between the ground level and the lowest wire to enable the safe movement of fauna whilst ensuring appropriate fencing for agricultural use.

• Clause 63.10 of all planning schemes in Victoria guides planning permit exemptions where buildings are damaged or destroyed. It states that ‘If at least 50 percent of the gross floor area of a building or at least 50 percent of the area of any works is damaged or destroyed so that the use cannot continue without the building or works being reconstructed, the land must be used in conformity with this scheme, unless a permit is granted to continue the use, and to construct or carry out buildings or works.’


Current ESO


88 Darren Metcalf


None ESO1 ESO4


about fuel loads, bushfire safety, a fencing requirement of 200mm from ground level as animals such as sheep will escape, the number of overlays that already apply to the property

• The submitter comments that they don’t want the restrictions that apply to the people who have chosen to live in the Bend of Isles.



• The proposed fence provisions require a 30cm gap to be maintained between the ground level and the lowest wire to enable the safe movement of fauna whilst ensuring appropriate fencing for agricultural use.

• See response to Submission 53 regarding Bend of Islands.

89 Robert Mayes

170 Belfields Road, Cottles Bridge

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Concerned with the

application of ESO4 and doesn’t consider there is a creek or dry gully on the land.

• Raises concerns relating to fencing, fire and weed control on roadsides, bushfire concerns, Lot 1 Hurstbridge, imposition of planning scheme overlays and the number of wild pigs in the Shire.

• ESO1 currently applies to the whole property. This will be replaced with the proposed ESO1.


• See response to Submission 7 regarding application of planning overlays.

• See response to Submission 23 regarding Lot 1.

• See response to Submission 75 regarding fencing.

• Council implements an annual Bushfire Mitigation (Fire Prevention) works program.

• The Municipal Fire Management Planning Committee reviews the Municipal Fire Management Plan on an ongoing basis. This plan informs council as to where the most effective works can be carried out to mitigate bushfire risk on roadsides.


Current ESO


• A range of treatments will be applied where practical to primary and secondary roads as follows:

Slashing Box clearance Proactive tree assessment Woody weed removal

• Other treatments undertaken on roadsides include:

Managing regrowth in the fire affected areas In collaboration with local CFA brigades, undertaking planned burns to compliment other vegetation management works.

• The priority for works on Council reserves have also been developed using a risk based approach. This has considered possible ignition sources such as power lines, history of ignitions within the reserves, the ability for fire to spread from the reserve combined with the proximity of assets such as houses, schools etc. and size of the reserve to give a relative rating of risk and priorities for works.

• Council also works in collaboration with the community and other members of the Municipal Fire Management Planning Committee in delivering community education, arson prevention, infrastructure upgrades and other programs

• Sightings of wild pigs have been recorded in Cottles Bridge and the Bend of Isles. At this stage these are in low numbers.

• The waterway is correctly mapped on the property, however there is a mapping error on


Current ESO


the adjacent property to the east. 90 Anne

Stoneman

673 Heidelberg Kinglake Road, Hurstbridge

ESO1 ESO4

ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects in the strongest possible terms to the amendment and the proposed application of a new ESO1, ESO2 and ESO4 on their property.

• The submitter considers the amendment is an infringement of their Common Law rights.

• The submitter wishes to appear before a panel to detail the reasons for their objection and call for this insidious proposal to be abandoned.

• The property is currently affected by ESO1, this will be converted into part ESO1 and part ESO2.

• The property currently has ESO4-Waterway applied, the new ESO4 will apply to the same area.

• The submitter will be invited, along with all submitters, to appear before any independent Panel appointed to consider the amendment.

91 RJ & KB Stoneman

673 Heidelberg Kinglake Road, Hurstbridge

ESO1 ESO4

ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Raises concerns with

planning restrictions and bushfire protection.

• See response to Submission 7 regarding the application of planning overlays.


92 Maz Parsons

125 Garden Hill Court, Kangaroo Ground

ESO1 ESO1 Deletion ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • The submission provides

details about the history of the site and land management practices undertaken.

• Considers the area proposed as Core Habitat contains no indigenous understorey and there is no native understorey along the gullies.

• Includes a list of what they consider the amendment

• The current ESO1 is proposed to be removed from part of the property.

• The amendment documents are in the form required by the Planning and Environment Act 1987.


• See response to Submission 84 regarding grazing of animals.


• See response to Submission 46 regarding


Current ESO


should be providing information on, including questions relating to bushfire provisions, grazing of animals, property devaluation, timeframe to consider the proposals.

• Considers an independent Committee should be established to further consider the proposal.

• Considers Council has been discriminatory in where it applies the overlays.

exhibition. • All submissions will be referred to an

Independent Panel appointed by the State Government. The Panel is conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. All submitters will be provided with an opportunity to present to the panel if they wish. The Panel will provide Council with a report for further consideration within 6 weeks of the end of a public hearing.

• The application of the proposed overlays in the rural areas has been informed by the Abzeco Study.

• ESO4 is correctly mapped. Proposed Response Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..

93 John & Karon Graham


None ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Raises concern with property

value and bushfire risk. • Consider the amendment

documents are difficult to understand.



• All property owners were able to contact or visit council and speak to a Strategic Planner if they required further assistance in understanding how the proposal would affect their property.


94 Nicholas 115 Henley ESO1 ESO1 • Objects to the amendment. • See response to Submission 22 regarding


Current ESO


Pointon

Road, Kangaroo Ground

ESO2 ESO4

• The submitter considers the amendment will devalue their property and will increase bushfire risk.

bushfire provisions. • See response to Submission 26 regarding

property values. Proposed Response Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..

95 Mark Gay

240 Kangaroo Ground- St Andrews Road, Kangaroo Ground

ESO1 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment, but can accept ESO4.

• Raises concern with bushfire risk, fence construction, property values.





96 Kylie & Neale Brophy

35 Bakehouse Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Requests the application of ESO2 rather than ESO1.

• Considers the property meets the criteria for inclusion in ESO2.


97 Dawn & Stephen Cole

80 Astons Road, Yarrambat

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2

• Objects to the amendment. • Raise concerns with the areas

being proposed to be included in ESO1 and ESO2.

• Raises concerns about availability of information specific to their property, C81 amendment being run at the same time, land management works, bushfire, reduction in

• All property owners were able to contact or visit council and speak to a strategic planner if they required further assistance in understanding how the proposal would affect their property.

• Amendment C81 proposes to apply Significant Landscape Overlays to rural areas of the Shire. There is no provision in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 preventing Council from running two different amendments at the


Current ESO


land value. • Supports implementation of

the Nillumbik Green Wedge Management Plan.

same time. Amendment C81 was exhibited earlier in the year, with exhibition of Amendment C101 not commencing exhibition until November.



• The support for Nillumbik’s Green Wedge Management Plan is noted. Amendment C101 implements actions within the Plan.


98 John Gedye

56 Mannish Road, Wattle Glen and 6-12 Mannish Road, Wattle Glen

None – (56) ESO1 (6-12)

ESO1 ESO2 (56) ESO1 ESO2 ESO3 (6-12)

• Welcomes the opportunity to comment on the amendment.

• Objects to the amendment. • Raises concern that the

amendment is in conflict to advice contained in the Wattle Glen Township Strategy regarding the vegetation present within the area bound by Murray Drive, Clarke Ave, Mannish Road and Heidelberg-Kinglake Road.

• Considers the amendment is proposed to service the interests of one councillor and to prevent development of his properties.

• The Wattle Glen Township Strategy was undertaken in 2001. The Abzeco review undertaken in 2014 is based on current aerial photography and analysis and current best practice criteria to determine what should or shouldn’t be included within an ESO.

• The strategic basis of the amendment is provided in the explanatory report forming part of the amendment. The review of the existing Environmental Significance Overlay has been undertaken over a number of years, with Council considering and endorsing the findings of each Stage of the review as they have been completed. The amendment is based on thorough technical investigations by biodiversity experts that have been translated into planning scheme controls.


Current ESO



99 Williams


ESO1 Deletion: ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

Objects to the amendment. Considers the areas to be included in ESO1 don’t contain sufficient flora or fauna to warrant inclusion in the overlay. Considers the dam should not be included in ESO4

• The current ESO1 is proposed to be deleted from an area containing a vineyard. The proposed ESO1 is to be applied to areas not containing vineyards and a larger cleared area.

• ESO4 is correctly mapped. Proposed Response Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..

100 Eric & Pat Floberg

541 Eltham- Yarra Glen Road, Kangaroo Ground


• Objects to the amendment and is concerned with property de-valuation.



101 Beatrice Howe

6-7 Camelot Close, Research

None ESO1 ESO2

• Objects to the amendment. • Concerned with increased fire

risk, need for a clearance buffer around houses and ability to re-build.


• See response to Submission 87 regarding rebuilding provisions.

102 Paul & Sarah Clark


ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• The submitter considers the amendment is misguided as the property has previously been cleared and the vegetation on the property is regrowth and not remnant indigenous vegetation.

• The amendment does not impact on a landowners ability to undertake weed control.




Current ESO


• Raises concerns with rapid reinfestation of noxious vegetation and increased fire risk.

• The submitter considers the property should be ESO2 enabling them to continue keeping the weeds and the real fire risk under control.

Abzeco..

103 Lynda & Graham Cutting

115 Cottles Bridge-Strathewen Road, Cottles Bridge

Partially ESO1

ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment and considers the amendments will have a negative effect on biodiversity.

• Considers the land does not meet the core and buffer habitat descriptions.

• Has concerns with the application of ESO4 and fire risk.

• The application of ESO1 appears to be a boundary error.



104 Atryna Investment Pty Ltd

230 Cottles Bridge- Strathewen Road Cottles Bridge

ESO1 ESO4

Deletion ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Considers there is no vegetation on the property that fits the classification of core or buffer habitat and that the valley area proposed to be included in ESO4 is incorrect.

• The submitter has no concerns with the application of ESO4 to the Diamond Creek area adjoining the property.

• The current ESO1 is proposed to be removed from part of the property.

• ESO4 is missing coverage over a few waterways on this property.

Proposed Response Amend ESO4 to include all waterways. Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..

105 Chris & Evelyn Hales

62 Taylor Road, Hurstbridge

None ESO1 • Considers the ESO1 is incorrect and the land should



Current ESO


be ESO2. Abzeco..

106 Nikos & Lola Nikolaou

77-85 Ironbark Road, Diamond Creek

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Raises concern with planning

scheme controls, fire risk.



107 Victoria Mitton


ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• The submitter has requested a review of the areas that have been mapped.

• Mapping error noted where ESO4 doesn’t connect the dam to the waterway.


108 Robert Shackleton & Linda Joyce

795 Buttermans Track, Christmas Hills

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• The submitter raises questions in relation to the mapping for Site 28 and is concerned that improved pasture is mapped as core habitat on their block and on other neighbouring blocks.

• The property has a proposed ESO4 overlay and the submitter is puzzled by a disconnected island surrounding a bush dam.

• The submitter is also concerned with the following: o Watsons creek (p270,

ibid) is implied to have a base flow but throughout Site 28 and beyond, it is in fact an intermittent stream. There it does not support in stream fauna

• ESO4 mapping errors noted with two isolated sections of waterway which need to be connected and a missing waterway in the north west corner.

Proposed Response Amend ESO4. Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..


Current ESO


such as Platypus as suggested in ESO4.

o Page 270 “in an area that borders urbanisation’. The submitter states that the nearest urbanisation is six kilometres away at Yarra Glen,

• The submitter believes that these errors of fact and judgement and other anomalies erode the confidence one might otherwise place in the Review and its supporting documents.

109 Cindy Allen

5 Yarra Braes Road, Eltham

None ESO2 ESO4

• The submitter fully supports and endorses the amendment and in particular ESO4 proposed for their property.

• The submitter also fully supports the strengthening of ESO’s as proposed for habitats adjacent along the length of the Yarra River.

• The submitter believes that it is imperative that this generation adopts legislation that provides certainty for clean water and healthy habitats for the future.

• The submitter thanks Nillumbik for their hard work.

The support for the amendment is noted.

110 Lianne & Tim No address • Objects to the amendment. • See response to Submission 22 regarding


Current ESO


Brewer

provided • The submitter is concerned that the new overlays will prevent them from keeping horses, livestock as well as being close to nature.

• Raises concerns with bushfire risk and effect on property values.

bushfire provisions. • See response to Submission 26 regarding

property values. • The proposed provisions do not prevent the

keeping of horses.

111 Robert Kilkenny


None ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment and considers ESO1 should be removed from the property.

• Considers the area proposed to be included in ESO2 conflicts with Amendment C81 and proposed SLO13.

• The submitter raises concerns with timing of the amendment and bushfire risk.

• The application of ESO1 appears to be a boundary error.

• Environmental protection is provided by the existing Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) of the Nillumbik Planning Scheme, which has been applied throughout the Green Wedge to specific locations of ecological sensitivity. The provisions are designed to protect fauna and flora habitat. Amendment C81 proposes to protect landscape character.



Proposed Response Amend mapping to remove ESO1 from the property.

112 Ronald Drohan & Jane Over

Yarra Braes Road, Eltham

• The submitter supports the implementation of the new Schedule 4 as the consolidation of previous ESO’s for the Yarra Braes Road area.

• The submitter strongly agrees with protecting significant



Current ESO


habitats and waterways. • The submitter supports the

implementation of the new ESO1, ESO2 and ESO3 for the greater Eltham area.

• The submitter congratulates Council for their work and trust these amendments will pass with no further dilution or weakening.

113 Garry Rogers

1209 Skyline Road, Christmas Hills

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Considers the amendment will de-value their property and that there are no native orchids on the property.

• Raises concerns with bushfire.

• Requests to be heard at a panel.

• The current ESO1 applies to the whole property and the proposed ESO1 will apply to the same area.



• The request is noted. All submitters to the amendment will be invited to make a submission to the Panel.

114 Karen Egan


None ESO2 ESO4


prevent grazing and horse keeping.

• Raises concerns with bushfire.

• The amendment does not prevent the keeping of horses or grazing.


• ESO4 mapping error noted with a gap in the waterway

Proposed Response Amend ESO4

115 Scott & Tania Joynson

82 Astons Road, Yarrambat

ESO1 ESO2 • Objects to the amendment. • Support the existing ESO that

applies to the property but objects to the increase in the




Current ESO


proposed ESO. • Raises concerns with

managing weeds, bushfire risk, property devaluation.

• Council provides financial assistance through the Land Management Incentive Program for landowners undertaking land care type activities.


116 Kay Eastaway


ESO1 Deletion ESO1 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers the maps don’t

make sense and that no-one has approached her to inspect her property.

• Raises concerns with bushfire and other matters not related to the amendment.

• Council’s maps are prepared on Council’s Exponare mapping system, a commonly used GIS mapping system by Local Government.


117 Gold Brics Pty Ltd

64-188 Phipps Crescent, Diamond Creek

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Considers the land is suitable for residential development and objects to any controls that would further obstruct the development of the land.

• Supports areas of remnant vegetation being protected.

• The land is zoned Rural Conservation Schedule 3. It is the Zone of the land that guides whether the land can be further subdivided, not the ESO.

• ESO4 mapping errors noted with waterways missing.

Proposed Response Amend ESO4 Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..

118 Mark & Susan Gough


None ESO1 ESO4

• Considers only a third of property fits the description of Urban Habitat.

• Objects to the ESO4.

• The property is proposed to be included in ESO1, not ESO3.

• ESO4 is correctly mapped.


Current ESO


119 Annessa & Lola Nikolaou

120 Grassy Flat Road, Diamond Creek

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers planning controls

remove property rights. • Raises concerns with

bushfire. • Wishes to be included in a

residential zone.

• See response to Submission 7 regarding planning controls.


• The land is zoned Rural Conservation Zone 3 and is outside the urban growth boundary. This amendment is not an opportunity to review the zoning of the land.

120 Marty Goodman


None ESO1 ESO2

• Objects to the amendment. • Raises concerns with ability to

clear for bushfire purposes.



121 C.Malcolm Macmillian

780 Hurstbridge-Arthurs Creek Road, Arthurs Creek

ESO4 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers the amendment

prevents the right to farm.

• The amendment does not contain provisions that prevent farming on the land.

• ESO4 mapping errors with waterways missing Proposed Response Amend ESO4

122 Mike Hillier

201 Broad Gully Road, Diamond Creek

None ESO4 • Objects to the application of ESO4 to the property and considers the waterway is just a drain.

• This is an isolated section of waterway in an urban area which is mostly piped underground with little possibility of future daylighting. Development has already been approved to the edge of the waterway and therefore the overlay will not achieve its objectives in this location.

Proposed Response Remove ESO4

123 Scott Breschkin

N/A • The submission relates to Lot 1 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge and Fergusons Paddock, Hurstbridge.


• Fergusons Paddock is proposed to be included in ESO1, ESO2, ESO3 and ESO4.


Current ESO


• The submitter objects to the removal of existing ESO1 from the sites and considers the ESO4 waterways buffers should be increased.

• Considers the background studies have not been independently conducted.

• The waterways buffer distances are based on Melbourne Water’s Waterway Corridors: Guidelines for greenfield development areas within the Port Phillip and Western Port region 2013, which recommends riparian buffers in accordance with the Strahler stream order.

• Melbourne Water reviewed the amendment prior to exhibition and was satisfied with the proposed buffer distances.

• The review of the ESO is based on studies carried out by Ecology Australia and Abzeco.

124 Brian Murray Nillumbik Ratepayers Association Inc.

• Object to the amendment, and requests to be heard by an Independent Panel.

• The Association’s objection is as follows but not limited to the following reasons: o Any law that cannot be

fully enforced is a bad law and should not be implemented.

o If approved C101 will add to the fire risk to the affected areas and the wider community.

o If implemented C101 will further sterilise affected titles.

o Much of the land does not and, has little future chance of meeting the defined (council and Abzeco) definition of the



• The Abzeco report sets out the inclusion criteria used to determine where an ESO should be applied in the rural areas of the Shire.

• The amendment does not prevent farming and grazing or keeping of animals.

• All submitters to the amendment will be provided with an opportunity to present their submission to an independent Panel.


Current ESO


ESO’s 1, 2 and 4. o C101 is discriminatory

towards some farming practices including, but not limited to, hay harvesting and alpaca grazing.

o Statements such as ‘there will be little change for most properties’ is disingenuous’, what should be made clear is that ‘there will be a great deal of change for some properties’.

125 Mary McDonald Elizabeth Murray

72 Silvan Road, Wattle Glen

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • The submitter requests to be

heard by a panel if the overlays are not removed from their property.

• The submitter states that the family land has been continuously farmed for over 60 years and does not meet the criteria for the application of the ESO’s.

• The objections are for the following reasons (but not limited to): o If this proposal is

accepted it will sterilise our title

o This attempts to limit our



• The amendment does not prevent farming and grazing or keeping of animals.

• The amendment does not affect any existing use rights applying to the property as defined under Clause 63: Existing Uses of the Nillumbik Planning Scheme.

• ESO4 mapping error with a waterway not mapped on the property.

Proposed Response Amend ESO4 Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..


Current ESO


existing use rights. o It is discriminatory against

our current farming activities.

o It will add to the fire risk and limit fire clearance works.

• Statements such as ‘there will be little change for most properties’ is disingenuous’, what should be made clear is that ‘there will be a great deal of change for some properties’.

126 Elizabeth Parsons

125 Garden Hill Court, Kangaroo Ground


• Objects to the amendment. • Considers the property does

not meet the definition of core habitat or buffer habitat or waterways requiring protection.

• Considers the methodology for the background studies is flawed.

• Raises concerns with amendment timing, the ward councillor, ability to keep horses, impact on tourism, fire risk, ability to rebuild, impact on their business plans, property devaluation, grazing, fencing, planning scheme controls.

• See response to Submission 7 regarding planning scheme overlays.




• See response to Submission 87 regarding rebuilding.

• See response to Submission 69 regarding land management programs.


• See response to Submission 84 regarding grazing and keeping of horses.

• ESO4 is correctly mapped. Proposed Response


Current ESO



127 R.J & V.I Maino

1 Herberts Lane, Diamond Creek

ESO3 • Objects to the amendment and requests to be heard a panel hearing.

• The objection to the amendment is noted. • All submitters to the amendment will be

provided with an opportunity to present their submission to an independent Panel.

128 Douray Pty Ltd

86 Wilson Road, Wattle Glen

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment and requests to be heard at a panel hearing.



• ESO4 mapping error noted with a waterway missing in the north east corner.


129 Diamond Creek Progress Association Inc

• Objects to the amendment and requests to be heard at a panel hearing.



130 Rosemary Hendry

330 Cherry Tree Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 • The submitter requests that the current ESO1 not be replaced by the proposed ESO1 and considers the land may be better suited for inclusion in ESO2.


131 Robert Cornish

350 Kangaroo Ground - St Andrews Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Considers the proposed boundaries of the overlays are too extensive and not related to the definition of core habitat and buffer habitat.

• ESO4 mapping error noted. Proposed Response Remove ESO4 section running north from the dam. Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by


Current ESO


Abzeco.. 132 Michael

Brinkkotter

185 Donaldson Road, Research



lead to the land to being rezoned Township.

• Raises concerns with bushfire management, farming, property values, imposition of planning scheme overlays.

• The amendment does not propose to alter the zoning of any land. This property is zoned Rural Conservation Zone Schedule 3.



• See response to submission 26 regarding property values.

• See response to submission 125 regarding farming.

133 Sue McKinnon 201 Hildebrand Road, Cottles Bridge

ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Supports the intent of the ESO but considers the overlays need to be backed up with thorough environmental evidence.

• Is concerned the Abzeco report does not discuss in detail sites that do not meet the exclusion criteria.

• Queries difference in the application of ESO’s in rural and urban areas.

• Questions the mapping of ESO boundaries on Hurstbridge Lot 1 and surrounding area.

• Raises concerns with the proposed waterways setbacks, including land affected by a Land Subject to

• The method for review of the ESO in the Shire is discussed within the Ecology Australia and Abzeco reports.

• Significant vegetation occurring in urban areas has generally been included in ESO3 – Environmentally Significant Habitat in Township and Residential Areas. ESO1 and ESO2 have been applied in the rural areas of the Shire.

• The proposed ESO4 strengthens and is more specific than the current ESO4: Waterways in the Planning Scheme.

• An ESO4 mapping error was noted with a waterway missing in the southern half of the property.

• Subdivision controls are contained within the zones, not overlays.

• Refer to Submission 23 regarding Lot 1. Proposed Response Amend ESO4


Current ESO


Inundation Overlay and setbacks of waterways on her property.

• Considers Hurstbridge Lot 1 contains indigenous trees, middle storey and threatened species (listed in submission).

• Lists other sites and questions why particular overlays are proposed to be applied to these.

Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco.. in relation to Lot 1 and the Hurstbridge wetlands.

134 Steve Harrison 1-23 Collins Lane, Yarrambat

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers there is no native

flora or fauna on the property and no evidence to amend the current overlay.

• Considers the proposed fencing exemptions will allow access on to dangerous roads.

• Part of the existing ESO1 is proposed to be removed from the property.



135 Gila Schnapp 201-219 Ironbark Road, Diamond Creek

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2

• Objects to the amendment. • Requests the existing ESO1

be deleted. • Considers that they have not

been consulted on the amendment and wishes to be heard by an independent Panel.

• Discusses planning permit applications unrelated to the proposed controls.

• The existing ESO1 currently applies to the whole property. The proposed controls will also affect the whole property.

• The land owner was provided with direct notification of the amendment.


136 D Schnapp 40-60 Pioneer ESO1 ESO1 • Objects to the amendment. • It is proposed to delete part of the current


Current ESO


Road, Yarrambat

ESO2 ESO4

• Makes comments about a proposed SLO.

• Seeks the removal of all overlays from the property and considers they contravene planning objectives in Victoria.

• Seeks to have the land included within the Urban Growth Boundary.

ESO1 from the land. • The amendment only relates to the

Environmental Significance Overlay not a proposed SLO.

• The proposed amendment is consistent with the following objective of planning in Victoria as set out in Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987: To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity and to facilitate development in accordance with this objective.

• The boundary between Nillumbik’s urban and rural areas is established by state government planning policy and is reflected in existing zone controls which are unaltered by this amendment.

• ESO4 mapping errors noted with a number of waterways missing or unconnected.


137 Esther Caspi (Adjungbilly)

175-199 Ironbark Road, Yarrambat

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Requests the existing ESO1

be deleted. • Wishes to be heard by an

independent Panel.


• The Abzeco report does not identify the property as a site to be deleted from the existing ESO, in accordance with the exclusion guidelines contained within the report.


138 Gayle Shugg 160 Donaldson ESO1 ESO1 • Objects to the amendment. • The property is currently partially covered by


Current ESO



ESO2 ESO4 Deletion

• Questions the method of notification of the amendment.

• Concerned with the effect on property value.

ESO1. The amendment proposes to delete part of the ESO1 from a cleared area that does not meet the inclusion criteria.



139 Lorna Smith • Submission relates to Lot 1 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge.

• Objects to the proposed removal of ESO1 from Lot 1 and considers this is a conflict of interest.

• Concerned with the 50 metre buffer for ESO4.

• See response to Submission 23.

140 Green Wedge Protection Group

• The GWPG fully supports the amendment.

• The group commends Council on the detail within the proposed provisions and considers the schedules should provide more certainty and clarity to landholders and provide more guidance with regard to allowable and appropriate activities whilst protecting the Shire’s environmental values.

• The group considers the proposed schedules address some ambiguities in the current ESO schedules.

• The GWPG’s support for the amendment is noted.

• The purpose of the mesh fencing exemption as written is to enable rabbit proof fencing and exclusion plots to be installed without the requirement of a permit.


• The amendment applies to both public and private land.

• As a planning permit is not always required to graze horses or similar animals, Council has no ability to require conditions or works that would avoid or mitigate the impact of grazing animals on any remnant vegetation, such as fencing off vegetation.


Current ESO


• The group raises concern with the allowance of mesh fencing without the need for a permit and in particular that ringlock fencing has been known to cause faunal deaths, but considers the 30cm clearance from the ground should in part resolve their concerns.

• Raises concern with the allowance of rabbit proof fencing and suggests that rabbit proof fencing should only be allowed without a permit for short term installation or fences should be required to have gates in them to allow for free movement of fauna.

• Suggests that consideration be given to defining Domestic Areas as opposed to full property fencing, and that within the amendment consideration is given to defining domestic stock to include all animals that graze, given the impact of incremental vegetation and habitat loss due to grazing by domestic stock.

• Notes that the amendment proposes to remove the ESO

• The suggestions for definitions are noted, however any definitions need to be considered further at a State Government level.


Current ESO


from Council owned land in Graysharps Road and draws Council’s attention to possible backlash if it is seen to be down rating environmental protection on its own land.

• Raises concerns with the current definitions in the VPP’s with native vegetation and vegetation removal and the need for formal definitions for remnant bushland and intact understorey, bushland with altered or depleted understorey, scattered trees without understorey and remnant ground flora without a tree canopy. Considers these definitions could be included in the amendment schedules.

141 Chris and John Yeomans

25 Doctors Gully Road, Doreen

None ESO4 • Objects to proposed ESO4 and considers the two waterways/gullies do not exist

• Upon review it is noted that a number of waterways on this property have not been mapped.

Proposed Response Amend ESO4.

142 Friends of Nillumbik

• The group supports the amendment and congratulates Council for the

• The support for the amendment is noted. • See response to Submission 59 regarding the

Windy Mile sites.


Current ESO


work that has gone into the amendment.

• Recognise there was a clear case for reviewing the current ESO’s and defining various types of habitat.

• Raise concern with the proposed removal of ESO1 from land abutting the Windy Mile.

143 Christina Thornton

15 Calwell Road, Kangaroo Ground

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Thanks Council officers for their assistance in taking them through the proposed amendment.

• Considers the overlay will restrict activities allowed under the Rural Conservation Zone and Public Conservation and Resource Zone.

• Raises concerns with bushfire risk, that current fences will need to be modified, that the proposed fence exemptions will not assist wildlife move through the area, that earthworks will be banned, extensions on dwelling restrictions and the information to be provided with an application.

• Queries the inclusion of a dam on the property in ESO4.

• The majority of the property is covered by the existing ESO1. The amendment proposes to largely replace the ESO1 with an ESO2 as the property contains a number of indigenous trees. The ESO1 will remain in a small area that is connected with a larger core habitat site. ESO4 will protect the waterways on the property.

• The overlay provisions do not override any allowable uses in any zone applying to the land.


• See response to Submission 75 regarding fence provisions. The overlay does not require existing fences to be modified.


• The dam is on a waterway and therefore is


Current ESO


correctly covered by ESO4. • Within ESO2 the following exemption applies

for earthworks: Works provided that all of the following are met:

The works are less than 500mm in depth; and The works are undertaken at a distance more than 5 metres from any existing native vegetation protected by this Schedule.

See response to Submission 78 regarding extension of dwelling provisions.

144 DA & RK Seymour


None ESO1 ESO4

• Raises concerns with the level of information to be provided with an application.

• Concerned with the application of ESO4.


• ESO4 is correctly mapped. 145 Greg Hunter 520 Kangaroo

Ground-St Andrews Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 • Objects to the amendment and considers his property does not resemble the pictures in the information brochure.

• Concerned with impact on property values.



146 Ian Moad 28-50 Kurrak Road, Yarrambat

None ESO2 • Questions the accuracy of the mapping and proposed overlay boundaries. Requests that this be reviewed.


147 Glenn Law 70 Dawson Road, Kangaroo

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Raises concern that the overlay provisions will



Current ESO


Ground increase bushfire risk. • Considers the current VPP

bushfire provisions are inadequate.

• The concerns with the current bushfire provisions are noted, however this is a matter to be taken up with the State Government.

148 Narelle Law 70 Dawson Road, Kangaroo Ground

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4


documents available, timeframe to consider the proposal and future planning scheme overlays.

• The Abzeco report is a background report, not an official amendment document. The report was available to view at the Council offices. Copies of information on specific sites were also provided upon request. Residents were also able to come into Council and meet with staff or have their queries addressed over the telephone.



149 Patricia Merlo 765 Kangaroo Ground-St Andrews Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 Delete ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Expresses concern that the changes were difficult to understand.

• An officer from Council contacted the submitter and discussed the changes proposed to affect her property.

150 Georges Bernard

205 Smiths Gully Road, Smiths Gully

ESO1 Delete ESO1 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers areas proposed to

be protected do not include significant vegetation.

• The property is currently entirely covered by ESO1. It is proposed to remove the majority of ESO1 except for a small patch of riparian vegetation on the northern boundary being frontage to Smiths Gully, which will also be covered by ESO4.


151 Vasilos and Lea Vasilopoulos

35 Kilby Lane, Kangaroo Ground

ESO1 Delete ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Raises concerns with timing



Current ESO


of the amendment, bushfire risk, property de-valuation.



152 Rodney Rudd 7 Rudd Place, Plenty

None ESO2 • Objects to the amendment. • Raises concerns with ability to

subdivide property in accordance with a permit that has been issued.

• Seeks confirmation that a post and wire fence is allowed to be built up to 1.4 metres.

• The amendment does not affect the ability to act on an existing permit and does not apply the controls retrospectively.

• The schedules to the ESO contain an exemption from the need for a permit for post and wire fence up to 1.4 metres.


153 Gail Daniel 225 Red Shirt Gully Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Considers enough planning controls already apply, that animals introduce weeds, that Council should control wild pigs, native trees cause soil compaction.

• Raises concerns with bushfire, amendment timing and taking away property rights, wasting ratepayers money.

• Claims the local State member received complaints about the amendment.

• Rejects overlays proposed for her property.




• Council has an obligation under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review and keep the planning scheme up to date. This amendment reviews the ESO that has been in the planning scheme for over 20 years

154 WG and H Lascelles

220 Long Gully Road, Panton

Long Gully:

Long Gully:

• Concerned with ESO4 objectives that require

• See response to Submission 3 regarding waterways included within the amendment.


Current ESO


Hill and 285 Mine Road, Cottles Bridge and 128 Scenic Cres, Eltham

ESO1 Mine Rd: None Scenic Cr: ESO1 ESO4

ESO1 ESO4 Mine Rd: ESO2 ESO4 Scenic Cr: ESO3 ESO4

landowners to undertake restoration or remedial works and that these should be removed.

• Concerned with the waterways being included in ESO4 on Cottlesbridge and Eltham properties. Considers the increase of a 30 metre to 50 metre setback on the Eltham property will reduce property value.

• Accepts proposed ESO2 on Cottlesbridge property.

• Accepts proposed ESO3 on Eltham property.

• See response to Submission 123 regarding waterways setbacks.


• The ESO4 objectives encourage the restoration of waterways but do not require landowners to do so.

• Mine Rd – ESO4 mapping errors noted with waterways on the property not mapped.

• Scenic Cr – This property contains frontage to the Diamond Creek and therefore ESO4 is appropriate.

Proposed Response Amend ESO4 on 285 Mine Road.

155 Jenny Metcalf

120 Donaldson Road, Kangaroo Ground


• Raises concerns with property de-valuation, timing of amendment, planning scheme overlays, bushfire provisions.

• See response to Submission 7 regarding planning overlays.




156 Megan & David Blackley

125 Dawson Road, Kangaroo Ground



increased bushfire risk, impact on property value, ability to keep horses.

• ESO1 currently covers the entire property. The amendment will remove ESO1 from around the dwelling and adjacent cleared paddocks. ESO4 will apply to the waterway running north-south through the property.

• Two mapping errors were noted on a waterway near the house, this is proposed to be removed.


Current ESO




• The amendment does not propose provisions that restrict the ability to keep horses on a property.

Proposed Response Remove the section of waterway running east towards the house.

157 Andrew Bean Director: Acacia valley Pty Ltd

65-135 Wilson Road, Wattle Glen

ESO1 ESO4

ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • The submitter suggests that

the basis for applying the overlays to his property is wrong as the property has been continuously grazed for at least 100 hundred years and contains no remnant bushland.

• The submitter raises concerns with increased fuel loads, landowner rights and impact on property values.

• The submitter wishes to appear before a panel.

• The entire property is covered by the existing ESO1. It is proposed that ESO1 only cover the more vegetated slopes on the property with the remainder to be covered by ESO2.

• ESO4 currently covers the Diamond Creek and will be extended to the wider buffer.


• See response to submission 26 regarding property values.



158 Tina Keene

4 Tanderum Way, Christmas Hills

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Suggests clarification or compromise should be reached where guidelines cannot be reasonable met for

• All provisions applicable to a property are required to be considered when making a decision on a planning application.

• The Abzeco review uses identified criteria to


Current ESO


a project and/or site or need to be prioritized in importance.

• The submitter considers that the description of the landscape does not accurately reflect that there is a lot of open pasture and grazing land through the ESO areas.

• The submitter suggests that post and rail fencing less than 1.2m high could be permitted without a permit.

classify what meets the requirements to be included within an ESO.

• The construction of post and rail fencing up to height of 1.4 metres without a permit is considered to be acceptable and can be included in the overlay provisions.

Proposed Response Include an exemption in the ESO schedules for post and rail fencing up to 1.4 metres.

159 Jason Ditham

511 Kangaroo Ground-St Andrews Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 • Objects to the amendment. • The submitter believes that

their property is within the confines of the Panton Hill Township.

• The submitter states that there is little or no intact remnant indigenous vegetation or biodiversity as described to meet inclusion in ESO1 and has no waterways that form riparian habitat corridors as described to meet ESO4.

• The property is zoned Rural Conservation and is not within the Panton Hill Township boundary.

• The property is currently within ESO1 which is proposed to be replaced with the proposed ESO1.

• The property is not proposed to be covered by ESO4.


160 Michele Spencer

Stone Street, Diamond Creek

• Objects to the amendment. • The submitter considers that

the property is a grazing property bordering residential land and that the amendment will increase bushfire risk.



Current ESO


• The submitter notes there are a number of other reasons for their objection but does not include these.

161 Rob & Christine Clark & Family

290 Eagles Nest Road, Arthurs Creek


• Objects to the amendment. • The submitter considers the

amendment has the potential to totally destroy their lives and future investment, reducing property values and increase fire risk.

• The amendment proposes to remove part of existing ESO1 from part of the property.



162 Adrianna Saunders

No address provided

• The submitter objects to ESO1 and ESO4.

• The objection to the amendment is noted.

163 David McKinnon

201 Hildebrand Road, Cottles Bridge

• The submitter objects to the proposed removal of ESO1 from Lot 1 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge.

• The submitter states they the existing two environment protection overlays are proposed to be reduced from the Diamond Creek at the site from 70 meters to 50 meters under the proposed amendment.

• The submitter objects to the removal of the ESO1 on the adjoining newly created Hurstbridge wetland site.

• Considers Arthurs Creek and Diamond Creek should have a wider buffer than Melbourne

• See response to Submission 23 regarding Lot 1.

• See response to Submission 123 regarding waterways setbacks.

• When the study was undertaken the current site of the Hurstbridge Wetland was utilized for overflow cricket games and did not contain the wetlands.

• Council resolved to include the area known as Site 13 in ESO3 at the Policy and Services meeting on 13 October 2015.

Proposed Response Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco.. for the Hurstbridge wetlands.


Current ESO


Water’s minimum guideline of 50 meters.

• The submitter would like to understand what occurred at Site 13 which was considered under the Ecology Australia review and why the recommendation for removal of the current ESO 1 from the site was changed to include the area in ESO3.

164 Barry & Robyn Henricksen


None ESO1 ESO4

• The submitter states while the overall objectives of the ESO1 are to improve conservation and protection are commendable, they consider the management burden and costs of implementation appear to shift disproportionately to land owners under the amendment.

• Considers the amendment does not adequately address the projected impacts of climate change.

• The submitter states that responsible social and environmental planning requires that a high priority be given to consultation between responsible authorities and Nillumbik residents to achieve

• The requirement for detailed flora, fauna and landscape assessments by specialists is only required if a permit is triggered. Otherwise Council will not require landowners to prepare such plans.

• Council’s recently adopted Climate Change Action Plan 2016-2020, outlines actions into Council and the community’s response to climate change.

• ESO4 is appropriate to protect the vegetation in the steep gully which does flow and therefore meets the definition of a waterway.

• Council relies on Melbourne Water to provide flood modelling guidelines and mapping.


Current ESO


the stated objectives. The content and tone of Schedule 4 is at odds with such an approach.

• In relation to ESO4, the submitter states that the steep gully identified on their property does not fit the criteria for either a recurring or perennial stream and recommends it is removed from the overlay.

• The submitter suggests a need to review Council’s flood modelling guidelines and associated planning requirements.

165 Tara & Andrew Watson

220 Alma Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4


increased fuel load and removal of dams.

• Is concerned the ESO4 shows a waterway running through the existing house.


• The ESO1 currently covers the entire property.

• The proposed waterway overlay does not seek to have dams removed.

• The ESO4 above the dam near the house is considered to be a mapping error.

Proposed Response Remove ESO4 above dam near the house. Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..

166 Kaye Coghlan

280 Kangaroo Ground St Andrews Road,

ESO1 Existing ESO1 deletion.

• Objects to the amendment. • Raises concerns with property

de-valuation and planning

• Amendment C101 proposes to delete the existing ESO1 from the north west corner and apply ESO1 to the eastern third of the


Current ESO


Kangaroo Ground

ESO1 ESO4

scheme controls. • The submitter states that the

area proposed for the ESO1 is grazing land.

• Raises concerns with the mapping of ESO4.

property. • Upon review it was noted that there is an

ESO4 mapping error where the waterway is not connected.


• See response to Submission 7 regarding planning controls.

Proposed Response • Extend ESO4 to connect to dam on property to

the north. • Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to


167 Hilary Cantwell & Nick Smailes

80 Bakehouse Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• The submitter supports most aspects of Council’s efforts to protect the environment; however the submitter believes that the ESO’s proposed are a little inaccurate in the context of their property.

• Considers the property is more consistent with buffer habitat.

• The submitter requests a review of the overlay.

• The submitter has requested a review of the drainage line marked as a waterway under ESO4.

• The current ESO1 covers the entire property. The proposed ESO4 application has been reviewed and is correct. Proposed Response Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..

168 David Adam 30 Warringah ESO1 Deletion • The submitter is opposed to • See response to submission 44.


Current ESO


Crescent, Eltham

the complete and/ or partial removal of the existing Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay in the Warringah Crescent area.

• Considers the wildlife corridor supports a number of vulnerable species including Buff-banded Rail, Common bronze wing and the Tawny Frogmouth, and the removal of the ESO will in effect reduce the habitat range for these native animals.

169 Rosemary Adam

32 Warringah Crescent, Eltham

ESO1 Deletion • The submitter is opposed to the complete and/ or partial removal of the existing Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay in the Warringah Crescent area.

• Considers the wildlife corridor supports a number of vulnerable species including Buff-banded Rail, Common bronze wing and the Tawny Frogmouth, and the removal of the ESO will in effect reduce the habitat range for these native animals.

• Raises concern that removal of ESO1 will potentially have

• See response to submission 44.


Current ESO


a devastating impact on the biodiversity and ecology of the area as property owners will no longer be required to address the ESO overlays when applying for planning permits to develop their properties.

170 Justin & Melissa Celentane

270 Buttermans Track, St Andrews

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• The submitter has no issue with ESO2 or ESO4, however they object to ESO1 over portions of the southern boundary and south eastern corner of their property.


171 Megan & Damien Fox

No address provided

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers that the lengthy list

of reports in Schedule 1 in order for land owners to do anything on their property should be made available by Council.


172 Alan Murfett

34 Warringah Crescent, Eltham

ESO1 Deletion • Opposes the proposed deletion of the ESO from some properties within Site 61.

• The submitter supports the comments of their neighbour David Adam regarding habitat links and the fauna at risk.

• The submitter disagrees with the Ecology Australia document which states the smaller properties to the east

• See response to Submission 44. • The removal of ESO1 over Meruka Park is a

mapping error and the Park will be included in ESO3.

Proposed Response Amend the mapping to place an ESO3 on Meruka Park.


Current ESO


support small fragmented patches of vegetation which are too small to be retained within the ESO and should be removed from the overlay.

• The submitter requests a review of the Meruka Park ESO deletion.

173 Barry Elderfield

80 Research-Warrandyte Road, Research

None ESO2 • Objects to the amendment and considers the amendment is contrary to bushfire provisions in the Planning Scheme


174 Hansen Partnership on behalf of a group landowners

3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 Yarra Braes Road, Eltham

None ESO1 ESO2

• Considers application of the overlays are inappropriate.

• Acknowledges that Sites 17 and 19 are identified for inclusion in an ESO by the Ecology Australia report, but questions why this has not been implemented.

• Questions why properties are proposed to be included in ESO2 when the Abzeco report does not recommend inclusion.

• Discusses how the properties have changed since both reviews were undertaken and that they provide unsuitable movement for wildlife corridors.

• Considers the properties have

• The amendment proposes to apply ESO2 to 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 and ESO1 to 17 and 19. The area falls within site 36 in the Abzeco Study.

• The application of an ESO to 17 and 19 was recommended as part of Site 9 in the Ecology Australia report. Amendment C101 implements the findings of this report along with the 2014 Abzeco report.

• The Study did not recommend the site be included, however upon further review by Council officers prior to exhibition of the amendment, it was considered that these areas should be included due to the proximity to potential Eltham Butterfly Habitat and to be consistent with adjoining properties and mapped as low-moderate. This recommendation was discussed with Abzeco that agreed.

• The ESO is the primary planning scheme


Current ESO


enough planning scheme protection to maintain existing environmental attributes and the ESO is unwarranted.

mechanism provided by the State Government to enable Council’s to protect biodiversity values.

Proposed Response Refer to Attachment 3 for site review.

175 Densie Linton

320 Smiths Gully Road, Smiths Gully

None ESO1 • Objects to the amendment and raises concerns with increased fire risk.


• The ESO on the property has been reviewed and there is a mapping error.

Proposed Response Amend mapping to remove ESO1 from property.

176 Darren Baldock

94 Bills Track, Kangaroo Ground

None ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers there are sufficient

regulations controlling their property and raises concerns with property de-valuation, restriction on farming activities, fire risk.



• The amendment does not include any provisions that restrict farming activities.

177 Debra Baldock

94 Bills Track, Kangaroo Ground

None ESO2 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers there are sufficient

regulations controlling their property and raises concerns with property de-valuation, restriction on farming activities, fire risk.

• See response to submission 176. • See response to Submission 22 regarding

bushfire provisions.

178 Gerald & Maria Acquaviva

97 Kurrak Road, Yarrambat

ESO1 ESO3

ESO1 ESO4

• No submission is attached. • A response cannot be provided.

179 Aidan Boyd


None ESO1 • Objects to the amendment. • Raises concerns with bushfire

risk and property de-valuation.




Current ESO



180 Jenny Seed

51 Bells Hill Road, Research

None ESO2

• The submitter states they appreciate the concepts behind the proposed provisions.

• Considers that the landholder adjacent/ nearby to such fragile ESO areas should be equally restricted regarding development, in the same manner as properties covered by the proposed ESO’s.

• The submitter suggests some kind of overall protection along the lines of a significant tree register is necessary alongside the revision of the ESO’s.

• The support for the amendment is noted. • A significant tree register is not proposed as

part of the amendment but may be considered in the future.

181 David Echeverry

100 Manuka Road, Panton Hill

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Objects to the amendment. • Considers the boundaries of

ESO1 are inaccurate and inconsistent with DEPI Native Vegetation Information Management and that the property would be more appropriately listed as ESO2.

• Raises concerns with land management, bushfire hazard reduction.

• Considers the boundaries for

• The DELWP mapping is a state-wide model which is inaccurate to be used at the municipal and local level.


• ESO4 mapping error noted with a waterway along the south eastern boundary not mapped.

Proposed Response Amend ESO4. Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by


Current ESO


ESO4 are inaccurate and excessive.

Abzeco..

182 David Allen AFSM Manager Community safety North west Region (on behalf of Assistant Chief Officer Gavin Thompson) CFA

• Generally supports the amendment and provides the following advice:

• Is concerned Council hasn’t adequately responded to the question in the explanatory report “ How does the amendment address any relevant bushfire risk?”.

• Considers the discussion in the explanatory report on the relevant SPPF objectives should include reference to Clause 13.05.

• Supports additional wording included in the exhibited schedules relating to bushfire risk as discussed with Council prior to exhibition of the amendment.

• Seeks the inclusion of an objective in the schedules relating to the use of fire/fire ecology to support biodiversity and ecological successional processes.

• Considers the exemptions for vegetation management for fire protection in Clause 52.17-7 should also be included in the schedules.

• Practice Note 46: Strategic Assessment Guidelines for planning scheme amendments set out the strategic considerations to consider for evaluating a proposed planning scheme amendment. The strategic considerations to be considered in relation to bushfire risk are listed at page 4 of the document and have been considered in preparing the amendment including consultation with CFA prior to exhibition. The bushfire provisions in the Nillumbik Planning Scheme continue to apply and override requirements in the schedules. The statement included within the explanatory report states this.

• A reference to Clause 13.05 under How does the amendment support or implement the State Planning Policy Framework will be included. The Fact Sheet accompanying the amendment also discussed the interaction between the proposed controls and bushfire provisions.

• The suggested objective for ecological processes is considered to be more of an action, rather than an objective, and is already included within Council’s Biodiversity Strategy which is a reference document in the planning scheme.

• It is not necessary to repeat the fire protection exemptions contained within Clause 52.17-7 within the schedules as these exemptions are


Current ESO


already included in the ESO header clause, or repeat SPPF policy objectives relating to bushfire risk. Clause 52.48 also provides for a range of exemptions from the need for a planning permit to be obtained for the purpose of clearing vegetation for bushfire protection measures. These will not be altered as a result of Amendment C101 and residents will still be able, and encouraged to manage fuel loads on their properties in accordance with the existing provisions of the scheme.

• Officers have sought a meeting with the CFA to further discuss their submission. To date the CFA has not responded to this request.

183 Craig & Rachael Mair

No address provided

• Objects to the amendment. • Raises concerns with fire risk,

property de-valuation.



184 Steve Grayden 45 Kings Road, Kangaroo Ground

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Raises concerns with increased fire risk, collecting fallen timber, keeping of horses, property de-valuation.

• Accepts ESO4, but wants ESO1 removed.

• See response to Submission 22 regarding bushfire provisions


• The amendment does not contain provisions relating to the keeping of horses.

• The exemptions at Clause 52.17-7 enables native vegetation removal by cutting only to obtain reasonable amounts of wood for personal use by the owner or occupier of the land. Personal use includes wood used for firewood, the construction of fences and buildings on the same land, and hobbies such as craft.

Proposed Response


Current ESO



185 Robert and Susan Hilton

12-32 De Fredericks Road, Yarrambat


• Request a review of the area included within ESO4.

• A review of ESO4 noted a mapping error with a waterway not mapped in the middle of the property.

Proposed Response • Amend ESO4.

186 Graeme Cornell

113-133 Browns Lane, Plenty

Small section of ESO1

ESO2 ESO4

• Is concerned with the application of ESO1 to a small portion of the land which contains a paddock.


187 Christine and Peter Grant


ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4 Deletion

• Object to the extent and definition of ESO1 and ESO2 and seeks a review.

• Considers some of the areas shown as ESO4 do not contain any waterways.

• The current ESO1 covers the entire property. The amendment proposes to delete the ESO1 from a large portion of cleared land and place an ESO1, ESO2 and ESO4 over the remaining vegetated area.

• The ESO4 mapping is correct. Proposed Response Site review undertaken by Abzeco. Refer to Attachment 2 for site review undertaken by Abzeco..

188 Warwick Leeson

100 Dawson Rd, Kangaroo Ground

ESO1 ESO1 ESO4

• Supports the proposed amendment but thinks greater emphasis should be placed on the waterway overlay.

• ESO4 should be varied as required by topography and vegetation.

• ESO4 should extend at least to the edge of the LSIO as stated in the MW guidelines

• The support for the amendment is noted. • A minor ESO4 mapping error on property is

noted as the waterway is not linked. • ESO4 should extend to the edge of the Land

Subject to Inundation Overlay. Proposed Response Amend ESO4 to extend to the edge of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.


Current ESO


on page 7. 189 Belinda Steve 80 Bourchiers


ESO1 ESO1 ESO2

• Object to the amendment. • Requests to be heard at a

Panel hearing.

• All submitters to the amendment will be provided with an opportunity to present their submission to an independent Panel

190 Andrew Kelly Yarra Riverkeeper Association

• The Association congratulates Council on the preparation of the amendment.

• Considers ESO4 should be extended to the edge of land subject to inundation and should go beyond the minimum distance referred to by Melbourne Water.

• The support for the amendment is noted. • See response to Submission 123 regarding

waterway setbacks. • See response to Submission 188 regarding

the LSIO.

191 Simon Jones and Elizabeth Goble

65 Gumtree Road, Research

ESO1 ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Object to the amendment. • Consider the amendment may

jeopardise their family’s safety in relation to bushfires.


• See response to submission 22 regarding application of ESO1.

192 Alan West 25 Gum Tree Road, Research

None ESO1 • Concerned the amendment will prevent bushfire clearance.


193 Elizabeth Arnaud


ESO1 ESO2 ESO4

• Supports the amendment and whatever is required to protect the native flora and fauna from being further destroyed.


194 Ian Penrose 42 Osborne Road, North Warrandyte

ESO1 ESO1 ESO3

• Supports the amendment. • Considers the ESO1

proposed controls are not strong enough in particular: o There are no permit

application requirements or decision guidelines relating to enhancing

• The intent behind the use of the wording ‘enhance’ is to allow for the identification of opportunities through a planning permit to ‘enhance or improve’ the environmental significance of an identified site, this could include weed control, better protection through land management actions and sometimes species specific action.


Current ESO


environmental values. o The word “responds” to

environmental values is not strong enough and should be replaced with “does not degrade” environmental values.

• Raises concern with the 10/50 rule and the impact it has had on the environment.

• Raises the following concerns with the ESO3 schedule: o The schedule does not

recognise other native species that are not threatened.

o The word “balance” is weak and implies environmental values will continue to be reduced/compromised by development.

o Considers the amendment focusses too much on what the amendment means for property owners, and urges Council to consider the community’s views.

• The 10/50 provisions have been put in place by the State Government and cannot be amended by a local Council.

• It is proposed that the wording in ESO1 and ESO2 be strengthened and enhancement be referred to in the decision guidelines.

• It is proposed to amend wording in ESO3 to also refer to habitat for indigenous flora and fauna species.

• ESO3 applies to residential zoned areas, where the purpose of the zone is to support residential development. The use of the word ‘balance’ recgonises that the ESO3 areas urban purpose needs to be considered along with the township’s environmental values and significant habitat when making decisions on planning applications.

• Any person may make a submission to an amendment, regardless of whether they are directly affected by the amendment. Several community groups have made submissions to the amendment.

Proposed Response • Amend objective 5 in ESO1 and ESO2 to

read: “To ensure that development has regard to the area’s environmental values and landscape characteristics, including topography and waterways and has regard to bushfire risk.”

• Amend decision guideline 5 under the heading General to include the word enhancement.

summary of submissions · 2016. 4. 8. · eso1 eso3 • eso4 . objects to the amendment. •...

Documents