GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C137 STRATHFIELDSAYE · GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME...

GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C137 STRATHFIELDSAYE STRUCTURE PLAN

PANEL REPORT

NOVEMBER 2010

GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C137 STRATHFIELDSAYE STRUCTURE PLAN

PANEL REPORT

Mark Marsden, Chair

Brett Davis, Member

NOVEMBER 2010

GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C137 PANEL REPORT: NOVEMBER 2010

1

Contents

1. SUMMARY................................................................................................................ 3

2. BACKGROUND....................................................................................................... 6 2.1 The nature of the area ............................................................................................... 6 2.2 Background to the proposal..................................................................................... 7 2.3 The Amendment...................................................................................................... 10 2.4 The Panel .................................................................................................................. 12

3. PLANNING POLICIES, CONTROLS AND GUIDELINES .......................... 15 3.1 Policy framework .................................................................................................... 15

3.1.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) .................................................... 15 3.1.2 Local Planning Policy Framework................................................................ 17

3.2 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................. 18 3.2.1 Zones ............................................................................................................. 18 3.2.2 Overlays ........................................................................................................ 18

3.3 Ministerial Directions ............................................................................................. 19 3.4 Compliance with Practice Notes ........................................................................... 21 3.5 Authorisation of the Amendment......................................................................... 22

4. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES .......................................................................... 23 4.1 Summary of issues raised in submission ............................................................. 23 4.2 Issues dealt with in this Report ............................................................................. 23

5. STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION........................................................................... 24 5.1 What is the issue? .................................................................................................... 24 5.2 Policy context of the issue ...................................................................................... 24 5.3 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 24 5.4 Discussion................................................................................................................. 25 5.5 Conclusions and recommendations...................................................................... 26

6. SUBMISSIONS ABOUT THE TOWN CENTRE ............................................. 27 6.1 What is the issue? .................................................................................................... 27 6.2 Policy context of the issue ...................................................................................... 27 6.3 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 27 6.4 Discussion................................................................................................................. 30 6.5 Conclusion and Recommendations ...................................................................... 32

7. SUBMISSIONS ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS ................................. 33 7.1 What is the issue? .................................................................................................... 33 7.2 Policy context of the issue ...................................................................................... 33 7.3 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 33

7.3.1 Brudian Pty Ltd (Corner of Guy Hills Road and Bakers Lane) .................... 33 7.3.2 BurnsBridge Sweett on behalf of Pioneer Park

(212 Guy Hills Road 166 and 184 Ryalls Lane).......................................... 34 7.3.3 Brett Williams (18 McLeans Road) .............................................................. 35 7.3.4 Tom McLean (29 Emu Creek Road)............................................................. 36 7.3.5 Tomkinson Group on behalf of Geoff McLeod (Filkel Pty Ltd)

(87 Taylors Lane)......................................................................................... 36 7.3.6 Tomkinson Group (on behalf of 12 landowners

north of Strathfieldsaye Road) ..................................................................... 38 7.3.7 Peter and Robyn Mannes (1 McLeans Road)................................................ 39 7.3.8 Ella Pty Ltd (north west corner of Taylors Lane and Bakers Lane).............. 40


2

7.3.9 Collin Brady (277 Ryalls Lane) .................................................................... 41 7.3.10 John Griffin (409 Tannery Lane) .................................................................. 42

7.4 Discussion................................................................................................................. 42 7.4.1 Brudian Pty Ltd ............................................................................................. 42 7.4.2 BurnsBridge Sweett on behalf of Pioneer Park

(212 Guy Hills Road 166 and 184 Ryalls Lane).......................................... 43 7.4.3 Brett Williams (18 McLeans Road) .............................................................. 47 7.4.4 Tom McLean (29 Emu Creek Road)............................................................. 47 7.4.5 Tomkinson Group on behalf of Geoff McLeod (Filkel Pty Ltd)

(87 Taylors Lane)......................................................................................... 47 7.4.6 Tomkinson Group (on behalf of 12 landowners

north of Strathfieldsaye Road) ..................................................................... 49 7.4.7 Peter and Robyn Mannes (1 McLeans Road)................................................ 52 7.4.8 Ella Pty Ltd (north west corner of Taylors Lane and Bakers Lane).............. 52 7.4.9 Collin Brady (277 Ryalls Lane) .................................................................... 54 7.4.10 John Griffin (409 Tannery Lane) .................................................................. 54

7.5 Recommendations................................................................................................... 54

8. SUBMISSIONS ABOUT BIODIVERSITY AND NATIVE VEGETATION........................................................................................................ 56

8.1 What is the issue? .................................................................................................... 56 8.2 Policy context of the issue ...................................................................................... 56 8.3 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 58 8.4 Discussion................................................................................................................. 59 8.5 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 61

9. OTHER GENERAL SUBMISSIONS.................................................................. 62 9.1 Colin C Campbell .................................................................................................... 62 9.2 Murray Poustie ........................................................................................................ 63 9.3 Bushlinks and BDEC............................................................................................... 64 9.4 Colin Jack.................................................................................................................. 64 9.5 Strathfieldsaye & Districts Community Enterprise (S&DCE)........................... 65 9.6 Ella Pty Ltd............................................................................................................... 66

10. FORM AND CONTENT OF THE PROPOSED PLANNING POLICIES AND CONTROLS.................................................................................................. 68

10.1 What is the issue? .................................................................................................... 68 10.2 Policy context of the issue ...................................................................................... 68 10.3 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 68 10.4 Discussion................................................................................................................. 69

10.4.1 Preferred statutory framework for implementing the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan ................................................................. 69

10.4.2 A way forward............................................................................................... 71 10.5 Recommendations................................................................................................... 71

11. RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................... 72

Appendices

APPENDIX A – WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ............................................................. 73

APPENDIX B – DOCUMENTS TABLED AT HEARING....................................... 74


3

1. Summary

Amendment C137 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme proposes to implement the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan (STP) into the planning scheme.

The Amendment proposes to, amongst other matters: update the Residential Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.05‐4

to amend the alignment of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) consistent with the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan (STP);

update the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) at Clause 21.10 to include the STP as a reference document;

rezone a number of properties from the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) and Rural Living Zone (RLZ) to the Residential 1 Zone (R1Z);

rezone land at 2 Club Court from the Business 1 Zone (B1Z) to the R1Z;

apply a new Schedule 26 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO) to the entire Strathfieldsaye Township;

apply Schedule 6 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO) (Urban‐Forest Interface) to land along the Osborne Road boundary;

apply the Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) for the future widening of Strathfieldsaye Road;

amend the schedule to the LDRZ to increase the minimum lot size to specified properties from 0.4 hectares to 2 hectares; and

delete the Incorporated Plan Overlay (IPO) 1 and DPOs 1, 2 and 3 as well as make a number of consequential changes to the ordinance.

The Amendment was exhibited between 29 March 2010 and 31 May 2010. In response to the exhibition of the Amendment, nineteen submissions were received. In broad terms, submissions were received from:

land‐owners seeking to have their land included in the Amendment for rezoning;

land‐owners seeking changes to the proposed planning controls, particularly the schedule to the DPO;

local community groups that addressed various issues, including concerns with impact on biodiversity and loss of native vegetation; and


4

the land‐owners of 2 Club Court, who opposed the rezoning of their land from B1Z to R1Z.

The public hearing was held on 13, 14 and 15 October 2010 in Bendigo.

Having regard to the State and local planning policy frameworks, relevant guidelines and practice notes, the nature of submissions and its own inspections of the area, we reach the following conclusions:

the Amendment has strong strategic support because it will provide land for new housing to meet the needs of an increasing population;

to implement the STP into the planning scheme, Council should include the objectives, strategies and plans of the STP into a relevant section of the planning scheme;

Council should also restructure the DPO schedule with general objectives applying to the township and more specific design objectives applying to the different precincts;

the specific requirements in the STP that are used to exercise discretion on subdivision and development proposals should, as appropriate, be included in the schedule;

it would be inappropriate to rezone the land at 2 Club Court from B1Z to R1Z;

the two properties in Taylors Lane that are included within the UGB but have not been included for rezoning should be rezoned to R1Z as part of this Amendment on the basis of the information provided to us and that the rezoning of these two sites will not transform the Amendment; and

the Amendment will ensure the more highly valued biodiversity areas are protected or that appropriate offsets can be made.

We consider the Amendment should be supported provided the recommended framework to implement the STP is introduced into the planning scheme. Specifically, we recommend that:

The key objectives, strategies and plans are included into a relevant section of the Local Planning Policy Framework of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme;

The DPO schedule is restructured with general design objectives applying to Strathfieldsaye and more specific design objectives applying to the different precincts;

The precincts to be identified in the schedule include: New Development Area West;


5

New Development Area East (North of Strathfieldsaye Road); New Development Area East (South of Strathfieldsaye Road); and Strathfieldsaye Town Centre.

Any specific design requirements in the Township Plan regarding subdivision and development design used to exercise discretion be included, as appropriate, in the schedule under the relevant precinct;

The DPO be amended so that it does not apply to the established urban areas in Strathfieldsaye;

The exemptions from the need to prepare a Development Plan be applied as exhibited provided DPO26 is excluded from established urban areas; and

The provisions applying to native vegetation in DPO21 (Jackass Flat) be considered for DPO26, as appropriate.

In addition, we recommend that in relation to rezonings:

• the land at 2 Club Court be retained in the B1Z (except for the part of the site zoned PUZ be rezoned to B1Z);

• the land at 87 Taylors Lane be rezoned to R1Z; and

• the land at the north west corner of Taylors Lane and Bakers Lane (excluding the vegetated area on the south east corner) be rezoned to R1Z.

We have suggested that we could review the changes to the planning scheme we have recommended in this Report. However, this is a matter for Council.


6

2. Background

2.1 The nature of the area

Strathfieldsaye is located in the valley of Axe, Emu and Sheepwash Creeks. The landscape consists of gently undulating hills and flats around the creeks. The elevated land to the north and west contains vegetated land that forms part of the Greater Bendigo National Park.

Significant areas in Strathfieldsaye have been cleared for grazing or for urban development, although some significant areas of remnant vegetation exist along the creeks and roadsides.

In addition, vegetation in the existing urban areas ranges from remnant patches, scattered or isolated trees to non‐indigenous vegetation.

Strathfieldsaye falls within the Axe Creek catchment and Sheepwash Creek and Emu Creek are the two main waterways that flow through the area in a north‐south direction. There are a number of other minor waterways and drainage lines that flow into these two creeks.

A number of areas are likely to be affected by soil salinity due to the location of the groundwater close to the surface. These areas are generally to the south of the area.

Over the past 30 years Strathfieldsaye has developed as a residential satellite of Bendigo and is located about 11 kilometres to the south west of the Bendigo central business area. Its population has grown from about 550 people in 1981 to 2,992 people in 2006.

Land use in the existing urban area is predominantly residential. Other uses including retail, education and community uses are generally located in the town centre. Active recreation facilities are located at the western side of the town centre and a recently constructed recreation reserve is located on the south west side of Strathfieldsaye Road adjoining Sheepwash Creek.

Most of the conventional residential areas are located on the south west side of Strathfieldsaye Road and contain allotments that are generally between 500 and 800 square metres.

Most of the rural residential areas are on the north side of Strathfieldsaye Road and contain allotments generally between 4,000 square metres and 2 hectares. Few of these lots are connected to reticulated sewerage.


7

There are three main areas that have been identified for future residential growth. The first area is on the south side of Strathfieldsaye Road, to the south west of the existing residential area generally south of Guy Hills Road and north of Bakers Lane. The second area is on the south side of Strathfieldsaye Road, between Emu Creek and Emu Creek Road, generally west of the existing residential area. The third area is on the north side of Strathfieldsaye Road east of Somerset Park Road.

Areas to the north, west and south of Strathfieldsaye are used for rural living and agricultural purposes. To the east is the Greater Bendigo National Park.

Strathfieldsaye Road runs east west through the town providing access to Bendigo to the west and Lake Eppalock to the east. A number of local connector roads exist throughout the township which provides access to the main road and the town centre.

Reticulated services are available in the existing urban areas in Strathfieldsaye, including sewerage, water, electricity, natural gas and telecommunications.

2.2 Background to the proposal

The Amendment has been prepared following the completion of the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan (STP). This Plan was prepared by Centrum Town Planning in association with GHD, Klein Landscape Architecture, Communityvibe, Terraculture and G & B Cheers Flora & Fauna Consultants for the Council. The Township Plan was prepared in conjunction with a Community Plan.

The objectives for the Township Plan as outlined in the brief included:

· Planning for the future development of the Strathfieldsaye Township in a manner that integrates with the surrounding land;

· Assessing social and community infrastructure and identifying sites that may be appropriate to meet the future needs of the community;

· Identifying a planning framework for the Strathfieldsaye NDA, including a regime to manage the staging of the development of residential areas, the residential and forest interface, the residential and rural interface;

· Providing for anticipated land use requirements by ensuring that long‐term growth opportunities are not prejudiced by inappropriate or incompatible development;

· Ensuring that land use and development is sustainable, relative to the physical capability of the land and environmental factors, and in


8

particular, ensuring that the natural features and characteristics of the area are enhanced and properly managed; and

· Identifying urban design treatments for the Strathfieldsaye Town Centre.

Consultation with local residents and statutory authorities occurred during the preparation of the Township Plan. Following the preparation of the Township Plan, it was considered by Council and placed on (informal) exhibition from 4 March 2009 to 14 April 2009. Eighteen submissions were received.

Other key strategic projects that are relevant to the Township Plan include:

Bendigo Residential Development Strategy (2004)

The Residential Development Strategy identified the challenges for Bendigo as issues relating to adequate land supply, affordability, provision of community housing, urban forest interfaces, protection of native vegetation, water catchments, limited public transport, sustainable development, the need for higher density living, retention of neighbourhood character, heritage conservation and urban design.

There are five strategic components of the Residential Strategy, each with their own implementation requirements. The five components are: Urban Containment, Core Development, Community Focussed Development, New Development Areas, and Satellite Development.

Strathfieldsaye was one of the four New Development Areas identified in the Residential Strategy.

Amendment C60 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme made the necessary strategic and policy changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policies. The Residential Development Strategy is included as a Reference Document at Clause 21.10.

Bendigo Commercial Land Strategy (2005)

The Commercial Land Strategy provides a framework to guide commercial development until 2021.

A key part of this framework is to reinforce the existing commercial hierarchy that consists of the Bendigo CBD (including the Bendigo Marketplace), Regional Centres, Village Centres and Neighbourhood Centres.

The Commercial Land Strategy has identified Strathfieldsaye as a Village Centre within the commercial hierarchy.


9

A priority action within the Commercial Land Strategy for Strathfieldsaye as a Village Centre was the formulation of a structure plan to guide the scale and location of development, identify community and commercial needs and integration with surrounding activities.

Planning Guidelines for Urban Salinity in the City of Greater Bendigo

In July 2007, the Planning Guidelines for Urban Salinity in the City of Greater Bendigo was completed. This project was done in partnership with the City, the North Central Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA), Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and Department of Primary Industries (DPI).

The purpose of the report was to provide guidance to planners on how to recognise the presence of salinity and what the appropriate planning response is.

For the purpose of this Hearing the key section of the document is Section 2.4 which discusses when development is appropriate given the depth to the watertable. In summary it states:

Table 1: Draft guidelines for considering developments in areas of shallow saline groundwater.

Depth to watertable (metres) Appropriate Planning Response 0 to 1.5 Refuse applications proposing the

construction of dwellings or industrial buildings/facilities.

1.5 to 2.5 Allow development only where construction complies with appropriate geo-technical standards.

2.5 and greater Normal planning approval.

In essence, the Guidelines state that where the water table is particularly shallow (less than 1.5 metres), development should not occur. This does not preclude the use of these areas for open space, etc.

Other relevant strategic work

Other strategic work that has been undertaken by the City but has limited relevance to Strathfieldsaye includes the Bendigo Open Space Strategy (2005), the Cycling and Walking Strategy (2006) and the Natural Environment Strategy (2007).


10

2.3 The Amendment

Amendment C137 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, as exhibited, proposes:

Local Planning Policy Framework

The Amendment proposes the following changes to the local policy framework:

update the Residential Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.05‐4 to amend the alignment of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) consistent with the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan 2009;

delete reference to the timing of the release of land in Strathfieldsaye in 21.06‐1;

delete the Strathfieldsaye Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.06‐4;

delete the reference to the Strathfieldsaye Incorporated Plan Overlay at Clause 21.06‐4;

include the need for an Urban Design Framework (UDF) for the Strathfieldsaye Town Centre as Further Strategic Work at Clause 21.06‐4 and Clause 21.07‐4; and

update the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) Clause 21.10 to include the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan 2009 as a Reference Document.

Zones

The Amendment proposes the following rezonings: rezone 8 hectares of the land known as part 212 Guys Hill Road, 184

and 277 Ryalls Lane from Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) to Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) (the remaining area abutting the National Park is to retain the existing LDRZ);

rezone 30 hectares of land know as 248, 284, 288, 310 and 320 Guys Hill Road, 417, 431, 433, 435, 441 and 445 Tannery Lane, Lot 2 LP 140865 (corner of Guys Hill Road and Bakers Lane) and Lot 13 LP 110745 (corner Bakers Lane and Tannery Lane) from LDRZ to R1Z;

rezone 33 hectares of land known as 4, 6, 16, 18, 20, 32, 38, 46, 52, 60, 62, 64, 68, 70, 74 and 100 Emu Creek Road from Rural Living Zone (RLZ) to R1Z;

rezone 82 hectares of land generally bounded by Strathfieldsaye Road, Somerset Park Road and to the south of Emu and Sheepwash Creeks from RLZ to R1Z; and

rezone 2 hectares of land known as 2 Club Court from Business 1 Zone (B1Z) to R1Z.


11

Overlays

The Amendment proposes the following changes to the overlays: delete Schedule 1 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay (IPO); delete Development Plan Overlay (DPO) 1 from the land generally

bounded by Emu Creek, Somerset Park Road and Strathfieldsaye Road and Bakers Lane, Emu Creek Road, Strathfieldsaye Road and Emu Creek;

delete DPO 3 from the existing Strathfieldsaye Township; delete DPO 4 from the land generally bounded by Guys Hill Road,

Bakers Lane and Tannery Lane and from land off Osborne Lane in the vicinity of the Greater Bendigo National Park;

apply a new Schedule 26 to the DPO to the entire study area, including the existing Strathfieldsaye Township;

apply Schedule 6 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO) (Urban‐Forest Interface) to the land known 212 Guys Hill Road and 184 Ryalls Land for a depth of 70 metres from the Osborne Lane boundary; and

apply the Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) for the future widening of Strathfieldsaye Road to the east of Emu Creek for a width of 10 metres on both sides of the existing road reserve.

(Note that DPO 1 and 4 are proposed to be deleted as part of Amendment C109 that is currently waiting approval).

Ordinance

The Amendment proposes the following changes to the Ordinance. amend Schedule to Clause 32.03 to specify a minimum subdivision

area of 2 hectares for the land known as 212 Guys Hill Road, 184 and 277 Ryalls Lane, 359, 361, 385 and 409 Tannery Lane;

insert a new Schedule 26 to Clause 43.04 to apply the DPO to the study area and the existing Township;

delete Schedule 1 (Strathfieldsaye Township Structure Plan 2001) from Clause 43.03;

amend the Schedule to Clause 45.01 for acquisition of road reservation on the Strathfieldsaye Road;

amend the Schedule to Clause 61.03 to remove reference to Maps 24IPO, 25IPO, 28IPO and 33IPO and include 24DPO, 25DPO, 28DPO, 33DPO and 25PAO;

delete reference to the Strathfieldsaye Township Structure Plan from the Schedule to Clause 81.01;


12

amend the Bendigo Residential Growth Plan incorporated document and update the Schedule to 81.01; and

update the List of Amendments.

The Planning Authority is the Greater Bendigo City Council.

2.4 The Panel

This Panel was appointed under delegation on the 9 August 2010 pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions in respect of the Amendment.

The Panel consisted of: Chair: Mark Marsden; and Member: Brett Davis.

Procedural issues

DSE submission

DSE raised issues concerning the Salinity Management Overlay (SMO) at 87 Taylors Lane Strathfieldsaye in their submission to the Panel. A submission had been made by the Tomkinson Group on behalf of the owners of this property. The SMO also affected the property on the east side of Taylors Lane that had been subject to a submission (Ella Pty Ltd). As an expert report on salinity was tabled on behalf of Ella Pty Ltd at the Hearing, the Panel provided 7 days for DSE to make any comments on this report and a further 7 days for Ella to respond. Any comments made by DSE were due 21 October 2010 and any response by Ella was due 27 October 2010. DSE provided its comments on 21 October 2010 and Ella provided its comments on 5 November 2010.

Potential bushfire threat

We asked Council whether the CFA had been notified of the Amendment. Council advised a letter had been sent to the CFA when the Amendment was placed on exhibition. However, the CFA did not lodge a submission. Given that the CFA had made comprehensive submissions to other Amendments to township structure plans and the potential for bushfire risk to Strathfieldsaye, we requested Council to confirm with the CFA whether it wished to make a submission to the Amendment. The CFA subsequently advised Council that it would not be making a submission on the Amendment but was preparing a revised Wildfire Management Overlay (WMO) for the area.


13

We consider this to be an unfortunate outcome. It is likely that the WMO will have implications on the Strathfieldsaye structure plan and it would have been preferable for this matter to be considered as the same time as we are considering other matters concerning the future development of the township.

Hearings and inspections

A Directions Hearing was held on 7 September 2010 at the Reception Room City of Greater Bendigo municipal offices. The Panel Hearings were held on Wednesday 13 October 2010 to Friday 15 October 2010 at City of Greater Bendigo Council Chamber.

We inspected the site and surrounding areas, making unaccompanied visits to Strathfieldsaye township and surrounds on 7 September 2010 and 15 October 2010.

Exhibition

The Amendment was exhibited between 29 March 2010 and 31 May 2010. Notices were placed in The Advertiser, and letters were sent to 208 individual land‐owners and statutory authorities.

Submissions

Nineteen submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the Amendment. A list of all written submissions to the Amendment is included in Appendix A.

We heard submissions from the parties at the hearing listed in Table 2 below.

Table 2 List of parties who appeared at the Hearing

Submitter Represented By

Greater Bendigo City Council Mr Andrew Cockerall, Coordinator Strategic Planning, Greater Bendigo City Council

Department of Sustainability and Environment

Ms Amanda Fleming, Manager Statutory Planning Services with Ms Jenny Thomson, Team Leader, Native Vegetation

Mr Bill and Mrs Margaret Cameron Mr Nick Crawford, solicitor of TP Legal, who called: • Mr Chris Abery, economist, of Deep End

Services • Mr Lloyd Elliot, town planner, of Urbis

Bendigo and District Environment Council Inc.

Mr Stuart Fraser and Ms Wendy Radford


14

Submitter Represented By

Mr Ern Holland Mr Gerard Gilfedder of BurnsBridge Sweett

Mr Collin Brady

Mr John Griffin

Brudian Pty Ltd Mrs Dulcie Bennett

Mr Tom McLean

Mr Colin Campbell

Ella Pty Ltd Mr Paul Connor of counsel with Mr Tony Knox of Ella Pty Ltd. Mr Connor called: • Mr Shane Hampton, geotechnical

engineer, of GTS Pty Ltd • Mr Brett Bahen, engineer, of CPG

Australia

Tomkinson Group on behalf of various land owners

Mr Chris de Silva, Director Mesh Liveable Urban Communities, who called: • Mr Gary Cheers, flora and fauna

consultant, of G & B Flora and Fauna Consultants

Tomkinson Group on behalf of Mr Geoff McLeod

Mr David Robb, contractor town planner to Tomkinson Group, who called: • Mr Matt Elliot, engineer, of Tomkinson

Group • Mr Gary Cheers, flora and fauna

consultant, of G & B Flora and Fauna Consultants

We have considered all written and oral submissions and all material presented to us in connection with this matter.


15

3. Planning policies, controls and guidelines

This section of the Report identifies the relevant State and local policies, planning controls and the relevant Ministerial directions, policies and guidelines.

3.1 Policy framework

3.1.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

The relevant provisions of the SPPF to the Amendment include:

Clause 10.04, which states:

Planning authorities and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.

Clause 11.01‐1 ‐ Activity Centre Planning

Objective

To encourage the concentration of major retail, residential, commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres which provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the community.

Clause 11.02 – Urban growth

Objective

To ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, retail, industrial, recreational, institutional and other community uses.

Clause 11.02‐2 – Planning for growth areas

Objective

To locate urban growth close to transport corridors and services and provide efficient and effective infrastructure to create benefits for sustainability while protecting primary production, major sources of raw materials and valued environmental areas.


16

Clause 11.02‐3 – Structure planning

Objective

To facilitate the orderly development of urban areas.

Clause 11.02‐4 – Sequencing of development

Objective

To manage the sequence of development in growth areas so that services are available from early in the life of new communities.

Clause 11.03‐1 Open space planning

Objective

To assist creation of a diverse and integrated network of public open space commensurate with the needs of the community.

Clause 11.05 – Metropolitan development (Regional settlement networks)

Objective

To promote the sustainable growth and development of regional Victoria through a network of settlements identified in the Regional Victoria Settlement Framework plan.

Clause 12.01‐1 – Protection of habitat

Objective

To assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and provision of habitats for native plants and animals and control of pest plants and animals.

Clause 12.01‐2 – Native vegetation management

Objective

To achieve a net gain in the extent and quality of native vegetation.

Clause 13.03‐3 – Salinity

Objective

To minimise the impact of salinity and rising watertables on land uses, buildings and infrastructure in rural and urban areas and areas of environmental significance and reduce salt loads in rivers.


17

Clause 15.01‐1 – Urban design

Objective

To create urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity.

Clause 16.01‐1 – Integrated housing

Objective

To promote a housing market that meets community needs.

Clause 16.02‐1 – Rural residential development

Objective

To identify land suitable for rural living and rural residential development.

Clause 17.01‐1 – Business

Objective

To encourage development which meet the communities’ needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services and provides net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.

Clause 18.02‐1 – Personable sustainable transport

Objective

To promote the use of sustainable personal transport.

Clause 19.03‐2 – Water supply, sewerage and drainage

Objective

To plan for the provision of water supply, sewerage and drainage services that efficiently and effectively meet State and community needs and protect the environment.

3.1.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)

Relevant land use and development principles underpinning the City’s strategic directions include:


18

Clause 21.05 ‐ Settlement

Strathfieldsaye is identified as a ʹNew Development Areaʹ and is within or directly adjoins the UGB in Clause 21.05. Part of the area affected by the Township Plan adjoins the Greater Bendigo National Park.

Clause 21.06 ‐ Housing

Strathfieldsaye is identified as a ʹNew Development Areaʹ within Clause 21.06. Clause 21.06‐4 identifies the need to complete a structure plan prior to any rezoning of a New Development Area.

Clause 21.08 ‐ Environment

This Clause reiterates Councilʹs commitment to the three step approach (avoid, minimise, offset) of the Native Vegetation Framework in planning for residential development.

Clause 21.09 – Infrastructure

The Local Structure Plan (LSP) makes allowance for future public transport connections into the locality, as well as an extensive network of pedestrian/cyclist paths and the roll out of infrastructure.

3.2 Planning scheme provisions

3.2.1 Zones

The Amendment proposes to rezone a number of sites from LDRZ and LRZ to the R1Z. It is also proposed to rezone one site from the B1Z to the R1Z. Relevant purposes of the R1Z are:

To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households.

To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character.

In appropriate locations, to allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non‐residential uses to serve local community needs.

3.2.2 Overlays

The Amendment proposes to delete a number of existing overlays and apply the DPO (DPO26) over the whole structure plan area, the DDO (DDO6 – Urban‐Forest Interface) for a depth of 70m from the Osborne Lane boundary and apply the PAO for the future widening of Strathfieldsaye Road to the


19

east of Emu Creek for a width of 10m on both sides of the existing road reserve.

Relevant purposes of the DPO are:

To identify areas which require the form and conditions of future use and development to be shown on a development plan before a permit can be granted to use or develop the land.

To exempt an application from notice and review if it is generally in accordance with a development plan.

The relevant purpose of the DDO is:

To identify areas which are affected by specific requirements relating to the design and built form of new development.

The relevant purposes of the PAO are:

To identify land which is proposed to be acquired by an authority.

To reserve land for a public purpose and to ensure that changes to the use or development of the land do not prejudice the purpose for which the land is to be acquired.

3.3 Ministerial Directions

The Minister for Planning has made a direction under section 12(2)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 that contains the following requirement:

Direction No 9 Metropolitan Strategy

In preparing a planning scheme amendment a planning authority must:

· Have regard to the Metropolitan Strategy.

· Include in the explanatory report discussion of how the Amendment addresses the following matters:

- What aspects, if any, of the Metropolitan Strategy are relevant?

- How does the Metropolitan Strategy affect the Amendment? - Is the amendment consistent with any directions and policies in the Metropolitan Strategy?

- Does the Amendment support, give effect to or assist the implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy or can it be reasonably modified to do so?

- Will the Amendment compromise the implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy?

We are satisfied that Council has met the requirements of this Direction.


20

Direction No 11 Strategic Assessment of Amendments

The purpose of the Strategic Assessment Guidelines is to provide a consistent framework for the evaluation of a proposed planning scheme amendment and the outcomes it produces.

The Guidelines require us to consider: Is an amendment necessary? Does the Amendment comply with the requirements of the

Planning & Environment Act? Does the Amendment support or implement the SPPF? How does the Amendment support or implement the LPPF, and

specifically the MSS? Does the Amendment make proper use of the VPP? How does the Amendment address the views of relevant agencies? Have the resource and administrative implications of the

Amendment for the responsible authority been properly considered?

We are satisfied that Council has met the requirements of this Direction.

Content and form of Amendment

The Minister has made a direction under Section 7(5) in relation to the form and content of planning schemes that specifies:

the format of the planning scheme; the need to write in plain English; the inclusion of schedules; the use of maps; the listing of certain uses in Section 1 of zones; the use a of the Special use Zone for extractive industry; that a planning scheme may only include land in a Public Use Zone,

a Public Park and Recreation Zone or a Public Conservation and Resource Zone if the land is Crown land, or is owned by, vested in or controlled by a Minister, government department, public authority or municipal council;

requirements relating to the City Link Project Overlay; that if a planning scheme includes land in an Airport Environs

Overlay, the planning scheme must include a specified schedule; and

that road which is declared as a freeway or an arterial road under the Road Management Act 2004 must be shown as a Road Zone ‐ Category 1 on the planning scheme maps.


21

In addition Using Victoria’s Planning System, Chapter 9: Plain English provides advice on form and content as do the following practice notes:

Writing schedules; Using maps in planning schemes; Applying the Public Land Zones; Writing a local planning policy; Format of Municipal Strategic Statements; and Incorporated and reference documents.

Where relevant, we comment on issues we have identified concerning form and content issues.

3.4 Compliance with Practice Notes

The following Practice Notes are relevant to the consideration of this Amendment:

Recent and revised Practice Notes Practice note 58: Structure planning for activity centres, April 2010

VPP Practice Notes Managing native vegetation in the planning system, September 2008 Preparing a native vegetation precinct plan, September 2008 Native vegetation offsets, September 2008 Applying the Incorporated Plan and Development Plan Overlays,

January 2003 Biodiversity, March 2002 Applying the flood provisions in planning schemes ‐ a guide for

councils, August 2000 Applying for a planning permit under the flood provisions ‐ a guide for

councils, referral authorities and applicants, August 2000

General Practice Notes Rural Residential Development Guidelines, October 2006 Strategic Assessment Guidelines for planning scheme amendments,

April 2008 Urban Design Frameworks, September 2002 Understanding Neighbourhood Character, December 2001

Where relevant, we comment on issues we have identified concerning compliance with practice notes.


22

3.5 Authorisation of the Amendment

Council wrote to the Minister for Planning requesting authorisation on 28 September 2009. The Minister granted authorisation to prepare this Amendment on 16 November 2009 (Authorisation Number A01480).


23

4. Identification of issues

4.1 Summary of issues raised in submission

Nineteen submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the Amendment. In broad terms, submissions were received from land‐owners:

seeking to have their land included in the Amendment for rezoning;

seeking changes to the proposed planning controls, particularly the schedule to the DPO; and

of 2 Club Court, who opposed the rezoning of their land from B1Z to R1Z.

In addition, submissions were received from two local community groups that raised issues largely concerned with the impact on biodiversity and loss of native vegetation.

4.2 Issues dealt with in this Report

We have considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to us during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, we have been assisted by the information provided to us as well as our own observations from inspections of the area and specific sites.

This Report deals with the issues under the following headings: Strategic justification; Submissions about the town centre; Submissions about the residential areas; Submissions about biodiversity and native vegetation; Other general submissions; and Form and content of the proposed planning policies and controls.


24

5. Strategic justification

5.1 What is the issue?

Greater Bendigo, like other regional cities in regional Victoria, is experiencing a significant rate of population growth. It is important that appropriate areas in the regions are identified and developed to accommodate the increased population.

5.2 Policy context of the issue

Relevant State and local policies are identified in sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of the Report. In relation to Clause 11.05 Regional development, the following strategies relevant to the Amendment are:

Direct urban growth into the major regional cities of Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and the Moe, Morwell and Traralgon cluster.

Guide the structure, functioning and character of each settlement taking into account municipal and regional contexts and frameworks.

Deliver networks of high‐quality settlements by:

· Building on strengths and capabilities of each region across Victoria to respond sustainably to population growth and changing environments.

· Balancing strategic objectives to achieve improved land-use and development outcomes at a regional, catchment and local level.

· Providing for appropriately located supplies of residential, commercial, and industrial land across a region, sufficient to meet community needs.

Clause 21.04 of Council’s MSS Strategic framework identifies Strathfieldsaye as a township to be promoted as a growth centre.

5.3 Evidence and submissions

Council submitted that according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the estimated population of Greater Bendigo at 30 June 2009 was 102,373. This represents an increase of 2.07% or 2,072 people from the previous year.


25

In relation to population forecasts, Council stated that forecasts by id consulting indicate a likely increase of 34,716 people over the 2006 to 2026 period. This would increase the population to a total of 131,259.

It is also forecast that the increased population to 2026 will require an additional 14,487 new dwellings, increasing the total number of dwellings to 52,323.

Council advised that DPCD have also prepared population forecasts for all municipalities across Victoria. Known as Victoria in Future (VIF), this project has forecast a population of 135,435 people in Bendigo by 2026, which is higher than the id consulting forecast. The VIF forecasts have yet to be formally released.

The Bendigo & District Environment Council Inc. (BDEC) challenged the projected population forecasts. It stated that the assumptions underpinning the population forecasts were not publicly available and that the forecasts were accepted as true only by those who have something to gain. It was also stated that the forecasts did not build in uncertainties or variables. It considered that:

This is the virtual future controlling the present.

5.4 Discussion

It is clear that Victoria as a whole and regional cities such as Greater Bendigo are experiencing population growth at a higher rate than the long‐term trend.

While the rate of population growth may vary because of changing immigration levels, changes to the birth rate or general economic conditions, we note that the forecasts by both id consulting and VIF only differ in the rate of future population growth. Neither is forecasting no increase or a decline of population.

In terms of Bendigo, population growth is being driven by factors such as relative lower property prices (compared to Melbourne), improved transport infrastructure including Regional Fast Rail, enhanced telecommunications services and household lifestyle decisions. These factors have also influenced population growth in other regional cities in Victoria.

Council is under a statutory obligation to plan for increased population. A key strategy of Clause 11.02‐1 of the SPPF states:

Plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15 year period and provide clear direction on locations where growth should


26

occur. Residential land supply will be considered on a municipal basis, rather than a town‐by‐town basis.

We are satisfied that Council is meeting its statutory obligation by planning for projected population growth by identifying areas such as Strathfieldsaye in its MSS and Residential Development Strategy as a future urban area.

5.5 Conclusions and recommendations

Having considered this issue we conclude: Council is meeting its statutory obligation by identifying

appropriate areas such as Strathfieldsaye to meet forecast growth of population and increased demand for additional new dwellings; and

The Amendment has strong strategic justification.


27

6. Submissions about the town centre


The City of Greater Bendigo is not convinced that the Cameron’s land, on the edge of the town centre at 2 Club Court Strathfieldsaye and currently zoned Business 1, is appropriate and has recommended ‘back zoning’ the 2 hectare site to Residential 1. The issue of the need to expand the town centre is not in question.


Relevant objectives of the State and local policy frameworks are identified in sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of the Report.

Of most relevance is Clause 11 – Settlement. This clause seeks to anticipate and respond to the needs of existing and future communities through provision of zoned land for commercial facilities. Clause 11.02‐1 discusses the supply of urban land and the desire to ensure that sufficient land is available to meet forecast demand and increased population numbers.

Clause 21.07‐2 of the LPPF sets out Commercial Objectives to maintain and enhance the competitiveness, performance and viability of the hierarchy and amongst other things:

· Ensure that weekly shopping needs and the diverse retailing and service needs of suburban areas are addressed by a network of village centres.


Council submitted that the key findings of the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan (STP) with regard to the town centre were to:

· Consolidate commercial activity within an area bounded by Uxbridge, Apsley and Wellington Streets and the western side of Emu Creek.

· Encourage medium density housing around the commercial core.

· Promote service businesses to the south of Wellington Street to provide local employment and convenient access for Strathfieldsaye residents.


28

The basis for the consolidated town centre was derived from the Bendigo Commercial Land Strategy (2005) and the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan (2009). Council noted that:

The Commercial Land Strategy has identified Strathfieldsaye as a Village Centre within the commercial hierarchy. A priority action within the Commercial Land Strategy for Strathfieldsaye as a Village Centre was the formulation of a structure plan to guide the scale and location of development, identify community and commercial needs and integration with surrounding activities.

Mr Bill and Mrs Margaret Cameron, were represented by Mr Crawford of TP Legal at the Hearing. They are the owners of land at 2 Club Court, currently zoned Business 1 with an Incorporated Plan Overlay (IPO) over their site. The Overlay states that the land can only be used for an extension to the adjoining primary school. Council submitted in relation to the Cameron’s site that the Department of Education (DOE) no longer has an interest in using the site for educational purposes and that in addition to deleting the IPO, Amendment C137 proposes to rezone the land to R1Z. They oppose the rezoning of their land to Residential 1.

Part of their land is also included within a Public Use Zone (PUZ). Mr Crawford advised that the owners have entered into an agreement with Coliban Water to acquire the water supply channel running across the northern part of the land. As such they requested that this land be also rezoned Business 1 in line with the retention of their land in the same zone.

Council’s justification for rezoning the Cameron’s land to R1Z was that the Township Plan:

Seeks to encourage the development of a compact and walkable town centre rather than a “strip” (or car based) town centre….The Township Plan does note that some community or educational uses might be appropriate for the site and it is further noted that some commercial activities are permissible under the Residential 1 (zone), given abuttal to a Main Road.

The Council also noted that the need for additional retail floorspace is not in dispute. It added that the question is about its location, and given the distance of this site (Cameron land) from the core of the existing shopping centre (400m) it is likely that a majority of movement between the two would be car based.

Mr Crawford, calling on economic evidence from Mr Abery of Deep End Services, argued that the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan had two fundamental failings, firstly:

In respect of the town centre, the STP has been developed solely on planning and urban design principles. It has not been informed by any


29

economic analysis or justification and as such it lacks a balanced and rigorous consideration of the needs of the existing and future township population…..secondly the manner in which the STP has sought to implement that vision in respect of the town centre and commercial development is misconceived and results in an outcome that will be to the detriment to the community.

Council advised that the issue of the most appropriate location of future retail floorspace would be appropriately dealt with as a part of an Urban Design Framework (UDF) process in the future. In his closing comments, Mr Cockerall stated that Council was not convinced that the Cameron’s land was in the best location for additional retail facilities. It cited the separation of the existing activity centre of 400m as its reasoning.

Mr Crawford outlined previous submissions of the land‐owners who have consistently argued that their land should remain in the B1Z. Mr Abery outlined to the Panel that over time, as Strathfieldsaye grows, it was highly likely that the need for a second supermarket would arise.

Mr Abery argued that within the preferred town centre model exhibited by Council, there is limited opportunity for a second supermarket development within the town centre. It was Mr Abery’s evidence that a second supermarket would be required to retain expenditure in the township and support small retail and speciality businesses. It was his evidence that outlined that the:

…existing IGA is insufficient to cater for the needs of the future community and is insufficient to support a town centre of 10‐12,000sqm in the medium term (by 2015/2016).

Mr Abery highlighted the Commercial Land Strategy (Amendment C60) that identified a 4 tier activity centre hierarchy and five village centres (including Strathfieldsaye). This is reflected in Council’s MSS.

Mr Crawford called Mr Elliot of Urbis to provide town planning advice. Mr Elliot noted Mr Abery’s evidence and argued that despite these considerations the Amendment does not propose to expand or retain the existing level of retail and commercial, rather it seeks to rezone 2 hectares to R1Z.

Mr Elliot recognised that C137 represented an important strategic direction for the future growth of Strathfieldsaye and it was equally important that is cater for the future needs of convenient commercial land. It was argued that the Cameron’s land should remain within the B1Z and the Township Plan should be amended to reflect the site’s location being within the core area of the Town Centre Structure Plan.

Council argued that by leaving the Cameron’s land with the B1Z could compromise the long‐term integrity of the Town Centre. Conversely, Mr


30

Elliot highlighted that the subject site was the only large site (2 hectares) in single ownership and this is a relevant factor as it will allow for more substantial commercial development.

Mr Elliot noted that the site presents an opportunity to create a gateway for Strathfieldsaye, allowing a ‘book end’ with the existing IGA and as an attractor for future commercial development between the two sites.

Mr Campbell, in his general submission to the Panel regarding all aspects of the Amendment, also cited concerns about the Town Centre Structure Plan, namely its road hierarchy, and questioning the viability of shop top housing and the town centre main street and layout.

Mr Abery also noted concerns with the proposed layout. He argued that the prospects for the successful development of a (one way) north running main street where future tenants have little or no exposure to Wellington Street are poor.

6.4 Discussion

We were intrigued with Council’s submissions regarding the town centre. On inspection, we observed that the site clearly presented as a gateway site to the commercial town centre as highlighted by Mr Elliot. To effectively back zone the land to residential was not justified to us for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the Council presented to us that the issue of future retail floorspace would be more appropriately dealt with as part of an UDF for the site, hopefully in their 2011/12 work programme. We questioned then why would it make sense to change its zoning in the interim?

Second, the concept of linear town centres in regional areas is not uncommon, and potentially preferred. Given the lack of accessible public transport options and low walkability of supermarket centres in outer regional areas, it would appear to us that the Town Centre Structure Plan was more ambitious with inner city goals rather than being practical to its environment.

Third, the Council did not dispute the fact that additional floorspace is required. We accept this and the evidence of Mr Abery outlining the future growth projections. Furthermore it became clear that there is an almost immediate (short term) need for a second supermarket to better cater for the existing and future residents, in an attempt to curb escape expenditure for basic grocery, goods and services.


31

We consider that if the Cameron’s land were to be developed for a purpose other than retail then a significant opportunity would be lost in terms of the gateway attributes of the site, the nature of its single ownership and size. All of which point to a consolidated retail solution for the town centre, that most likely lends itself, as Mr Abery submitted, to a second supermarket.

A second supermarket of 3,200sqm and 10 speciality shops , giving a total 4,200sqm to total gross floor area would, as submitted by Mr Abery require a 1.5 to 2 hectare site, to incorporate car parking, buildings and landscaping. This could be accommodated by the Cameron’s site, in one ownership with very little difficulty, compared with the remaining Business 1 land in various amounts totalling 2 hectares. This would suggest to us that all properties would need to be amalgamated to facilitate a supermarket and it agrees with Mr Abery that this seemed unlikely given existing land use patterns and multiple ownerships.

Mr Crawford’s assertion that the Cameron’s land was the “elephant in the room” has some resonance given the scant regard Council has given to its justification of a back zoning. We agree with Mr Crawford’s assertion in this case that back zoning lacks sufficient strategic analysis and justification.

As to the layout of the Town Centre Structure Plan, we were concerned and noted comments from Mr Crawford and Mr Campbell that the Structure Plan provides no detail of the costing for the creation of a new main street that also seems to terminate at its most northern point. Nor are we aware of any financial commitments Council has made to implement this outcome.

The Town Centre in our mind is perhaps the weakest element of the exhibited Amendment. It does not appear to have been prepared with any strategic or economic rigour, with a main street solution not suited in this context. We consider that the prime objective of achieving a compact and walkable shopping environment could be achieved with a linear township along Wellington Street, provided it does not extend further than the Cameron’s land to the east and the currently disused service station to the west. We agree with Mr Abery’s evidence that there has been little regard for Wellington Street’s role as the main thoroughfare to which retailers and other business will have a strong preference for a frontage and / or visibility.

When and if the Council turns its mind to undertaking an Urban Design Framework, the Panel feels it can do so with Wellington Street in mind.


32

6.5 Conclusion and Recommendations

Having considered this issue we conclude that: Council has not provided sufficient justification to rezone the land

from B1Z to R1Z, particularly given the need to provide retail floorspace for an expanding population in Strathfieldsaye;

the prime objective of achieving a compact and walkable shopping environment could be achieved with a linear township along Wellington Street, provided it does not extend further than the Cameron’s land to the east and the currently disused service station to the west; and

the land at 2 Club Court Strathfieldsaye is an appropriate site for future commercial development given its gateway location.

We recommend that:

The land at 2 Club Court be retained in the B1Z;

The part of the site zoned PUZ be rezoned to B1Z.


33

7. Submissions about the residential areas


There were a number of submissions from existing land‐owners in Strathfieldsaye that supported the Amendment but sought various changes to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO) schedule that specifically related to their properties.

In addition, there were submissions from some land‐owners who have land outside the area to be rezoned to Residential 1 that requested that their properties be considered for rezoning in this Amendment.


Relevant State and local policies are identified in sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

In addition, the VPP Practice Note Incorporated and Reference Documents (August 2000) is also relevant.


Below is a summary of the submissions made by the various land‐owners and Council’s response.

7.3.1 Brudian Pty Ltd (Corner of Guy Hills Road and Bakers Lane)

Summary of submission

The subject site is located on the north west corner of Guy Hills Road and Bakers Lane and is approximately 4.05 hectares. Ms Bennett, on behalf of Brudian Pty Ltd, advised that it had been her long‐time intention to develop the property for conventional residential development. While a permit had been issued for a low density residential development of the site with lots of 4,000sqm, this permit had not been acted upon. Her concern now is with the time it will take before the land is rezoned.

Council response

Given the submission supports the Amendment, Council did not make any comments on this submission.


34

7.3.2 BurnsBridge Sweett on behalf of Pioneer Park (212 Guy Hills Road 166 and 184 Ryalls Lane).


The subject site is approximately 23.68 hectares and is bordered by Guy Hills Road to the east, Ryalls Lane to the south and Osborne Lane to the north‐west.

While the submitter supported the Amendment, it raised the following concerns:

the provision of two vegetation buffers comprising the DDO6 and a proposed ‘Bushland’ Interface Street’ in the centre of the lot;

the requirement to provide a ‘wetland/retarding’ basin; the need for the preparation of two Development Plans, one for the

precinct and one for the site; the proposed four metre road widening of Guy Hills Road and the

nine metre residential setbacks along the Guy Hills Road frontage; and

the provision of a walking/bicycle track in conjunction with the ‘Bushland Interface’ Street.

Council response

Council submitted that: there was only one buffer proposed and this abutted the National

Park. The ‘bushland interface street’ was not a buffer but recognised the need to provide pedestrian and cyclist access within a road reserve;

it is the developer (not the Council) that will need to prepare a Development Plan in accordance with the Development Plan Overlay, which is a standard requirement;

Guys Hill Road is identified as a ‘connector road’ with an overall road reserve width of 24m, consistent with the Infrastructure Design Manual;

currently the road reserve has a width of 20m and the road is being reconstructed with a pavement width of 11m. When this land is subdivided it may be necessary to purchase/acquire additional land, however this would be subject to investigation/ discussion at this time;

the walking and cycling path is proposed within the bushland interface street road reserve; and

following detailed engineering investigation the proposed wetland was not considered feasible in this location.


35

Additional comments by submitter

Despite Council’s response, Mr Gilfedder of BurnsBridge Sweett, on behalf of the submitter, stated that:

Council’s response on the buffer is incorrect. The first buffer is the 30m DDO at the western property abutting the forest and the second buffer is in the bushland interface street as it requires a 10m buffer to houses in addition to the 20m road reserve;

Council’s response on the need to prepare two Development Plans is incorrect. The Township Plan states that Council will prepare an Outline Development Plan (ODP) and the DPO requires a Development Plan to be prepared prior to the commencement of any buildings or works;

Council’s response that it will investigate purchase or acquisition of land for the widening of Guy Hills Road at the subdivision stage is supported. However, Council should prepare a Development Contributions Plan (DCP) if it goes down this path;

Council has ignored the submission regarding the requirement for an additional walking/bicycle path. Another path within 200m should not be required;

Council has not addressed the need for a nine metre front setback along Guy Hills Road; and

Council’s response to the deletion of the retarding basin/wetlands is accepted.

Further, Mr Gilfedder submitted that the requirement in the DPO schedule that required Development Plans to be generally consistent with the Strathfieldsaye Township was inappropriate because it elevated the Plan’s status as a planning control. Mr Gilfedder stated this was contrary to the Practice Note on Incorporated and Reference Documents and was a practice not supported by the C136 Panel that considered the Huntly Township Plan.

7.3.3 Brett Williams (18 McLeans Road)


Mr Williams seeks to have his land, located on the south west corner of McLeans Road and Walmer Street, included in the R1Z as part of the Amendment. His land is included within the UGB.

Council response

Council submitted that the area to the south east of Strathfieldsaye and Emu Creek Road has not been included in the Amendment and would need to form part of a second Amendment for the land to be considered for inclusion


36

in the R1Z. Council also submitted could see fit to make a recommendation to rezone the land.

7.3.4 Tom McLean (29 Emu Creek Road)


Mr McLean seeks to have the land bounded by Emu Creek Road, Bakers Lane, McLeans Road and Walmer Street to be rezoned Residential 1 as part of the Amendment.

Mr McLean submitted the land was close to the town centre and that reticulated services existed nearby.

Council response

Council referred to the response in the above submission as its position on this submission.

7.3.5 Tomkinson Group on behalf of Geoff McLeod (Filkel Pty Ltd) (87 Taylors Lane)


Mr McLeod seeks to have his land at 87 Taylors Lane, which is located on the north east corner of Taylors Lane and Bakers Lane, included in the Amendment. The land is approximately 3.9 hectares and is within the UGB, however is in the LDRZ and Salinity Management Overlay (SMO). The Township Plan recommends that further investigations need to be undertaken prior to any rezoning.

Tomkinson Group was engaged by Mr McLeod to make a submission to the Panel, and evidence was called to address biodiversity and native vegetation (Gary and Brenda Cheers), flood management (Matthew Elliot, Tomkinson Group) and salinity (Shane Hampton, GTS Geotechnical).

In broad terms, it was submitted: the site is at proximate distance from existing housing and

Residential 1 Zoned land; the site presents an opportunity for infill development at the

township’s edge; more intensive development of the site would not be inconsistent

with the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan; the ecological assessment report assesses the significance of native

vegetation and recommends habitat hectare offsets for vegetation offsets for scattered trees. In any case, any future development


37

would need to meet the requirements of Clause 52.17 and Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – a Framework for Action to avoid, minimise and offset native vegetation;

flood modelling and investigation has been undertaken in a Flood Management Study. This report shows that 26 lots could cater for a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) event; and

salinity issues can be addressed with appropriate foundation depth and construction methods for residential dwellings as recommended in the Salinity Management Report.

On the basis of the above points, Tomkinson Group requested that the Panel support a process whereby a comprehensive rezoning proposal is tested through a separate amendment to the planning scheme.

Council response

Council did not object to the site being rezoned to Residential 1 and considered there was scope for the outstanding issues to be considered as part of a future development application. It would have no objection to the Panel recommending the inclusion of the site in the R1Z, although noted the site was not exhibited in the Amendment for rezoning.

It noted that the DSE does not support the rezoning of the land until a number of outstanding issues are addressed.

DSE summary of submission

DSE submitted that the challenge for managing salinity in this area is considerable. Any development would need to:

identify areas subject to saline groundwater discharge or high groundwater recharge;

prevent damage to buildings and infrastructure from saline discharge and shallow watertables; and

retain existing native vegetation and encourage revegetation and development to be undertaken to reduce the spread of salinity and saline discharge.

It therefore did not support the rezoning of the land until the nature, level and mitigation measures were known. It suggested a Salinity Management Plan be prepared.

In response to the Salinity Management Report that was prepared by Shane Hampton of GTS Geotechnical and the Ecological Assessment report prepared by Gray and Brenda Cheers, DSE submitted the latter report only focused on vegetation conservation significance and did not comment on the land protection issues or the consequences of vegetation loss further


38

contributing to current land protection hazards such as salinity. It therefore maintained its position that the land should not be rezoned from Low Density Residential.

7.3.6 Tomkinson Group (on behalf of 12 landowners north of Strathfieldsaye Road)


Tomkinson Group advised they represented twelve land‐owners in the ‘New Development Area’ identified in the Township Plan north of Strathfieldsaye Road. The land‐owners are establishing a consortium prepare to Development Plan for the area.

Mr Chris De Silva appeared on behalf of the land‐owners at the Hearing. He advised the landowners collectively control 47 hectares of land north of Strathfieldsaye Road and have commenced preparing a Development Plan for the area.

While supporting the Amendment, Mr De Silva advised that the land‐owners supported the Amendment but have a number of concerns to ensure the Township Plan is clear and can be properly implemented through the next stage of the planning process.

In summary, the concerns include: the Township Plan should be re‐labelled to something other than as

a Structure Plan, as the Township Plan should be treated as a guide only;

the approach of the Township Plan that “all objectives must be met”, that the strategies “should be achieved” and the guidelines “should be followed” is prescriptive with the potential for objectives to either conflict or to use inappropriate language;

while the Township Plan identifies a range of density targets, including 12 dwellings per hectare for suburban development, the DPO specifies a density of 15 dwellings per hectare. The area does not have capacity to accommodate a density of 15 lots per hectare and it is not clear where the 15 dwellings per hectare is to achieved;

the Township Plan states that all native vegetation needs to be protected, however the Plan also suggests that an assessment process that identifies priorities for retention is anticipated;

the Township Plan should be reviewed so that all vegetation is assessed according to its biodiversity value and landscape value in an urban context through the Development Plan process with the expectation not all native vegetation will be retained;


39

the findings of the site analysis and design response processes of the New Development area on the north side of Strathfieldsaye Road provides a robust basis to resolve an open space network through the Development Plan process. It is requested the Panel give consideration to inclusion of a recommendation to this effect as a possible means to achieve the objectives of the Township Plan;

there is a 3m to 4m difference of level between the subject land and the proposed access point onto Strathfieldsaye Road identified on the Township Plan. An alternative access point should be considered;

the “buffer to industry” identified on Plan 1, which applies to Council’s existing transfer station, should be reviewed as a matter of priority given the obvious conflict between the Amendment to rezone land to residential and the operations of the transfer station; and

the Panel should also give consideration as to whether the same schedule should apply to the whole area without any expression of design objectives other than a requirement that refers to the Township Plan.

Council response

Council’s main submission did not respond to Tomkinson Group’s submission because it supported the Amendment.

In his closing comments, Mr Cockerall stated that Council would welcome any comments the Panel sees fit to improve the operation and function of the DPO.

7.3.7 Peter and Robyn Mannes (1 McLeans Road)


Mr and Mrs Mannes seek to have their land included in the R1Z and were under the impression that, following attending earlier meetings, that their land would be included in the Amendment.

Council response

As stated in relation to other submissions concerning land east of Emu Creek Road, this land was included within the Strathfieldsaye township but would be considered for a rezoning sometime in the future.


40

7.3.8 Ella Pty Ltd (north west corner of Taylors Lane and Bakers Lane)


Ella Pty Ltd (Ella) seek to have its land that is currently zoned Low Density Residential rezoned to Residential 1 (with the exception of the vegetated area on the south east corner).

The balance of Ella’s land is zoned Residential 1 and is being developed as the Regent Park Estate. Approximately one third of the estate has been released.

The permit for the subdivision (Planning Permit No DS/889/2001) shows conventional residential lots over the Residential 1 zoned land and four lots more than 4,000sqm for the land in the Low Density Residential zoned land.

Mr Connor of counsel, on behalf of Ella, stated that the only obstacle to the rezoning to Residential 1 appeared to be because of the salinity issues.

Mr Connor submitted the rezoning of the north west corner of the site should be rezoned to Residential 1 as part of the Amendment because:

it will be developed with a road network in accordance with the requirement of the current planning permit;

it will be serviced by reticulated services as required by the current planning permission (and current DPO4);

it is accepted and proposed that the land will accommodate residential development;

it is conveniently located immediately to the south and east of land currently zoned Residential 1;

it is within the relevant study area; it is a logical extension to the Regent Park estate; Bakers Road (to the south) provides a logical zone boundary for the

purposes of this “round” of residential land release; the SMO will continue to guide appropriate development outcomes

having regard to salinity issues; it is understood that significant areas of land originally

contemplated by the draft Township Plan are not available for rezoning and accordingly, every reasonable opportunity for residential land should be taken up in order to further strategic planning objectives;

the rezoning is supported by policy and the strategic directions of the planning scheme; and

there is no objection from Council.


41

Mr Connor called Shane Hampton of GTS Testing Services, who prepared a groundwater and salinity assessment for the site. He assessed the site against the Planning Guidelines for Urban Salinity on the City of Greater Bendigo (July 2007) (the Guidelines). The Guidelines have been adopted by Council and the Panel was advised by Mr Cockerall of Council that they would be considered for inclusion as a reference document in the next review of the planning scheme.

In short, Mr Hampton concluded that the site could be developed under the Guidelines because the depth of the watertable is greater than 1.5m.

Council response

Council’s position on this matter is the same as its position on Geoff McLeod’s submission: that is, it does not object to the site being rezoned to Residential 1 and believed there was scope for the outstanding issues to be considered as part of a future development application. It would have no objection to the Panel recommending the inclusion of the site in the R1Z, although noted the site was not exhibited in the Amendment for rezoning.

DSE response to expert reports

DSE’s original submission to the Amendment was confined to the property on the opposite side of Taylors Lane (i.e. McLeod’s property). However, in DSE’s response to the expert witness reports prepared for McLeod’s property on ecological and salinity issues, DSE also made reference to Ella’s property that is in the LDRZ. In short, DSE does not support rezoning of the land to Low Density Residential.

Proponent’s right of reply

Mr Connor, on behalf of Ella, noted that DSE representatives did not attend the Panel hearing during Ella’s submission and therefore did not take the opportunity of hearing the expert evidence or asking the witness questions. Mr Connor also stated that the land Ella wishes to subdivide at Residential 1 density levels is former farming land and contains no native vegetation and that the vegetated area at the south east corner is to be retained in the LDRZ.

7.3.9 Collin Brady (277 Ryalls Lane)


Mr Brady seeks to have the R1Z extended further westwards that contains the dwelling and outbuilding. He noted that the proposed extension of the boundary would not affect the vegetated area.


42

In addition, Mr Brady submitted that the vegetated land further west of the dwelling and outbuilding should be included in the R1Z.

Mr Brady tabled a letter by Phil Neander & Associates, fire safety consultants. Mr Neander’s letter advised that a subdivision of the land could be carried out consistent with the various fire safety provisions of the planning scheme subject to a number of conditions.

Council response

Council submitted that the area around Mr Brady’s dwelling has no conservation significance and given the minor nature of the request could be supported.

However, Council does not support rezoning the vegetated land further west of the dwelling because of the existing vegetation and the WMO.

7.3.10 John Griffin (409 Tannery Lane)


Mr Griffin’s opposes the proposal to increase the minimum lot size from 2 hectares to 0.4 hectares because it reduces the subdivision potential of the land.

Council response

Council noted Mr Griffin’s land is included in the LDRZ and is affected by a number of overlays, including Wildfire Management Overlay (WMO), Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) and Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) and is also partially affected by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO). Further, it was submitted that the vegetation assessment indicates the vegetation is of Medium and High Conservation significance.

Given these constraints, Mr Cockerall stated that the proposal to increase the minimum lot size in the schedule to the zone is appropriate.

7.4 Discussion Most submissions raised issues with individual properties and it is proposed to respond to each submission individually.

7.4.1 Brudian Pty Ltd

In response to Ms Bennett’s concerns about the length of time before her land is rezoned to residential, we advised Ms Bennett at the Hearing that the Panel report must be made publicly available 28 days after it is submitted to the planning authority, but that it was up to Council when it would consider the Amendment further and when it would forward the Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval.


43

7.4.2 BurnsBridge Sweett on behalf of Pioneer Park (212 Guy Hills Road 166 and 184 Ryalls Lane).

In response to the specific issues raised, we make the following comments:

One or two buffers

DDO6 (Urban‐Forest Interface) will apply to a depth of 70m from the eastern side of Osborne Road (which is an unmade road). Osborne Lane borders the Greater Bendigo National Park. Accordingly, DDO6 will apply in the vegetated area to be retained in the LDRZ.

The Township Plan includes a strategy (S4.21) that ‘bushland interface streets’ should be provided where development adjoins significant private or public vegetation. The Township Plan appears to show a bushland interface street along the edge of the vegetated area of the subject land between the existing LDRZ and the proposed R1Z.

In our view, the application of DDO6 east of Osborne Lane and the desired location of the bushland interface street east of the vegetated area are in two different areas and have two different purposes. Accordingly, we do not agree with the submission that there are two buffers applying to the same area.

However, we consider that there is some confusion in the Township Plan in relation to the designation of a bushland interface street on this site because it states that a bushland interface street will only apply where there is development on one side of the street (see section 3.4 of the Township Plan). In the case of the subject land, we note that residential development will occur on both sides of the street, albeit in a LDRZ (with a minimum lot size of 2 hectares) on the west side.

In our view, given the potential for residential development on the west side of the proposed road it is not appropriate to include the ‘bushland interface street’ on the location of the subject land identified on the Township Plan. Further, we have doubts about the need for any footpath/bicycle path on the west side of any proposed road given the low density residential development that is to occur on this side of the street.

Requirement for walking/bicycle track in ‘bushland interface street’

In response to the concern that it will be necessary to provide a walking/bicycle track along the bushface interface street given the same requirements apply to Guy Hills Road (on the eastern side of the subject property), we note that the Township Plan provides a figure (Figure 10) that states a bushland interface street must be 20m wide. Figure 10 shows that on


44

the vegetated side of the street that a 2.5m ‘verge/parking/WSUD‘, a 1.5m footpath and 4.5m ‘buffer zone’ must be provided (a total of 8.5m).

Further, the Township Plan shows that Guys Hills Road is a Connector road. Figure 11 of the Township Plan shows that a Connector road is to be 24m wide including 16m of land (8m each side) for ‘verge/parking/WSUD’ (3m), shared cycle/footpath (2.5m) landscaping (2.5m).

In our view, the requirement in the Township Plan that the land‐owner must provide a bushland interface street incorporating an 8.5m width of land for verge/parking/WSUD, footpath and buffer zone is unreasonable and onerous, particularly having regard to the requirements for a Connector road that is within 200 metres (Guy Hills Road).

Requirement for Outline Development Plan

During the hearing, Mr Cockerall confirmed that the Township Plan identified that it is the Council that would prepare an Outline Development Plan (ODP), not a developer.

However, Mr Cockerall also indicated that a Development Plan will fulfil the role of an ODP and that Council was therefore not proposing to prepare any ODPs for the area.

In our view, the STP is very broad and it would appear to be relying on the co‐operation of individual land‐owners to ensure a co‐ordinated approach to developing the various New Development Areas.

Given Council is not proposing to prepare ODPs, we agree with the suggestion of another submitter, Mr De Silva on behalf of 12 property north of Strathfieldsaye Road, that Council could identify precincts in the schedule to the DPO that would contain design objectives appropriate for each precinct. We discuss this matter further in section 7.4.6.

Road widening of Guy Hills Road

We consider Council’s position that it will acquire 4m strip of land to increase the width of Guy Hills Road to 24m to be acceptable for a Connector road and in accordance with Council’s Infrastructure Design Manual (which has been prepared in conjunction with Shire of Campaspe and Greater Shepparton City Council).

We also note that the Draft Engineering and Construction Manual which has been prepared by the Growth Areas Authority (GAA) to standardise engineering requirements for subdivision development across all of Melbourneʹs growth area councils shows a 25m width for a residential connector street.


45

In response to Mr Gilfedder’s comment that Council should prepare a Development Contributions Plan (DCP) if it proposes to acquire the land, we agree that such an approach would be desirable. However, we note that scope exists under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for agreements to be made between councils and developers to provide land and/or infrastructure. Such agreements can be negotiated as part of the planning permit application process.

Setbacks along Guy Hills Road

Mr Gilfedder tabled photographs with his submission that showed that the eastern side of Guy Hills Road is developed with conventional residential development with front setbacks that appear to be in the order of six metres.

We agree that a nine metre front setback along this part of Guy Hills Road is not necessary for an area is identified as ‘suburban’ in the Township Plan and that it is an unreasonable and onerous requirement. It will also make the objective of achieving a density of 15 dwellings per hectare very difficult.

Status of Strathfieldsaye Township Plan

Mr Gilfedder pointed out that the Township Plan has a number of specific requirements that Council proposes to apply, such as the requirement for the bushland interface street on his client’s property and the requirement for a nine metre setback along Guy Hills Road.

As the Practice Note on Incorporated and Reference Documents state:

Reference documents have only a limited role in decision‐making as they are not part of the planning scheme.

We agree with Mr Gilfedder that it is inappropriate for any specific requirements in the Township Plan to be considered as statutory requirements to be used in the decision‐making process on development applications.

We consider the correct response is that any specific requirements identified in the Township Plan should, if appropriate, be included in the schedule to the DPO. This is something Council has failed to do.

However, we do not agree with Mr Gilfedder that the provision in the DPO schedule that a Development Plan must be consistent with the STP should be deleted. As we understand Mr Gilfedder’s concern, to require a Development Plan to be consistent with the Township Plan would inappropriately elevate the status of the STP as a statutory requirement.

While the Panel that considered the Huntly Township Plan (Amendment C136) recommended that the provision requiring a Development Plan to be


46

consistent with the Huntly Township Plan be deleted, we understand that the Panel had some fundamental concerns with some of the overall directions of that Plan and considered the Plan itself could not be considered as a structure plan because it lacked insufficient detail.

In this case, we consider the STP’s broad directions are acceptable and that it appears to contain more detail than the Huntly Township Plan.

However, we consider that the provision requiring a Development Plan to be generally consistent with the STP should only be included in the schedule provided the key strategies and plans of the STP are, as appropriate, included in the Local Planning Policy Framework of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. In this way, the Township Plan will have the necessary statutory weight and will not be in conflict with the Practice Note on Incorporated and Reference Documents. We note the Panel that considered the Huntly Township Plan made a similar recommendation regarding the inclusion of key strategies and plans into the planning scheme.

Conclusions

We conclude that: there is no duplication of the buffers as DDO6 and the bushland

interface street are located in different parts of the land and have different purposes;

it would be inappropriate to require the land‐owner to provide a bushland interface street on the edge of the vegetated area given the land to the west is to be developed for residential purposes;

it would also be inappropriate for the land‐owner to provide a shared walking/bicycle path along the road adjacent to the vegetated area given that the same facilities must be provided along Guy Hills Road, which is within 200m of the vegetated area;

while Council has confirmed that developers will not be required to prepare ODPs, it would be appropriate that more guidance is provided to land‐owners to prepare Development Plans in the various ‘New Development Areas’;

the identification of precincts in the schedule each with their own design objectives would provide more certainty for the preparation of Development Plans;

the acquisition of 4m of land along Guy Hills Road to create a Connector road is appropriate, and that in the absence of a DCP it is possible for Council and the land‐owner to enter into an agreement pursuant to a planning permit for subdivision;


47

a nine metre front setback along Guy Hills Road is not appropriate given the smaller front setbacks on the opposite side of Guy Hills Road and for a conventional residential area; and

it is appropriate that the schedule include a provision that a Development Plan must be generally consistent with the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan. However, this only be done provided the key strategies and plans of the Township are included in the local section of the planning scheme.

7.4.3 Brett Williams (18 McLeans Road)

We support Council’s position that to ensure that an excess of land supply for residential purposes in Strathfieldsaye does not occur that it is appropriate that the land to east of the Township is considered for rezoning at a future time. We also consider that for orderly and proper planning that development should occur sequentially from west to east.

7.4.4 Tom McLean (29 Emu Creek Road)

See comment in preceding section.

7.4.5 Tomkinson Group on behalf of Geoff McLeod (Filkel Pty Ltd) (87 Taylors Lane)

In relation to the specific issues raised in submissions concerning this property, we consider that:

the Salinity Management Report demonstrated compliance with the Planning Guidelines for Urban Salinity in the City of Greater Bendigo;

while the ecological assessment report concluded one Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) of High Conservation Significance and two EVCs of Medium Conservation Significance, there was a case that could be made that a better biodiversity outcome could be achieved by applying offsets in more highly valued biodiversity areas;

in any case, any proposal to remove native vegetation would trigger an assessment under Victoria’s Native Vegetation Framework – a Framework for Action; and

the Flood Management Study demonstrated that most proposed lots could cater for a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) event provided filling of some lots was undertaken.

In response to DSE’s comments on the Salinity Management Report, we note that it did not respond specifically to the technical findings of this Report and instead criticised the failure of the ecological report to assess the impacts on salinity. While this may be a legitimate issue, DSE did not provide any


48

specific technical information concerning the potential removal of vegetation on the impact on salinity that would require us to re‐consider this matter.

In any case, we note that if the land is rezoned to Residential 1 the SMO and the requirement for an ecological assessment under Victoria’s Native Vegetation Framework – a Framework for Action will continue to apply thus allowing further exploration of these issues.

Whether or not the land‐owner would be able to achieve the number of lots as proposed on the concept plan that was provided to the Panel would be a key consideration in terms of how the site could be developed.

While the land was not included for rezoning in the Amendment, we consider that we have scope to recommend the land be rezoned to Residential 1. In our view, we do not consider including this land in the Amendment will transform the Amendment. This is because:

the land is included in the Strathfieldsaye township for urban development;

the site is relatively small, being only 3.9 hectares; it abuts existing Residential 1 land to the north; reticulated services are able to be provided; and the outstanding issues are able to be considered through formal

statutory processes for subdivision, development and vegetation removal.

We also consider the Planning Authority’s lack of objection to including this land in the Amendment to be relevant.

Conclusions

We conclude that: the expert witness statements demonstrated that salinity and

flooding issues could be resolved and that a case could be made that with appropriate offsets, a better biodiversity outcome could be achieved;

even if the land is zoned Residential 1, there would still be a requirement for salinity, flooding and native vegetation issues to be resolved in accordance with relevant requirements, standards and guidelines;

the resolution of these issues may require changes to the concept plan and a different development outcome;

there were no strategic reasons why the site should not be rezoned as part of this Amendment; and


49

Rezoning the land as part of the Amendment would not result in a transformation of the Amendment.

7.4.6 Tomkinson Group (on behalf of 12 landowners north of Strathfieldsaye Road)

Role of Township Plan

A number of the concerns raised by Mr De Silva relate to the STP, particularly the prescriptive nature of many of the objectives, strategies and guidelines.

While we do not dispute Mr De Silva’s criticisms, the principal role of the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan is as a reference document in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. As a reference document, the objectives, strategies and guidelines should be used to guide the preparation of Development Plans but not be used to guide discretion on decisions on planning permit applications.

As we have stated in section 7.4.2, Council should extract key objectives, strategies and plans from the Township Plan and include them, as appropriate, in a relevant section of the Local Planning Policy Framework of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

It would seem there is no perfect fit in the existing LPPF in terms of placing a section on Strathfieldsaye given the current LPPF structure contains few specific sections on geographic locations. This is a matter that could be appropriately considered in the proposed planning scheme review.

However, in the meantime it may be appropriate to include a specific section on Strathfieldsaye in either Clause 21.05 or Clause 21.06 of the planning scheme.

In addition, as we stated above, we consider that the schedule to the DPO should be revised and provide further guidance as to how the various precincts could be developed. In our view, there are four individual precincts that should be identified in the schedule:

New Development Area West; New Development Area East (North of Strathfieldsaye Road); New Development Area East (South of Strathfieldsaye Road); and Strathfieldsaye Town Centre.

The schedule should list the key design objectives relevant to each precinct that were identified in the Township Plan. We consider the Town Centre should be included as a separate precinct because of the future development


50

potential of the centre. Should Council prepare a UDF for the town centre, it could insert the outcomes of that process into the DPO schedule.

We also note that Clause 22.12 (Township Residential Character Policy) identifies four precincts and contains specific objectives and design responses to each precinct. In other words, a precinct approach has been applied to Strathfieldsaye in previous strategic work and this could be used as a basis to distinguish between existing urban areas and future development areas.

Density target

Mr De Silva tabled a concept plan that has been prepared for Taylors Hill West in the Shire of Melton to demonstrate that to achieve a density of 15 dwellings per hectare, the average lot size of 459sqm may be required.

Council advised the provision in the schedule requiring Development Plans to have a density of 15 dwellings per hectare was imposed by DPCD as a condition of authorisation.

It is understood that DPCD consider that 15 dwellings per hectare would provide a sufficient number of dwellings to meet Strathfieldsaye’s forecast population in 15 years without having to develop precincts 4, 5 and 6 which have environmental and buffer constraints.

From our reading of the development plan precincts on page 57 of the Township Plan, these three precincts do not contain extensive areas of native vegetation and that only small parts of precincts 5 and 6 are affected by the buffer.

Notwithstanding, we consider there are further opportunities for additional conventional residential development, particularly the cleared area east of Emu Creek Road and the cleared area east of McLeans Road. Accordingly, we consider that if the areas to be rezoned to Residential 1 in this Amendment are developed at a lower density than 15 dwellings per hectare, there is other land that has been identified in the Township Plan that could be rezoned in the future to provide additional housing at conventional densities.

We consider that the Township Plan’s objective to increase average densities across Strathfieldsaye to be laudable and note that the Town Centre Structure Plan on page 60 identifies areas for medium density housing north and south of Wellington Street. In our view, the DPO schedule should identify areas where the higher than average densities should occur and include a requirement that a Development Plan must identify potential smaller lots or potential medium density housing lots.


51

While the provision in the schedule requiring a 15 dwellings per hectare density does not specify whether the provision is an average to be met across the whole of the township or in specific areas, we consider that this density as an average to be applied across the township would result in much smaller lots than currently being developed in Strathfieldsaye and would be difficult to achieve without significantly changing neighbourhood character. We therefore consider it should be deleted.

Open space

Mr De Silva requested that the Panel recommend that the open space network that has been prepared for the draft Development Plan north of Strathfieldsaye Road be recognised as a possible means to achieve the objectives of the Township Plan.

Given it is the role of the Responsible Authority to approve Development Plans, it would be inappropriate for us to make such a recommendation.

However, we consider that the open space network prepared by Mr De Silva for the precinct demonstrates the benefit of an integrated approach across a precinct because it clearly identifies relevant opportunities and constraints and seeks to achieve an optimum outcome in terms of retaining natural assets including vegetation.

Access onto Strathfieldsaye Road

We agree that if there are topographical constraints in relation to the proposed access point identified in the Township Plan, it would be appropriate to review the proposed location, particularly if there are road safety considerations.

Buffer to industry

Mr Cockerall indicated that the transfer station will cease operation sometime in the near future. Accordingly, this outcome would remove any concerns in relation to a conflict between the transfer station and residential use.

Conclusions

We conclude that: the role of the STP should be to provide guidance in the preparation

of Development Plans, and not be used to exercise discretion on planning permit applications;

to ensure the Township Plan has appropriate statutory weight, it would be appropriate to extract key objectives, strategies and plans and include them in a relevant local section of the planning scheme;


52

the schedule to the DPO should be revised and provide further guidance as to how the various precincts could be developed. In our view, there are four individual precincts: New Development Area West; New Development Area East (North of Strathfieldsaye Road); New Development Area East (South of Strathfieldsaye Road);

and Strathfieldsaye Town Centre.

the schedule should list the key design objectives relevant to each precinct that were identified in the Township Plan;

it is not appropriate that a density target of 15 dwellings per hectare is included in the schedule. However, the schedule should identify areas where than a higher than average densities are to be provided and include a requirement that a Development Plan must identify how the objective to increase the average density in Strathfieldsaye is to be achieved;

it would not be appropriate for the Panel to make a recommendation on the open space network identified in the draft Development Plan;

the access point onto Strathfieldsaye Road should be reviewed; and there will not be a need to have a buffer to the future residential

area should the proposal to cease operations of the transfer station occur.

7.4.7 Peter and Robyn Mannes (1 McLeans Road)

As we have stated in response to submissions made by Brett Williams and Tom McLean, the submitter’s land will be considered for rezoning at a future date to ensure there is not an excess of land supply and Council is able to proceed with the development of the township having regard to proper and orderly planning principles.

7.4.8 Ella Pty Ltd (north west corner of Taylors Lane and Bakers Lane)

Most of the issues raised in this submission are similar to the issues raised in the submission by Tomkinson Group on behalf of Geoff McLeod.

In relation to the specific issues raised in submissions concerning this property, we consider that:

the Salinity Management Report demonstrated compliance with the Planning Guidelines for Urban Salinity in the City of Greater Bendigo;

it is proposed to retain the vegetated area in the LDRZ; and


53

the Drainage Flow Investigation Report prepared by CPG demonstrated the site was not subject to inundation.

In response to DSE’s comments on the Salinity Management Report, we note that it did not respond specifically to the technical findings of this Report and instead criticised the failure of the ecological report to assess the impacts on salinity. While this may be a legitimate issue, DSE did not provide any specific technical information concerning the potential removal of vegetation on the impact on salinity that would require us to re‐consider this matter.

In any case, we note that if the land is rezoned to Residential 1 the SMO and the requirement for an ecological assessment under Victoria’s Native Vegetation Framework – a Framework for Action will continue to apply thus allowing further exploration of these issues. \

While the land was not included for rezoning in the Amendment, we consider that we have scope to recommend the land be rezoned to Residential 1. In our view, we do not consider including this land in the Amendment will transform the Amendment. This is because:

the land is included in the Strathfieldsaye township for urban development;

the site is relatively small, being only a few hectares; it abuts existing Residential 1 land to the north; reticulated services are able to be provided; and the outstanding issues are able to be considered through formal

statutory processes for subdivision, development and vegetation removal.

However, we consider that the vegetated area in the south east corner should remain in the LDRZ. We note the land‐owner is not opposed to the retention of this Zone in this part of the land.

We also consider the Planning Authority’s lack of objection to including this land in the Amendment to be relevant.

Conclusions

We conclude that: the expert witness statements demonstrated that salinity and

flooding issues could be resolved; retaining the vegetated area on the south east corner in the LDRZ

would assist in the protection of the vegetation; even if the land is zoned Residential 1, there would still be a

requirement for salinity, flooding and native vegetation issues to be


54

resolved in accordance with relevant requirements, standards and guidelines;

there were no strategic reasons why the site should not be rezoned as part of this Amendment; and

rezoning the land as part of the Amendment would not result in a transformation of the Amendment.

7.4.9 Collin Brady (277 Ryalls Lane)

We agree that the request to extend Residential 1 Zone further westwards to include the area that contains the dwelling and outbuilding is relatively minor and does not affect the vegetated area. Accordingly, we support including this area of the site in the R1Z.

We also consider this amendment would not be contrary to Clause 64.03 that new subdivision design should create lots that follow zoning boundaries to avoid the new subdivision creating land in more than one zone.

We do not support extending the R1Z further westwards to include the vegetated land that is included in the WMO. We consider that the Township Plan has been consistently applied by Council in terms of identifying vegetated areas for low density residential development and generally cleared areas for the R1Z. We see no justifiable reason to depart from this approach.

7.4.10 John Griffin (409 Tannery Lane)

We agree with Council that given the vegetation on this land and the number of overlays that it is appropriate that the minimum lot size applying to this land be increased from 4,000sqm to 2 hectares.

7.5 Recommendations

Having considered these submissions regarding the residential areas, we make the following recommendations:

The key objectives, strategies and plans be included into a relevant section of the Local Planning Policy Framework of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme;

The DPO schedule be restructured with general design objectives applying to Strathfieldsaye and more specific design objectives applying to the different precincts;

The precincts to be identified in the schedule include: New Development Area West;


55

New Development Area East (North of Strathfieldsaye Road); New Development Area East (South of Strathfieldsaye Road); and Strathfieldsaye Town Centre.

Any specific design requirements in the Township Plan regarding subdivision and development design used to exercise discretion be included, as appropriate, in the schedule under the relevant precinct;

The R1Z be extended further westwards at 277 Ryalls Lane to contain the area surrounding the dwelling and outbuildings;

The land at 87 Taylors Lane should be rezoned Residential 1 as part of this Amendment; and

The land at the north west corner of Taylors Lane and Bakers Lane (excluding the vegetated area on the south east corner) should be rezoned Residential 1 as part of this Amendment.


56

8. Submissions about biodiversity and native vegetation


General submissions were made in relation to biodiversity and native vegetation by The Bendigo and District Environment Council (BDEC) Inc and Bushlinks. \

In essence, both BDEC and Bushlinks are concerned with the lack of details on how remnant native vegetation is to be protected and consider that the Amendment has not complied with the State Government’s Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – a Framework for Action to avoid, minimise and offset native vegetation.

We also note submissions lodged by Murray Poustie and Brian Lonsdale also raised concern with loss of vegetation. Mr Poustie states that vegetation removal should be prohibited on the land in Guys Hills Road and Osborne Lane, and is concerned how Osborne Lane is portrayed on the plan.

Given that the environment is one of the key considerations in the planning framework, it is appropriate that we address the submissions on this matter.


As noted in section 3.1.1 of the Report relevant State planning policies include:

Clause 12.01 – Biodiversity Clause 12.01‐1 – Protection of habitat Clause 12.01 – Native Vegetation Management

Underpinning these policies is Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – a Framework for Action. This framework sets out the three step process of:

Step 1: As a priority, avoid adverse impacts on native vegetation, particularly through clearance. If the removal of native vegetation can not be avoided: Step 2: Minimise impacts through appropriate consideration in

the planning process and expert input to project design or management; and

Step 3: Identify appropriate offset options.


57

Section 3.1.2 identified relevant local planning policies. However, it is appropriate to identify the relevant objectives and strategies of the key policy, as follows:

Clause 21.08 – Environment.

Relevant objectives include:

· To protect the environmental assets of the municipality including the national parks, regional park and areas of flora and fauna significance.

· To maintain and enhance ground and surface water quality.

· To minimise the impact of saline discharge and the contamination of recharge areas.

· To reduce the risk of erosion.

· To maximise the retention of native vegetation in privately owned forested areas.

· To reduce pollution of watercourses.

· To protect the values of forested land and waterways.

Relevant strategies include:

· Reverse the incremental clearance of native vegetation that reduces landscape values and fragments wildlife corridors.

· Minimise nutrient discharges and urban drainage that affects the quality of water in the municipality’s streams.

· Implement programs to maintain and enhance the municipality’s important remnant vegetation, particularly in recharge areas.

· Manage development, including land forming and effluent disposal, in an environmentally sustainable manner.

· Discourage uses and activities that have the potential to reduce water quality.

· Implement programs to encourage the retention of existing vegetation and the revegetation of degraded private land.

· Discourage inappropriate development in areas susceptible to erosion, as identified in land capability studies.

· Control development in proximity to important native vegetation reserves and linear linkages.

· Create flora and fauna reserves to protect the existing area of native vegetation where appropriate.


58

Clause 22.01 Development at the Urban – Forest Interface Policy.

This policy sets minimum standards to be applied to residential development that abuts both public and privately owned forest. Higher standards may be required depending on the circumstances. In relation to public land as a matter of principle all buffers are to be provided on privately owned land.


BDEC submitted that the Structure Plan:

· Does not provide any details on how the remnant vegetation will be protected in the residential areas and thereby how the bushland character desired by the community will be achieved.

· Has failed to follow the Framework’s three steps directive by unnecessarily including high and medium vegetation within the UGB and by not ensuring that the losses will be minimised before offsets are considered.

· Has failed to implement the Reeve v Hume CC & Ors VCAT directive by making zoning and not conservation the starting point for development decision.

· Has failed to conform with the State Planning Policy Framework – contained within Clause 15 and the Council’s obligation to protect and enhance the Box Ironbark Forest’s diversity.

· Has failed to address the Wildfire Management Zone’s effect on conservation of native vegetation and safety of residents by allowing development in the WMO to take place.

· Has failed to address the effect of transport and infrastructure on native vegetation.

· Is misleading in that its Native Vegetation Precinct Plan gives the impression that it will protect vegetation of highest significance when in practice it does no such thing on residential land.

· The current unprecedented biodiversity crisis Australia finds itself in and the plunge in number of native birds in North Central Victoria shows clearly that unless we change our economy dominated decision processes, we will find ourselves responsible for deepening the crisis.

BDEC therefore submitted that, amongst other things: Council exclude the environmentally significant areas from the

UGB and increases their minimum subdivision size to at least 4 hectares; and


59

the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan be replaced with a new one based on the Precautionary Principle and the Reeve v Hume VCAT directive to put conservation ahead of zoning.

Bushlinks expressed similar concerns and submitted that Council has not provided any rationale for extending the Urban Growth Boundary. It also submitted that Council should exclude the environmentally significant areas from the UGB and increases their minimum subdivision size to at least 4 hectares.

In response to both these submissions, Council submitted that the DPO requires detailed vegetation management plans to be prepared that must address how significant vegetation is to be protected. However, it is unrealistic to expect that all vegetation will be retained.

Council also submitted that in response to Mr Poustie’s submission concerning Osborne Lane, that the lane is a public road despite sections of it containing vegetation.

We also note a comment made by Mr De Silva, on behalf of 12 land‐owners north of Strathfieldsaye Road, that a literal reading of objective O7.1 of the Township Plan that suggests all native vegetation must be protected which would be inappropriate in an urban growth area.

8.4 Discussion

In planning to accommodate future population growth, it is incumbent upon Council to identify areas that are appropriate for future urban development having regard to a number of factors, including the impact on biodiversity and native vegetation.

Strathfieldsaye is identified in the MSS as a ‘New Development Area’ and is within or directly adjoins the urban growth boundary. As we concluded in Chapter 5, Council has provided the necessary strategic justification to accommodate some of Greater Bendigo’s increased population in Strathfieldsaye.

In our view, the appropriate response to address biodiversity and native vegetation is identified in the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan. At page 45, it states:

“Whilst, the Township Plan recognises that all native vegetation has some biodiversity value, the Plan proposes an approach that aims to protect and enhance publicly and privately owned land that makes the greatest contribution to biodiversity values across the study area by virtue of its size or strategic location. Key areas that have been identified as part of this project are located adjacent to the Greater Bendigo


60

National Park in New Development Area (West) and to the west of McLeans Road in New Development Area (East). The native vegetation in these areas will be protected by managing the density of development together with other restrictions on how the land can be used or developed.

Other areas of native vegetation will be retained because they make a significant contribution to the landscape and amenity of residential neighbourhoods. If clearing is supported, areas will be offset accordingly.”

In terms of protecting these key areas, Amendment C137 does not propose to rezone the highly vegetated areas in New Development Area (West) or New Development Area (East) from the existing the LDRZ. The minimum lot size in this Zone is 0.4 hectares which is also the trigger for a permit to remove native vegetation for land not included in a VPO or other overlay requiring a permit to remove native vegetation.

Further, the Amendment proposes to increase the minimum lot size for a number of sites in the LDRZ that have extensive vegetation, including 212 Guys Hill Road, 184 and 277 Ryalls Lane, 359, 361, 385 and 409 Tannery Lane. This lower density will also assist in the protection of native vegetation.

The Amendment also proposes to apply the DDO6 (Urban‐Forest Interface) for a depth of 70m from the Greater Bendigo National Park. This Overlay contains requirements for permits to ensure residential development protects and maintains the environmental values of adjoining forested areas surrounding Bendigo, including the Greater Bendigo National Park.

The other areas in Strathfieldsaye that are highly vegetated include the Emu Creek and Sheepwash Creek corridors, other public reserves and some individual privately owned properties. It is understood that considerable amounts of the creek corridor are in the Public Park and Recreation Zone which has a purpose To protect and conserve areas of significance where appropriate.

Any other site larger than 0.4 hectare requires a permit to remove native vegetation and require an assessment of the three step process of avoid, minimise and offset under the Native Vegetation Framework – A Framework for Action. This requirement provides scope for the responsible authority to ensure that the principle of net gain is achieved.

As well as the above initiatives, the schedule to the DPO requires a Native Vegetation Management Plan to be prepared for all Development Plans. While we make some comments on the wording of this provision, we consider overall it is an appropriate requirement, particularly in the absence of a Native Vegetation Precinct Plan.


61

In response to BDEC’s submission that the Township Plan has not followed VCAT’s Reeve “directive” to protect native vegetation, it should be noted that VCAT decisions are non‐binding and that responsible authorities (and the Tribunal on review) must make decisions on the facts and evidence of the particular case. This is not to say that the Reeve decision is not an important decision that should not be considered by responsible authorities when considering similar applications.

In response to Mr De Silva’s concern that the Township Plan appears to suggest that all native vegetation should be protected, we would agree that there are some statements in the Township Plan that appear to elevate native vegetation as more important than any other consideration.

For example, the first objective under Residential Land Use states:

To protect significant native vegetation and prevent development on land with environmental constraints.

Despite this statement and other statements, we consider the Township Plan also contains appropriate statements in terms of how native vegetation should be protected and that the Amendment clearly demonstrates that not all native vegetation must be protected.

Also, as we have stated elsewhere, the Township Plan should only be considered as a guide in preparing Development Plans and not as a tool to exercise discretion in assessing planning applications.

8.5 Conclusions

Having considered this issue we conclude that: the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan has adequately recognised the

importance of biodiversity and native vegetation; and the retention of the LDRZ in the more highly vegetated areas, the

increase of the minimum lot size from 0.4 hectares to 2 hectares over the highly vegetated properties, the proposal to apply DDO6 adjacent to the National Park, the requirement a Native Vegetation Management Plan to be prepared for a Development Plan as well as the standard VPP requirement for a permit remove native vegetation on land more than 0.4 hectares should ensure that the more highly valued biodiversity areas are protected or that appropriate offsets are made.


62

9. Other general submissions

9.1 Colin C Campbell


Mr Campbell objected to the Amendment on the grounds that: the Township Plan is poorly researched and fails to address existing

problems, such as vehicle movements; the Township Plan does not promote employment opportunities

within the township; issues around the road hierarchy and safety have not been

addressed; the planning for the town centre fails to recognise land ownership

patterns or integration of existing uses; and concerns around the potential use of St Francis of the Fields as a

community performing arts centre rather than using the Sports Club site.

Council response a substantial amount of research and consultation was undertaken

as part of the Township Planʹs development; there is land currently available for business use and more will be

created in the next stage of the Amendment process. It is anticipated that the UDF (a further piece of strategic work) will also have positive impacts on generating economic development opportunities within the Township;

VicRoads and City Engineers have been involved in the development of the Township Plan. VicRoads were notified of the Amendment and did not lodge a submission in relation to the amendment. The City will also continue to monitor issues around road safety and take the necessary action to remedy any problems that may arise;

the Township Plan contains a recommendation to prepare an UDF which will address these and other issues in the Town Centre;

the Township Plan recommends that a community performing arts centre be ʺinvestigatedʺ and any such investigation would involve community consultation.


63

Panel comment

We consider that Mr Campbell’s comments regarding the need to identify land in the town centre for employment opportunities has merit.

While the Town Centre contains land zoned Business 2 and Business 5, there are no zones that promote small scale or light industry. This should be a matter that Council pursues in any further strategic planning projects it undertakes for the area.

We accept Council’s response on the other matters raised by Mr Campbell.

9.2 Murray Poustie


In addition to the issues raised regarding vegetation, Mr Poustie submitted that:

the amendment is complex and overwhelming and there was not adequate notification;

drainage issues need to be resolved; traffic speed issues need to be resolved; and there will be an increase of traffic levels.

Council response it is agreed that the Amendment is complex but will ultimately

result in a simplification of the planning controls; the City has satisfied its statutory responsibilities in relation to

notification and informally extended the exhibition period to allow the community more time to make comment;

City Engineers are currently working towards to resolving drainage issues in the area, with substantial works having been recently completed along Guys Hill Road;

Speed levels and community safety will be monitored on an ongoing basis and any issues responded to as they arise; and

Traffic levels will increase as the Township grows and will need to be appropriately managed.

Panel comment

We accept Council’s response to the issues raised in the submission.


64

9.3 Bushlinks and BDEC


In addition to the submissions made in relation to biodiversity and native vegetation, Bushlinks expressed concern about the impact of Wildfire Management Overlay (WMO) allowing the removal of native vegetation without a permit in residential areas.

BDEC are concerned that extending the UGB to include vegetated areas abutting the National Park will increase the risk of bushfires.

Council response

If the UGB is altered as recommended the majority of the WMO will fall outside of it. Some Residential 1 land will be affected by the WMO and will be subject to the normal statutory process prior to any development.

Panel comment

We asked Council to confirm whether the CFA wished to make a submission on the Amendment. We were concerned that the notification to the CFA may have been missed, particularly given it made comprehensive submissions to Amendments C133 (Jackass Flat) and C136 (Huntly Township). Council advised the Panel on 9 November 2010 that the CFA had advised that it would not be making a submission and that it is preparing an amended WMO map that is currently with DPCD but not yet in the planning scheme.

While it is up to the CFA to make submissions to an Amendment, we consider it unfortunate that the WMO mapping was not done prior to the Amendment. This would have allowed for a more integrated approach and allowed for the impacts of any additional areas to be included in the WMO to be considered in the context of other strategies being developed for Strathfieldsaye.

9.4 Colin Jack


Mr Jack is concerned that reference to agricultural activities in Strathfieldsaye have been understated.


65

Council response

It is acknowledged that there are a number of significant agricultural enterprises operating in the district and they should be better recognised in the Township Plan.

Panel comment

We accept Council’s response on this submission and note that any changes to the Township Plan is a matter for Council.

9.5 Strathfieldsaye & Districts Community Enterprise (S&DCE)


The S&DCE made the following comments: the poultry farm to the south of the township should be protected

by a buffer; the recreation land abutting Axe Creek should be within the

Amendment; a traffic plan should be prepared; and a number of actions from the Community Plan should be included

in the Township Plan.

Council response it is agreed that a buffer for the poultry farm is important and

should be protected. As such the buffer area is not being rezoned as part of this Amendment;

there are numerous recommendations in the Township Plan in relation to the road hierarchy, road safety and the like, however it does not envisage a future bypass of the township;

the recreation land was not included in the authorisation, nor was it included in the exhibited Amendment and cannot be included at this stage; and

some of the actions suggested, such as those relating to community services and the waste transfer station are already included within the Township Plan, while others such as a future cemetery would be something that is more appropriately addressed in the Community Plan.

Panel comment

It was our understanding that the area affected by the poultry farm buffer was not included in the Amendment because it would have resulted in an excess of land available for residential purposes. Notwithstanding, we agree


66

that any future rezoning of land affected by the poultry farm would need to take into account the buffer.

We accept the Council’s response on the other matters raised in the submission.

9.6 Ella Pty Ltd


In addition to the submissions regarding the property at the north west corner of Taylors Lane and Bakers Lane, Mr Knox on behalf of Ella sought to include the land at 1 Red Tank Road and 114 Taylors Lane in the Amendment.

It was submitted that: the sites directly abut residential 1 zoned land; re serviced by sealed road frontage to Red Tank Road; can be serviced by the extension of sewer services from the north

side of Bakers Lane; and has all other services either connected or within vert close

proximity.

Further, Mr Knox submitted that land west of Regent Street that is identified on the Master Plan as “Future Activity Centre for Commercial Childcare Providers Site” should be rezoned from Residential 1 to a zone that would normally be found in a small neighbourhood activity centre.

Mr Connor of counsel, who represented Ella at the Hearing, stated that submissions would not be advanced on these matters.

Council response The land to the south of Red Tank Road is outside the study area

for the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan. It was not subject to any investigation as part of the project, nor was it considered as part of the Bendigo Residential Development Strategy (2004). It was not subject to authorisation or exhibition and it is considered that there is no strategic justification for its inclusion at this stage;

The Strathfieldsaye Township Structure Plan indicates the land south of Red Tank Road as being a ʺfuture growth optionʺ however this has been superseded by more recent work; and

The Township Plan suggests that any neighbourhood activity centre should be located on an arterial or collector road of which this site is not. A small convenience shop can lawfully be established in a Residential 1 Zone.


67

Panel comment

We accept Council’s submission that it would not be appropriate to include the land south of the Strathfieldsaye Township for rezoning in this Amendment. To include this land in the Amendment would result in a transformation of the Amendment. We also consider that it would be contrary to orderly and proper planning for the land to be included in the Township Plan.

We also accept Council’s response that it would be inappropriate to include land west of Regent Street as a neighbourhood activity centre given the opportunities for commercial development in the town centre.

Further, we accept Council’s response that a convenience store can be applied for in a Residential 1 Zone.


68

10. Form and content of the proposed planning policies and controls


The Amendment proposes to make a number of changes to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme to implement the outcomes of the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan.

There were a number of submissions that raised concern in relation to the proposed changes to the planning scheme, particularly the new DPO (Schedule 26).


As stated in section 3.3 of the Report, the Amendment must comply with the Ministerial Direction regarding The Form and Content of Planning Schemes.

In addition, the VPP Practice Note Applying Incorporated Plan and Development Overlays is also relevant.


In Chapter 7 of the Report, we identified concerns raised by submitters regarding some of the changes to the planning scheme, particularly the new DPO (Schedule 26). We also raised concern with some of the provisions. In summary, the main concerns are that:

the list of matters in Clause 1 exempting the need to prepare a Development Plan appear to be too limited, particularly given that DPO26 is to apply across the whole of the Strathfieldsaye township including existing urban areas;

the requirement that DSE must be consulted on the preparation of all Development Plans is inappropriate, particularly if there are no significant environmental issues to be addressed;

it is inappropriate to include a requirement that a density of 15 dwellings per hectare across the Township must be achieved; and

the provisions addressing Infrastructure requirements appear to duplicate the requirements of Clause 56.

In addition, the schedule does not include some of the more specific development requirements that are found in the Strathfieldsaye Township


69

Plan. It is not appropriate to refer to the Township Plan, as a reference document, to exercise discretion on subdivision and development applications.

Mr Cockerall, in his closing submission, stated that Council would welcome any additional comments the Panel sees fit to recommend to improve the operation and function of the DPO.

10.4 Discussion

10.4.1 Preferred statutory framework for implementing the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan

We stated in Chapter 7 that a more appropriate framework to implement the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan into the planning scheme should involve:

including the key objectives, strategies and plans into a relevant section of the Local Planning Policy Framework of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme;

re‐structuring the DPO schedule that would have general provisions applying to Strathfieldsaye and more specific provisions that apply to the different precincts;

the precincts that to be identified in the schedule should include: New Development Area West; New Development Area East (North of Strathfieldsaye Road); New Development Area East (South of Strathfieldsaye Road);

and Strathfieldsaye Town Centre.

Any specific requirements in the Township Plan regarding subdivision and development design should, as appropriate, be included in the schedule under the relevant precinct.

In terms of the exemptions from the need to prepare a Development Plan, Council included the following suggestions in its closing submission:

buildings and works ancillary to a dwelling; two lot subdivisions; construction of a second dwelling; or dependent persons unit; and non‐residential uses permitted in the Residential 1 Zone, such as a

medical centre or convenience shop.

While we consider the nature of exemptions needs to provide a reasonable level of discretion, particularly because the Amendment proposes to apply DPO26 throughout the township, including the established areas, we have


70

doubts as to the appropriateness of applying the DPO in the established urban areas.

We note that the VPP Practice Note states that a Development Plan should only apply to sites that contain no existing residential population and do not adjoin established residential areas. Further, the general approach by planning authorities has been to apply the DPO in urban growth areas.

We also note that Clause 22.12 (Strathfieldsaye Township Residential Character Policy) applies to most of the established areas in Strathfieldsaye. This policy includes objectives and design responses to ensure that development is responsive to the desired future character of the area.

Having regard to the Practice Note and Clause 22.12, we consider that Council should remove the DPO from the established urban areas and frame the exemptions from the need to prepare a Development Plan in that context. We note that the exemptions DPO21 (Jackass Flat) are the same as exhibited in this Amendment.

We also consider that Council should review Clause 22.12 with the view of applying the design requirements in a DDO rather than in a local policy. This is an action that could be pursued as part of the planning scheme review Council is proposing to undertake.

In relation to the role of DSE, we consider that its role should be limited to providing comment on native management plans, not on all Development Plans.

We note the draft schedule to the Jackass Flat New Development Area contains a number of requirements for areas not included in the Jackass Flat Vegetation Precinct Plan, 2009. We consider these provisions would be appropriate in DPO26.

Conclusions

In addition to the conclusions we made in relation to the implementation of the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan into the planning scheme, we conclude that:

The DPO should not apply to established urban areas in Strathfieldsaye;

The exemptions from the need to prepare a Development Plan are appropriate provided DPO26 is excluded from established urban areas; and

The provisions applying to native vegetation in DPO21 (Jackass Flat) would be appropriate in DPO26.


71

10.4.2 A way forward We are mindful that while we support most of the strategic aspects of the Amendment, we are suggesting a significant change as to how the outcomes of the STP should be implemented in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

This will involve preparing objectives and strategies for inclusion into a relevant section of the planning scheme, reviewing where the DPO should apply and substantially re‐writing the schedule to the DPO.

We have been mindful of the recent Panel reports and recommendations for Amendment C133 (Jackass Flat) and Amendment C136 (Huntly) and have sought to be consistent with the approach recommended by these two Panels.

We do not consider that it is our role to prepare the changes to the planning scheme we are recommending.

However, we could review a draft of the objectives and strategies and schedule to be prepared by Council. However, this is a matter for Council as it is responsible for meeting the Panel’s costs.

10.5 Recommendations

Having considered this issue, in addition to the recommendations in Chapter 7 relating to the implementation of the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan into the planning scheme, we recommend:

The DPO not apply to the established urban areas in Strathfieldsaye;

The exemptions from the need to prepare a Development Plan be applied provided DPO26 is excluded from established urban areas; and

The provisions applying to native vegetation in DPO21 (Jackass Flat) be considered for DPO26, as appropriate.


72

11. Recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, we recommend that:

Amendment C137 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme should be adopted subject to the following recommendations:

1. The key objectives, strategies and plans should be included into a relevant section of the Local Planning Policy Framework of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme;

2. The DPO schedule should be restructured with general provisions applying to Strathfieldsaye and more specific provisions applying to the different precincts;

3. The precincts that to be identified in the schedule should include:

• New Development Area West;

• New Development Area East (North of Strathfieldsaye Road);

• New Development Area East (South of Strathfieldsaye Road); and

• Strathfieldsaye Town Centre.

4. Any specific requirements in the Township Plan regarding subdivision and development design should, as appropriate, be included in the schedule under the relevant precinct;

5. The DPO not apply to the established urban areas in Strathfieldsaye;

6. The exemptions from the need to prepare a Development Plan be applied provided DPO26 is excluded from established urban areas;

7. The provisions applying to native vegetation in DPO21 (Jackass Flat) be considered for DPO26, as appropriate;

8. The land at 2 Club Court be retained in the B1Z;

9. The part of the site at 2 Club Court in the PUZ be rezoned to B1Z;

10. The land at 87 Taylors Lane should be rezoned Residential 1 as part of this Amendment; and

11. The land at the north west corner of Taylors Lane and Bakers Lane (excluding the vegetated area on the south east corner) should be rezoned Residential 1 as part of this Amendment.


73

Appendix A – Written submissions

Submitter Organisation (if any) Colin Campbell Murray Poustie Dulcie Bennett Brudian Pty Ltd Brian Lonsdale Pioneer Park Estate Pty Ltd BurnsBridge Sweett Wendy Radford Bushlinks Stuart Fraser and Stanislaw Pelczynski The Bendigo & District Environment Council

Inc Brett Williams and Leanne Trudgeon Colin Jack Somerset Park Bill and Margaret Cameron Urbis Tom McLean Geoff McLeod Geoff McLeod Tomkinson Group Peter and Robyn Mannes Tomkinson Group on behalf of several landowners

Col Brady Strathfieldsaye & District Community Enterprise

Amanda Fleming Department of Sustainability and Environment

Tony Knox Ella Pty Ltd Col Brady


74

Appendix B – Documents tabled at hearing

Document Number Dated Description Presented by

1 13.10.10 CoGB submission Andrew Cockerall 2 13.10.10 CoGB attachments Andrew Cockerall 3 13.10.10 Planning Guidelines for Urban Salinity Andrew Cockerall 4 13.10.10 A3 photograph of Strathfieldsaye Andrew Cockerall 5 13.10.10 A3 existing zoning map Andrew Cockerall 6 13.10.10 Regional urban development program –

draft report Andrew Cockerall

7 13.10.10 DSE submission Amanda Fleming 8 14.10.10 DPCD letter of 11.10.10 Nick Crawford 9 14.10.10 Urbis letter to DPCD – 8.10.10 Nick Crawford

10 14.10.10 DPCD letter to CoGB Nick Crawford 11 14.10.10 TP Legal submission Nick Crawford 12 14.10.10 Deed of Agreement Nick Crawford 13 14.10.10 BurnsBridge Sweett submission Gerard Gilfedder 14 14.10.10 VPP Practice Note on Incorporated Plan

and Development Plan Overlays Gerard Gilfedder

15 14.10.10 Extract from C136 Panel report Gerard Gilfedder 16 14.10.10 A3 Aerial of Guy Hills Road site Gerard Gilfedder 17 14.10.10 Clause 22.01 Greater Bendigo Planning

Scheme Gerard Gilfedder

18 14.10.10 BDEC submission Stuart Fraser 19 14.10.10 Extract from Strathfieldsaye Township Plan Stuart Fraser 20 14.10.10 CFA submission to C133 Panel Stuart Fraser 21 14.10.10 Trevor Budge submission to C102 Stuart Fraser 22 14.10.10 John Griffin submission John Griffin 23 14.10.10 Col and Julie Brady submission Col Brady 24 15.10.10 Brudian Trust Pty Ltd submission Dulcie Bennett 25 15.10.10 Colin Campbell submission Colin Campbell 26 15.10.10 Groundwater and Salinity Assessment by

GTS Paul Connor

27 15.10.10 Ella Pty Ltd submission Paul Connor


75

28 15.10.10 Property Titles Paul Connor 29 15.10.10 Permit DS/889/2001A Paul Connor 30 15.10.10 Regent Park ODP Paul Connor 31 15.10.10 A4 zoning map Paul Connor 32 15.10.10 Overlay maps Paul Connor 33 15.10.10 DPO4 Paul Connor 34 15.10.10 SMO map Paul Connor 35 15.10.10 Extract from Incorporated Plan Paul Connor 36 15.10.10 Endorsed subdivision plan Paul Connor 37 15.10.10 Regent Park ODP A3 Plan Paul Connor 38 15.10.10 Brett Bahen CV Paul Connor 39 15.10.10 Notice of Amendment C42 Paul Connor 40 15.10.10 Letter to CoGB Chris De Silva 41 15.10.10 Mesh submission Chris De Silva 42 15.10.10 Site analysis/design response plans Chris De Silva

43 15.10.10 VPP Practice Note on Incorporated Plan and Development Plan Overlays

Chris De Silva

44 15.10.10 City Vista concept plan Chris De Silva 45 15.10.10 Tomkinson Group submission David Robb 46 15.10.10 Expert reports – GTS Salinity Assessment,

Flood Management, Ecological Assessment

David Robb

47 15.10.10 Planning Property Report – 87 Taylors Lane

David Robb

48 15.10.10 CoGB closing submission and requested information

Andrew Cockerall

GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C137 STRATHFIELDSAYE · GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME...

Documents

Transcript of GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C137 STRATHFIELDSAYE · GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME...