Planning and Environment Act 1987 - City of Greater …...Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 – Significant Landscape Overlays

1 April 2016

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217

Significant Landscape Overlays

1 April 2016

Brett Davis, Chair Lisa Kendal, Member

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016

Contents Page

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

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 4 1.2 The Panel process .................................................................................................... 4 1.3 The subject area ...................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Background .............................................................................................................. 7 1.5 Issues dealt with in this report ................................................................................ 8

2 Planning context ......................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................. 10 2.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ............................................................. 10 2.4 Discussion and conclusion ..................................................................................... 11

3 Bendigo Landscape Assessment Study methodology ................................................ 12 3.1 The issues .............................................................................................................. 12 3.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 12 3.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 21 3.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 24 3.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 25

4 Application of the Significant Landscape Overlay ...................................................... 26 4.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 26 4.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 26 4.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 43 4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 48 4.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 49

5 Other matters ........................................................................................................... 50 5.1 Protection of environmental values in the study area ......................................... 50 5.2 Protection of the study area from development .................................................. 52 5.3 Fee Simple ............................................................................................................. 54

Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment

Appendix B Document list


List of Tables Page

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

List of Figures Page

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

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

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

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

Figure 5 Proposed revised Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 curtilage ................................................................................................................. 34


List of Abbreviations

CFA Country Fire Authority

CSLAS Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study 2006

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

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

EIIA Extractive Industry Interest Area

EPA Environment Protection Authority

EVC Ecological Vegetation Class

GRZ General Residential Zone

LAS Landscape Assessment Study

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

SLO Significant Landscape Overlay

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

the Study Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final Report (2013)

UGB Urban Growth Boundary

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Overview

Amendment Summary

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

Common Name Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Landscape Assessment

Planning Authority City of Greater Bendigo

Authorisation Conditional 25 March 2014

Exhibition 18 June to 30 July 2015

Submissions Number of Submissions: 53

‐ 27 supported the Amendment, or supported with changes

‐ 22 objected to the Amendment; and

‐ 4 submissions raised a number of issues.

Panel Process

The Panel Brett Davis and Lisa Kendal

Directions Hearing City of Greater Bendigo offices, 16 November 2015

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

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

Date of this Report 1 April 2016


Page 1 of 56

Executive Summary

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme (the Amendment) was prepared by the City of Greater Bendigo (Council) as Planning Authority.

As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to:

Introduce updates to the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clauses 21.08 and 21.10 to reflect the strategic recommendations of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final Report (2013) (The Study) and to include the Study as a reference document

Introduce two new schedules to the Significant Landscape Overlay (Schedule 3 and 4) to the Big Hill and Mandurang areas.

The Panel has considered all written submissions as well as submissions and evidence presented and tested during the Hearing.

Key issues raised in submissions included:

study purpose and methodology

extent and application of the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay

environmental protection and values

bushfire risk

protection of the study area from development

fee simple and compensation rights.

The Panel has reviewed the structure and content of the Schedules and the Study in detail. It is concerned that the Study is hard to read, the justification of conclusions is unclear, and this has the potential to cause some confusion to all stakeholders. This was reflected in the diverse submissions and opinions received.

The Panel has carefully considered the submissions and evidence presented to it in relation to the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay and has identified that it has a number of deficiencies. The Panel accepts that there is complexity in undertaking a landscape assessment to determine landscape significance; however in this instance the Panel considers it reasonable that the landscape must predominately be visible.

The Panel is of the view that the current extent of the Significant Landscape Overlay mapping is far too broad, determination of the overlay curtilage is inconsistent and further work is required to give confidence that the Significant Landscape Overlay is acceptable. The Panel found that while the Study did reference visibility, contours and elevation in relation to the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, this was not translated into its recommendations for the extent of the curtilage.

The Panel concurs with other Panel findings that any revision of the Significant Landscape Overlay in the future should consider the inclusion of public land.

There was confusion by some submitters that the Significant Landscape Overlay was a tool to restrict development. Development potential, particularly of Ravenswood Run was not a matter for the Panel to consider at this Hearing. The Panel’s task is to decide whether or not the application of a Significant Landscape Overlay is strategically justified.


Page 2 of 56

The only expert evidence was called by representatives for Ravenswood Run and the Panel placed significant weight on the observations of its expert Mr Haack.

Whilst the Council has demonstrated a substantial amount of work in relation to the preparation of the Amendment, the lack of clarity of stated purpose, and translation of findings into overlay controls has led the Panel to not support the Amendment in its current form. The Panel found that the link or “nexus” between the Study and its translation into the implementation of a Significant Landscape Overlay as exhibited was not justified.

The Panel has recommended deferment rather than abandonment. It does so acknowledging the time, effort and ultimate cost in undertaking this type of Amendment. The need to re‐exhibit the Amendment will be a judgement call based on the course of action that the Council takes.

In relation to the Study, the Panel concludes:

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

The Study process would be more reliable and convincing if the study team had undertaken a site inspection of the largest parcel of land in the study area

A landscape assessment study relying on secondary sources of information to complement visual analysis and consultation should demonstrate evidence of this throughout the document through, for example, a literature review, source references and a bibliography.

It would be beneficial to have a greater understanding of comparative significance of the landscape assessed, to help understand the relative importance of protection and appropriate tools to achieve this.

The Study recommendations would be more robust if the report and study process demonstrated more clearly how the findings from community engagement were considered and integrated into the final recommendations.

The Study should be revised in line with the conclusions and an Executive Summary prepared. The Executive Summary should then be used as a Reference Document.

In relation to the Significant Landscape Overlay the Panel concludes:

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

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

The Overlay controls do not increase the risk of bushfire as the planning scheme needs to be read in its entirety.

The comments provided by the CFA and Public Transport Victoria are appropriate once revisions to the Amendment occur ‐ relevant permit exemptions for public land managers should be included in any revised schedule

The Planning Scheme adequately provides for applications for stone extraction in the study area.

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

Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3 as exhibited is not supported.

The application of Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 should be reviewed with consideration of all landscape visibility and use of natural features to determine boundaries and a reduction in its size.


Page 3 of 56

The Overlay should include the ridgeline and escarpment.

Consideration of the area to the south east of the exhibited area of Big Hill should be considered for a future Amendment.

In relation to the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 – Mandurang, the Panel concludes:


Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 should only be applied to the forest interface to protect the landscape values of Mandurang.

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

The adoption of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 should be 1.deferred pending further work.

The adoption of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang 2.Valley Final Report (2013) (the Study) as a Reference Document is not supported in its current form. The Study should be revised to include:

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

b) clearly numbered subheadings, numbered tables, figures and maps, with listing of all elements in an associated list of tables, figure or maps

c) clear definitions relating to landscape significance d) a bibliography referencing all source material e) a clear nexus should be demonstrated between the Study, the extent of

any Overlay and wording to the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedules.

The Significant Landscape Overlay Schedules as exhibited are not supported. 3.Council should re‐examine the areas covered by the Significant Landscape Overlay. The areas should be more carefully and logically defined so that land is not unnecessarily included. This review should:

a) include significant landscape areas zoned Rural Conservation Zone and Public Conservation and Resource Zone

b) include the ridgeline and escarpment at Big Hill and substantially reduce the application to the remainder of the site at Ravenswood Run

c) use landscape features to determine the overlay curtilage d) provide a logical boundary around the Box Ironbark forest and interface

properties


Page 4 of 56

1 Introduction

1.1 The Amendment

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 (the Amendment) was prepared by Council as Planning Authority.

As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to:

introduce updates to the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clauses 21.08 and 21.10 to reflect the strategic recommendations of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final Report (2013) (the Study) It also introduces two new schedules to the Significant Landscape Overlay.

In particular the Amendment proposes to:

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

amend Clause 21.08‐1 ‘Overview’ to include reference to landscape values of Big Hill, Mandurang Valley and Box Ironbark region.

amend Clause 21.08‐2 ‘Objectives’ to include an objective relating to the protection and management of areas with significant landscape character and value.

amend Clause 21.08‐3 ‘Strategies’ to include a strategy relating to sensitive design and development within areas of identified landscape value.

amend Clause 21.08‐4 ‘Implementation’ to update under ‘Zone and Overlay’, and under ‘Further strategic work’ removes reference to ‘completing a landscape assessment of rural areas such as Big Hill and replaces with a reference to encourage further strategic work to identify and investigate other areas of potentially significant landscape character.

amend Clause 21.10 to include the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final Report (2013) as a reference document.

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

SLO3 applies to Big Hill Significant Landscape Area, and

SLO4 applies to Mandurang Valley Significant Landscape Area.

Amend the Schedule to Clause 61.03 to insert reference to new planning scheme maps for SLO3 on map nos 26SLO, 29SLO, 31SLO and 39SLO, and SLO4 on map nos 24SLO, 26SLO, 27SLO, 28SLO, 29SLO, 31SLO & 39SLO.

1.2 The Panel process

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

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


Page 5 of 56

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing

Submitter Represented by

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

DEDJTR Richard Hancock

Big Hill Action Group Bruce Carpenter and Gill Rosier

Steve Lottkowitz

Ravenswood Run1 Paul Connor of Counsel instructed by Stephen Pole (Spiire), who called the following expert witnesses:

‐ Peter Haack, Landscape Architect, Urbis Pty Ltd

Wendy Radford

Dr Jenny Parrat and Dr John Togno

Sharon Munro Dr John Togno

Jarrod Taylor

Stanislaw Pelczynski and Barbara Pelczynska

Bendigo and District Environment

Council

Stuart Fraser and Gill Rosier

The Panel conducted an unaccompanied site inspection on 16 and 27 January 2016 and an accompanied inspection (with Council, Mr Connor and community representatives) of the Ravenswood Run property on 28 January 2016.

1.3 The subject area

Figure 1 depicts the subject area as outlined in red.

1 Ravenswood Run made two written submissions to the Amendment through different consultants Spiire (submitter 16)

and through Tract (submitter 43).


Page 6 of 56

Figure 1 Landscape Assessment area Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final Report, 2013, p15

The Amendment applies to land as shown in Figure 2.


Page 7 of 56

Figure 2 Amendment Area Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final Report, 2013, p131

1.4 Background

Planisphere was engaged by Council to prepare the Study. The Study was undertaken over a 13 month period from January 2012 to February 2013.

The project brief from Council required a review of best practice landscape assessment to inform its methodology. The Study was required to include a landscape management framework which included statutory and non‐statutory approaches and management actions.

It involved community engagement, a period of community exhibition to provide feedback on the draft report, and regular meetings with a Project Reference Group and Steering Committee.

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


Page 8 of 56

1.5 Issues dealt with in this report

The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of specific sites.

The Panel has carefully considered the submissions and evidence presented to it in relation to the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay and has identified that it has a number of deficiencies. The Panel recommends that further work be carried out on the Study and on the extent of the proposed overlay.

This report deals with the issues under the following headings:

Planning context

Bendigo Landscape Assessment Study methodology

Application of the Significant Landscape Overlay

Other matters.


Page 9 of 56

2 Planning context

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

The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies.

2.1 Policy framework

(i) State Planning Policy Framework

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

Clause 11 – Settlement - Clause 11.12 – Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth

Clause 12 – Environmental and Landscape Values - Clause 12.01‐1 Protection of Biodiversity - Clause 12.04 Significant Environments and Landscapes - Clause 12.04‐2 Landscapes

Clause 13 – Environmental Risks

Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 16 – Housing.

(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework

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

Clause 21.02‐1 – Urban Forest Interface is supported because the Amendment seeks to further protect land within or adjoining these landscapes

Clause 21.05 – Settlement is supported because the Amendment seeks to protect and maintain forested areas surrounding Bendigo

Clause 21.08 – Environment is supported because the Amendment will enhance and complement existing strategies to protect the environmental assets of Greater Bendigo, in particular the Box Ironbark region

Clause 22.01 – Development at the Urban – Forest Interface Policy is supported because the Amendment will enhance protection for land which interfaces with Box Ironbark forests

Clause 22.02 – Rural Dwellings Policy is supported because the Amendment will complement the objectives of this clause by ensuring that ‘any future development is sensitively designed to minimise impacts on natural and landscape values’

Clause 22.08 – Highway Entrances and Boulevards Policy is supported because the Amendment will specify design requirements for any development around Big Hill, as the primary southern gateway to the City of Greater Bendigo

Clause 22.09 – Calder Freeway and Calder Highway Environs Policy is supported because the Amendment will implement objectives to protect key viewing corridors including views to and views from the Highway.


Page 10 of 56

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

Council Plan

Theme 5: Sustainability

1. The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing place are valued and conserved

5.1 Protect and conserve Greater Bendigo’s natural environment and settings for the future

Rural Areas Strategy (2009)

Future Strategic Work: Significant Landscape Overlay – A study for the Big Hill escarpment, parts of the Mandurang Valley and areas of the Campaspe / Axe Creek.

Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan Reference

12. Environment

Future Direction – Protect identified visually important landscapes and cultural and built heritage places

2.2 Planning scheme provisions

(i) Zones and Overlays

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

Schedule 3 ‐ Big Hill Significant Landscape Area

Schedule 4 – Mandurang Valley Significant Landscape Area.

The purpose of the Significant Landscape Overlay is:

To identify significant landscapes

To conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes.

The schedules are proposed to be applied to land currently subject to the Farming Zone, Rural Living Zone or Low Density Residential Zone.

The land may also be subject to other overlay controls, including the Bushfire Management Overlay, Design and Development Overlay, Environmental Significance Overlay, Erosion Management Overlay, Heritage Overlay, Restructure Overlay, Salinity Management Overlay and Vegetation Protection Overlay.

2.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

Council submitted that the Amendment meets the relevant requirements of the following Ministerial Directions and Planning Practice Notes:


Page 11 of 56

(i) Ministerial Directions

Ministerial Direction 11 ‐ Strategic Assessment of Amendments

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

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

The Amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Act

The Panel has also identified as relevant:

(ii) Planning Practice Notes

PPN2 – Public Land Zones

The Amendment considers application of an overlay on public land. The Practice Note states that “in deciding whether to apply an overlay to land, the public land zones should be treated in the same manner as other zones”.

2.4 Discussion and conclusion

While the Amendment generally meets the requirements specified in the Local and State Planning Policy Frameworks, for reasons outlined in this report, the Panel concludes it does not implement the objectives effectively and requires further work. This is discussed in Chapter 3 and 4.


Page 12 of 56

3 Bendigo Landscape Assessment Study methodology

3.1 The issues

The Panel Hearing and submission process raised issues about whether the methodology for the Study was suitable for:

achieving the purpose of the study

determining landscape significance of the study area

justifying the conclusions and recommendations of the study, in particular application of the Significant Landscape Overlay to parts of the study area.

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

3.2 Evidence and submissions

Council submitted the Study divides the study area into different landscape character areas, and uses a values framework to assess the significance of each of these character areas. It submitted that the purpose of the Study was to:

gain a detailed understanding of the character and values of the Big Hill and Mandurang Valley landscapes, and to develop a framework for their future management as they continue to change over time.

The intent from the outset was for the Study to act as a ’pilot study‘, testing the methodology for use elsewhere in the municipality.

Council submitted that the Study methodology was based on a process developed by Planisphere over the last decade, and had been accepted by the “State government, multiple Councils and Planning Panels, and underpins many successful planning scheme amendments”. Council submitted that Planisphere has received State and national awards from the Planning Institute of Australia and the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects for their landscape assessment studies. Most recently the methodology has been used in the six draft regional Landscape Assessment Studies (LAS’s) being undertaken by the State government.

Council submitted that the Study is different to the regional Landscape Assessment Studies in that it is a local, not regional scale, study and it “‘drills down’ to locally Significant Landscape Overlays, through a deeper and more localised exploration of values and community sentiment”.

The Study states that “this work stems from the City of Greater Bendigo Rural Areas Strategy (2009), which identified these two areas as being the most at‐risk from development pressure” (p.10).

The Study methodology comprised the following steps:

Step 1: Identification of landscape character and landscape values

Step 2: Assessment of landscape significance and setting future character directions


Page 13 of 56

Step 3: Understanding anticipated change in the landscape and management issues

Step 4: Analysis of current planning control and policy gaps

Step 5: Preparation of a landscape management framework.

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

The study area boundary was defined through desktop analysis and site surveys undertaken by Planisphere, and confirmed through discussion with the Project Reference Group and Steering Committee. The study area adopted was based upon broad areas around Big Hill and Mandurang Valley identified in the project brief, but modified to include key topographic features, areas of public land and viewing corridors (refer to Final Report, p14). The study area boundary reflects cadastral boundaries in all locations and adopts logical edges such as roads and zone boundaries where possible.

Several submissions commended the Study as a high level and holistic study and supported the range of planning and non‐planning related management recommendations in the report.

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

The Council is to be congratulated on formulating a comprehensive landscape management plan that acknowledges the significance of the landscape prior to decision‐making about its land use.

Mr Lottkowitz (submitter 44) submitted that the landscape assessment study was a ’cutting edge‘ process by Council, but noted that overall he felt that the report dealt inadequately with the aspirations of the project.

A large number of submissions called for scientific studies and land management actions to fill perceived gaps in the Study and proposed planning controls. This is discussed further in Chapter 5 of this report.

There were a number of submissions supporting the Amendment as a tool for preventing or restricting development in the Study area. This is discussed further in Chapter 5 of this report.

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

Field surveys and a visual assessment was conducted by the Study team to identify aesthetic and visual values of the study area

Secondary sources of information were reviewed, including historic, environmental, scientific, cultural and social information or research material; and

Community consultation was undertaken to identify and understand how the community values the landscape.

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


Page 14 of 56

(i) Field surveys and visual assessment

Council submitted that the visual assessment was based upon site surveys undertaken by the study team, through “driving all of the study area roads, walking a selection of recreational access trails, stopping at viewing points and accessing a number of private properties through arrangement with landowners”. The important viewing locations, viewing corridors and scenic routes are identified in the Study (p. 56 – 64). The Study also documented patterns of viewing, or “way in which all parts of the landscape is experienced”. Documentation of this assessment was presented in the Study through photos taken by Planisphere, and those provided by the community.

(ii) Secondary sources / Scientific and expert evidence

A number of submitters were of the opinion that the methodology and study process did not adequately consider scientific studies or specialist reports, and therefore that the Study did not provide a sound basis to underpin the conclusions and recommendations of the report.

The Bendigo and District Environment Council (submitter 9) noted that the assessment was “happening at a very high level” and there was lack of consideration within the Amendment and supporting documentation of a number of significant matters including wildfire, salinity, erosion, flora and fauna and geomorphology.

The Bendigo and District Environment Council (submitter 9), Bendigo Field Naturalists Club Inc. (submitter 29), Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30), Gill and Mick Rosier (submitter 42) and Dr John Bardsley and Ms Radford (submitter 49) submitted that the report prepared by Phil Dyson (2004) Landscapes, Groundwater Systems and Salinity Management in the Northern Sector of the Harcourt Granodiorite – Metamorphic Aureole Complex, which was not referenced in the Study, provided valuable information and recommendations relating to soil issues and management considerations for the study area.

Mr Connor of Counsel, on behalf of Ravenswood Run, objected to the Amendment in its current form on the basis that the Study provided insufficient evidence to support its recommendations.

Mr Connor also questioned the accuracy and currency of the information and data that the Study relied on in drawing its conclusions, stating that “it is our understanding that Council’s position has been largely formulated based upon the results of the Assessment and no other specialist reports” and “…the information and data relied on in the preparation of the Assessment appears to be outdated and inconclusive”.

In response, Council submitted a reference to two specialist studies underpinning the geological significance of Big Hill:

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

Geology of Victoria, Geological Society of Victoria, 2003 Geological Survey Report 99, D.P. Cherry and H.E.Wilkinson, 1994.


Page 15 of 56

(iii) Community consultation

Council submitted that the community engagement process was implemented in accordance with the Community Engagement Plan that was developed by Planisphere with guidance from the Project Reference Group and Steering Committee. The approach to community consultation and findings are documented in Chapter 3 of the Study.

Focussed engagement was undertaken through the Project Steering Committee and Project Reference Group:

The Project Reference Group and Steering Committee were established at the project commencement to provide focussed input at each project milestone. The Project Reference Group included people with a specialist knowledge of the area including representatives from Parks Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Landcare groups, heritage organisations, Farming Consultative Committee, Field Naturalists Club and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. The Steering Committee included representatives of relevant City of Greater Bendigo departments, Councillors and DTPLI (now DELWP).

Broader community consultation was undertaken through various engagement tools and methods, including Council’s website, a project blog, four community bulletins a survey, community photographic exercise, media releases, two community workshops in both Big Hill and Mandurang (ie a total of four workshops) and a public display of the draft Final Report and media releases.

Council submitted that one of the Study team members, “also met individually with local property owners, public land managers and heritage groups to research the cultural values of the study area.”

Big Hill Action Group (submitter 17), Gill and Mick Rosier (submitter 42) and Dr John Bardsley and Wendy Radford (submitter 49) indicated strong support for the community consultation process. Dr Bardsley and Ms Radford state that “thorough and broad consultation was a hallmark of the Landscape Assessment Report”.

Geoff and Beth Hosking (submitter 23) and Tom Harper (submitter 35) questioned the effectiveness of the consultation process. In relation to the Mandurang area they submitted that “they were not aware of many local people who had any knowledge of the Assessment and how it would affect them.”

In response to questions raised by Mr Harper about the number of participants in the consultation process, Council clarified that 70 people attended workshops and 19 people responded to a short survey.

Dr John Togno (submitter 25), representing Sharon Munro (submitter 21), submitted that the town planning documents provided by the Council to community throughout the Study and the Amendment process were not easy to understand and could be “threatening” to those not familiar with the professional language. He suggested that the City of Greater Bendigo could improve its communication with residents in relation to planning matters.

Mr Harper submitted that he doubted that many people would have “read the Assessment in its entirety due to the vast amount of information contained within its 200+ pages”.


Page 16 of 56

Mr Connor questioned the extent and level of influence that the Project Control Group and the Steering Committee provided. Mr Connor suggested that the Steering Committee may have unduly influenced the outcomes of the project.

In response to Mr Connor’s assertions, Council submitted that the establishment of a Steering Committee and the Reference Group is part of the City’s standard approach to the governance of such projects. Council stated that the process was designed to ensure that there is ownership of the project across units within Council and external stakeholders.

(iv) Ravenswood Run

Ravenswood Run is the largest land holding in the study area, representing approximately 2,080 hectares and “constitutes between and one half of the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 area”. Mr Connor, submitted that his client was:

not aware of any visit to the site by Council and its appointed consultant that may have informed the appropriate preparation and finalisation of the Assessment.

Mr Connor submitted that the visual assessment process was not adequate, as more detail was required in relation to landscape and viewshed analysis.

Mr Connor submitted that the study process does not justify the conclusion that the “Big Hill ridge line, the low lands and rolling hills to the south of the Big Hill Range” is a single landscape character unit on the basis that more detail is required in relation to viewshed mapping and landscape character profile before appropriate recommendations can be determined.

Mr Connor called Mr Haack, a Landscape Architect from Urbis to provide expert evidence on landscape significance. It was Mr Haack’s evidence that the mapping and overlay analysis was overdone, and that the process was “light on ground assessment.”

Mr Connor submitted:

We do not believe that the characterisation of the Big Hill ridge line, the low lands and rolling hills to the south of the Big Hill Range as a single landscape character unit is justified by the process.

Council submitted that a visual assessment methodology based on detailed viewshed mapping was not considered suitable for this type of landscape assessment study, as it focused on single viewpoints. Viewshed mapping was not required by the study brief:

It is a methodology appropriate for a Visual Impact Assessment and determining the appropriate siting and design of new development within the landscape…While useful in understanding the impact of development upon a specific part of a landscape, it is not a holistic analysis approach.

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

the study team made a brief visit to the Ravenswood Homestead. Otherwise, the Ravenswood site has been viewed from publicly accessible locations and


Page 17 of 56

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

The Panel accepted an invitation to visit the Ravenswood Run property as part of the Hearing process, and this site visit was undertaken by representatives of interested parties on Thursday 28 January 2016.

During the site visit the Panel observed that the large property contained a number of significant landscape features, including waterways, remnant vegetation, in particular River Red Gums, areas of revegetation, heritage buildings, rocky outcrops, steep escarpments and the Big Hill ridgeline.

The Panel observed that due to the large size of the property and undulating topography, many of the features are not visible from publically accessible viewing points. During the site visit it was confirmed by Ms Knight that the Study team had not undertaken a field survey of the Ravenswood Run property.

(v) Determination of Landscape Significance

The Study mapped six landscape character areas (see Figure 3), and assessed their significance with consideration of five values (p.80 – 93):

Visual - Landscape features - Edges or contrasts - Views

Historical and Cultural - Documented pre‐ and post‐contact heritage value - Documented in heritage registers and lists, photographs and early maps

Environmental / Scientific - Documented environmental or scientific value - Archaeological, flora and fauna habitats and geological values

Social - Lifestyle, tourism, recreational or artistic

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


Page 18 of 56

Figure 3 Landscape Character Areas Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley, 2013, p. 43

Council submitted that:

Planisphere’s landscape assessment studies are discriminating – while the character analysis covers large areas (often a whole municipality), the identification of significant landscapes is generally confined to discrete locations. This was a particularly important consideration in this Study because it is intended as the first of several studies to cover other parts of the city’s rural landscape.

(vi) Landscape values

Council submitted that landscape significance was determined in the Study through a process of developing an understanding of landscape character and landscape values. Landscape significance was defined as “the designation of a particular landscape as special or important arising from its landscape values, including aesthetic values and other documented values such as historic, environmental, scientific, social or other values”.

The Study included a Values Summary table (Figure 4) which ranks the landscape values of each landscape character area as higher, moderate and lower. The Study stated that “all values are considered to have equal weight in determining the future management objectives for a particular area” (p. 80), however in response to a question from the Panel about the weighting of values, Ms Knight clarified that visual significance was the primary driver.


Page 19 of 56

Figure 4 Values Summary table Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley, 2013, p. 95

The Values Summary table concludes that:

Big Hill has higher visual, historic and cultural and environmental and scientific values, with moderate to lower social values and economic values

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

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

Council submitted that it considered the landscape setting of the study area within the context of the municipality to provide context and an indication of comparative significance of the Study area. The Study includes a section on “General Character of the Greater Bendigo Landscape” (p. 24 – 27) but does not, however, include a statement of comparative significance of the Study area with other landscapes across the City.

Council submitted that the Central Victoria Landscape Assessment Study, which was schedule to be completed in 2015 but which has not yet been finalised, would define which “places, features and views are most significant” across the region.

The Study explains that “while it is possible to infer a ranking of significance” from the Values Summary table, “(e.g. Higher could be taken to mean State, Moderate to mean Regional, Lower to mean Local), it may be wiser to defer a definitive ranking until a landscape assessment of the whole of Greater Bendigo has been undertaken (p. 94)”.

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

Managing development ‐ Reducing potential for negative impact of development, maintaining a compact city, keeping development within the city/urban growth boundaries


Page 20 of 56

Environmental values ‐ biodiversity, ecological, wildlife corridors, protection of remnant vegetation, National/State Parks, reducing potential for fragmentation of remnants

Visual amenity ‐ aesthetic values, natural beauty, high visibility rural character, City in the Forest, soften the urban edge boundaries, protection of pleasing outlooks

Heritage and Social values – health and wellbeing.

In relation to visual appreciation of the study area, a number of submitters stated that they considered the landscape to have visual significance:

Rosemary Glaisher (submitter 8) submitted that “taking the broad view, there is what the approaches to our beautiful city look like … there is a sense of passing through a relatively unspoilt forest and blue timbered hills as you drive into Bendigo …”.

Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30) submitted that the Amendment will complement and retain the magnificent entry to Bendigo, and that South Mandurang “this is a unique forested area of Bendigo, valued by locals and visitors alike for its rural amenity and pleasing visual outlook afforded by the Box Ironbark forests and the flora and fauna that they contain.

Gill and Mick Rosier (submitter 42) submitted that “… the Big Hill / Ravenswood landscape is viewed as significant as the southern gateway to Bendigo, with its distinctive landforms, heritage and cultural values, and for the retention of Farming Zone within this area”.

Ms Parrat and Mr Togno (submitter 25), who are residents of Mandurang, stated that while they appreciate that there are some in the community who would consider their property visually appealing, “that appears to integrate with the local indigenous landscape. However, this visual heritage landscape is only around 20 years old” and the result of revegetation and planting for a personal firewood supply.

The National Trust of Victoria (submitter 40), supported the Amendment. The National Trust maintains a register of significant places, and stated that “while the National Trust has not classified the Big Hill and Mandurang Valley as a significant landscape, we appreciate the work of Greater Bendigo City Council in redressing this knowledge gap and seeking planning controls for this important landscape”.

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

The Study methodology acknowledges the visibility of a landscape as a contributing factor to determining its sensitivity to change and appropriate management mechanisms. However, the visibility of a landscape is not a factor in determining its significance (Final Report, p80). If a landscape is not easily viewed, it is not considered that it is less significant as a result. The ability to view a landscape does not negate its visual and other values.

A landscape which is not currently visible may be visible or visited in the future. This might include additional walking trails, internal roads through the site or viewing points.


Page 21 of 56

(vii) Community values

A number of submitters indicated that they understood the intention of the process was to represent community values as a key determinant of landscape significance.

Dr Bardsley and Ms Radford (submitter 49) submitted that they understood the process “is about a subjective valuation of the landscape as a whole by the community as a whole”. They concluded that the final Study reflected the community’s valuation of the landscape.

The Bendigo and District Environment Group (submitter 9) indicated that the assessment of landscape significance is considered to be a subjective process, and the “opinions, preferences, values, feelings and judgements of those who participated in the Big Hill Mandurang Valley Final Report 2013 cannot be ignored as not being relevant to what constitutes significance. The people find the landscapes significant”.

In response to a question from the Panel about the relative weighting of community views of the landscape significance, Ms Knight on behalf of Council clarified that the determination of landscape significance was “ultimately a professional opinion supported by data and consultation.”

Under cross examination, Mr Haack gave evidence that, in his opinion, whilst Planisphere has pioneered community engagement methods in landscape assessment; these can be given too much weight.

In response to submissions and evidence Council stated that:

The value of community input has been clearly demonstrated during this Panel hearing. We have heard submissions from the people who live in this area and know it intimately. This has provided the Panel with information that would not otherwise be evident or available.

We disagree with the Ravenswood submission that a study should be done by experts in an objective fashion and without input from the community.

Many comments from the community do not reflect the study brief or scope, but have been reported in the document nonetheless to record the community views.

The assessment of landscape values undertaken in the Study in Chapter 4 is based upon evaluation of criteria set out in the study method. Information provided by the community has been included in this assessment as it relates to these criteria, where it is directly relevant to the Study assessment methodology.

3.3 Discussion

In support of the Study methodology, Council explained that the landscape assessment methodology was based on international best practice and has been accepted by the State government, multiple Councils and Planning Panels. Council cited a number of panel reports to support this position.


Page 22 of 56

In reviewing a number of these panel reports, the Panel identified that while the panel reports accepted the landscape assessment methodology as “a credible methodology2”, the studies are not directly comparable as they were regional, as opposed to local, landscape assessment studies.

Council also cited as relevant the six Landscape Assessment Studies that are currently being undertaken by the State Government using the Planisphere methodology. Again it is noted by the Panel that these studies are not directly comparable as they are being undertaken at a regional scale.

The Panel notes that the Study is a local landscape study, not state or regional, that Council’s intention was to run this as a pilot project for possible application in other parts of the Municipality. As a local pilot study, an adjustment was made to the previously used methodology to allow for “deeper and more localised exploration of values and community sentiment”. Council did not, however, explain any changes to the methodology in relation to determination of appropriate management recommendations.

On the basis that this is a pilot study for local landscape assessment studies, it is important that effectiveness of the Study methodology for achieving the Study purpose be carefully assessed, and modified as required for future application.

A review of the cited panel reports identified a number of issues relevant to this Amendment, in particular appropriate application of the Significant Landscape Overlay. These are discussed further in Chapter 4 of this report.

In preparation of the Study, the Panel notes that the consultant team undertook field surveys and viewed the study area from a number of publically accessible viewing points, and from some properties within the Study area. Planisphere explained that given the size of the study area that it was not possible to visit all properties.

Given the significance Ravenswood Run, representing a large proportion of the study area (over 2,000 hectares), much of which cannot be seen from publicly accessible viewpoints, the Panel was surprised that there was no attempt by the Study team to undertake a site inspection of this land.

Whilst the study team used aerial photography and assessed the property from publicly accessible viewpoints, this would not have provided a full appreciation of the landscape values of the Ravenswood Run. In doing so, it was apparent to the Panel on the accompanied site inspection that vast tracts of land earmarked for the Overlay were not appropriate.

Mr Connor suggested that more detailed visual analysis was required, including viewshed mapping. Council argued that viewshed mapping was not suitable for the Study, as it was more suited to visual impact assessment. The Panel understands that viewshed analysis can provide a detailed visual assessment, and there may be value in using this method in conjunction with assessment of other landscape values.

2 Greater Geelong C177 Panel Report, June 2010, p50


Page 23 of 56

In relation to secondary source material:

The Study identified a number of source documents in Background Documents and Policy Context (p17). The majority of these are Council strategic plans and the list does not include any scientific studies or expert sources of information.

The Study includes a number of maps and information about landscape characteristics in the Study area. For example Chapter 2 of the Study, Landscape Character, includes figures and plans showing bioregions, topography and water form, geology, elevation, slope, ecological vegetation classes and heritage assets. This section does not, however, include reference to the significance of these assets or reference to any particular sources of scientific data or research underpinning the information.

Chapter four of the Study includes Landscape Values tables for each of the Landscape Character areas, and identifies the source of information for each of the identified values. The sources of information identified include [field] survey, community, planning controls, and in relation to heritage values it makes reference the heritage overlay or Victorian Heritage Register. There is one reference to DSE in the table, which the Panel assumes refers to the State Department of Sustainability and Environment. Referenced sources of information are generally not included. The tables do not clearly identify the significance of values, such as heritage assets or ecological vegetation classes.

Appendix C of the Study includes detailed Character Area Analysis Papers for each of the landscape character areas. Only occasional reference is made in the text to source documents. Information relating to vegetation identifies the remnant ecological vegetation classes, but with only occasional reference to status or significance. The analysis of vegetation significance relates primarily to the character and visual impact of the vegetation, rather than its scientific importance. Planning controls for each of the landscape character areas are presented in some detail. The two Big Hill Character areas include reference to two source documents in footnotes, one unspecified North Central CMA document from 2005 and another titled “To Big Hill and Back”.

The Study does not include a bibliography documenting secondary sources, so it is not obvious to the reader that what these sources are and how they have been considered in the Study.

Due to the lack of information in the Study about the source documents and data used it is not possible for the Panel to form a judgement about the extent to which this material was used in formulation of the Study. Nor whether the information used is accurate, outdated or inconclusive.

The Panel agrees that the community engagement process undertaken by Planisphere was comprehensive and appreciated by many members of the community. The community consultation process provided the community with many opportunities to contribute to the project, with a reasonable number attending workshops and a small number responding to the survey.

However, the Panel understands that a number of submitters suggested that the consultation process was not adequate and that many in the community were not aware of the Study. Submitters also raised the issue that the town planning information provided by Council was difficult to understand and could be ‘threatening’, and that the Study report was too large and may not have been read by many in the community.


Page 24 of 56

The question of over emphasis on community opinion was raised. Whilst it is stated by Council that the Study is ultimately an expression of professional opinion informed by data and consultation, there are a number of aspects of the Study process, submissions and hearing which raise questions in the Panel’s view about whether this was achieved:

limited field assessment

lack of reference secondary sources

several submitters indicating that they understood that the Study recommendations would be subjective and based on community opinion

Landscape Significance and Values Assessment (Chapter 4 of the Study) identifies ‘community’ as a source of the majority of identified values

Inclusion of community submissions that do not relate to the study purpose (rather than documented in an appendix or separate document) which can appear to give them undue weight or significance

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

Whilst the Study stated that in the determination of landscape significance all values are considered equally, Ms Knight clarified that visual significance was the key determinant. The Panel found it would be helpful if the Study clearly explained how the weighting of values was applied.

This was illustrated in the time it took for Council to clearly articulate how the Values Summary (Figure 4) worked. For example, in response to a question from the Panel about the meaning of the ranking, in particular given Mandurang Valley which is ranked primarily as ‘lower’, Ms Knight stated whilst Mandurang was listed as ‘lower’, this did not mean that the landscape significance was ‘low’. This is an indication of relative significance, and was still at a level warranting inclusion in the Significant Landscape Overlay.

The Panel found this logic hard to interpret. How the general public could interpret it is another matter again. The purpose of ranking the character areas in the Study is not clear. In fact, the Study concludes that “it may be wiser to defer a definitive ranking until a landscape assessment of the whole of Greater Bendigo has been undertaken” (p. 94).

Council’s submission stated that the Study identified landscape significance with respect to landscape context and comparative significance across the Municipality, yet the Panel found no evidence of this in the Study.

It would have been valuable if the Study had explained the comparative significance of landscapes in the study area, to assist with understanding how the subject landscape compares with other areas within the Municipality or beyond. This has implications for application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, and this is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this report.

3.4 Conclusions

Whilst the Planisphere methodology has been developed and tested over some time, and references international best practice, this has previously been applied to regional and State projects. As this Study was undertaken as a pilot to test the methodology for future local landscape assessment studies, the Panel concludes that there are opportunities to refine the process to better suit local application of landscape significance assessments. The Study


Page 25 of 56

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

The Study requires revisiting to ensure that it is clearly understood and referenced appropriately. The Panel is of the view that an Executive Summary is is required.

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

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

The Study process would be more reliable and convincing if the study team had undertaken a site inspection of the largest parcel of land in the study area.

A landscape assessment study relying on secondary sources of information to complement visual analysis and consultation should demonstrate evidence of this throughout the document through, for example, a literature review, source references and a bibliography.

It would be beneficial to have a greater understanding of comparative significance of the landscape assessed, to help understand the relative importance of protection and appropriate tools to achieve this.

The Study recommendations would be more robust if the report and study process demonstrated more clearly how the findings from community engagement were considered and integrated into the final recommendations.

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

3.5 Recommendations

The adoption of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 should be 1.deferred pending further work.

The adoption of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang 2.Valley Final Report (2013) (the Study) as a Reference Document is not supported in its current form. The Study should be revised to include: a) an Executive Summary with details of the Study findings and

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

listing of all elements in an associated list of tables, figure or maps c) clear definitions relating to landscape significance d) a bibliography referencing all source material e) a clear nexus should be demonstrated between the Study, the extent of any

Overlay and wording to the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedules.


Page 26 of 56

4 Application of the Significant Landscape Overlay

4.1 The issue

Is the use of the Significant Landscape Overlay appropriate?

4.2 Evidence and submissions

A number of submissions questioned the “blanket application” of the Significant Landscape Overlay to Big Hill, and inconsistent application of the overlay in the Mandurang area. The issue is whether or not the application of the Overlay is warranted in its exhibited form.

(i) Suitability of the Significant Landscape Overlay

The Amendment proposes to apply the Significant Landscape Overlay to areas of landscape significance, including land which:

has demonstrated landscape value and significance

is subject to pressure for change

has a moderate‐high sensitivity to that change

is not adequately protected through the underlying zone control.

Council submitted in its report to Council on 21 September 2015, that the strategic reference for the Study was from the City of Greater Bendigo’s Rural Areas Strategy (2009). This strategy recommended future strategic work including development of a Significant Landscape Overlay for the Big Hill escarpment and parts of the Mandurang Valley.

Council submitted that the Significant Landscape Overlay has been chosen as it is “considered to be the most appropriate tool as a planning control specifically designed to protect and manage significant landscape values”. This Significant Landscape Overlay allows for management of the key threats to landscape values, including vegetation removal and unsympathetic development. The overlay also has provision for determining preferred landscape character, and prescribing design objectives, application requirements and decision guidelines.

The choice of overlay also took into consideration the intention to protect areas of landscape significance across a number of values, rather than protecting individual elements, such as using the Heritage Overlay to protect heritage values.

Council submitted:

when a landscape assessment is completed it is typically implemented through the use of the Significant Landscape Overlay, however there is no specific guidance from the State Government on the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay.

Using Victoria’s Planning System (May 2015), describes the function of the Significant Landscape Overlay:

to identify, conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes. The schedule to the overlay must explain the significance of the landscape, together with the intended outcomes of imposed requirements.


Page 27 of 56

Council submitted that it is firmly of the view that the Significant Landscape Overlay is the most appropriate planning scheme tool to use in implementing the Study.

Mr Hodgens (submitter 2) submitted that the Amendment would ensure that the subject areas will “become even more significant. It will soften the boundary of the new residential growth and the rural residential areas”.

Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30) supported the proposal for a Significant Landscape Overlay on the basis that it “follows extensive analysis and community consultation by Council, aiming for an holistic understanding of landscape values, encompassing social, environmental, ecological, geological and aesthetic significance”. Bendigo Sustainability Group also submitted that the Significant Landscape Overlay complements the Bendigo Residential Development Strategy, the Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy and “will ensure a socially and environmentally sustainable future for our regional City in the Forest”.

Ms Thomas (submitter 12) submitted that the Amendment “sends a message that our community values the unique quality of a city within a park and the beauty of its surroundings”.

Ms Boord (submitter 22) supported the Amendment as it would protect the landscapes and natural environment that “are elements that contribute to Bendigo’s unique character”.

Council submitted that areas suitable for application of the Significant Landscape Overlay were determined by reviewing current planning policy and controls to identify gaps. “This applied to land within the Farming Zone, Rural Living Zone and Low Density Residential Zone”.

Council referred to a number of planning scheme amendments that have accepted the Planisphere landscape assessment process in applying the Significant Landscape Overlay. In the case of South Gippsland Planning Scheme Amendment C45, which sought to implement findings of the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study 2006 (CSLAS) including application of a Significant Landscape Overlay, the Panel found the following:

Amendment C45 also recognises the significance of particular landscapes of State and Regional significance through the application of Significant Landscape Overlays (SLO1, 2 and 3) which provide more rigorous controls over built form and vegetation removal …

The exclusion of other settings from such an overlay regime does not deem them insignificant. Rather, these areas are identified as being of local landscape significance and managed under both general and specific character objectives and strategies identified in the MSS at Clause 21.04‐163.

The South Gippsland Amendment C45 Panel concluded:

We strongly support the application of SLO over settings of State and Regional significance. While these areas are typically outside declared settlements,

3 South Gippsland C45 Panel Report, June 2009, p17


Page 28 of 56

they are subject to individual development applications for dwellings, agricultural buildings and other works including infrastructure4.

(ii) Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3 – Big Hill

A detailed discussion of application of the Significant Landscape Overlay is provided in Chapter 4 of this report, and other matters identified for further research or management in Chapter 5 of this report.

Council submitted that the Study determined that there were two distinct character areas in the Big Hill area:

Character Area 1 – Big Hill Southern Slopes and Woodlands

The boundary of this Character Area has been defined by: the topography of the Big Hill Ridgeline to the north and west; the edge of the Greater Bendigo National Park to the north; the change in topography to more elevated land of the Big Hill Granitic Uplands in the southwest; and the viewing corridors of the Calder Alternate Highway and the Calder Freeway on the southern/western boundary.

Character Area 2 – Big Hill Granitic Uplands

The boundary of this Character Area has been defined by: the topography of the Big Hill Ridgeline and the edge of the Greater Bendigo National Park to the north/east; the change in topography in the west/north; and the boundary of the Rural Conservation Zone and local roads to the east.

Council submitted that the Study recommended that the Significant Landscape Overlay be applied to:

All of Character Area 1, on the basis that the: - area shows a high level of visual landscape values and other landscape values - area is sensitive to change, particularly the areas of higher elevation and the Big

Hill ridgeline, and is experiencing pressure for change - underlying Farming Zone does not provide adequate protection.

Parts of Character Area 2 which are within the Farming Zone, on the basis that the area: - shows a high level of visual landscape values and other landscape values, with

areas of a higher elevation and visibility - is sensitive to change, particularly the areas of higher elevation and the Big Hill

ridgeline, and is experiencing a degree of pressure for change - is not afforded adequate statutory protection through the Farming Zone.

The Study included a recommendation to apply the Significant Landscape Overlay to Big Hill (p. 132):

Character Area 1 – “to maintain the open rural character of the area, protect outlook from ridgeline and to prevent development of the visible southern slopes and ridgeline above a nominated elevation”

Character Area 2 – “to maintain the open rural character of the area, and to prevent development of the visible southern slopes and ridgeline above xx (sic) contour level”.

4 South Gippsland C45 Panel Report, June 2009, p. 25


Page 29 of 56

Council submitted that the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3, was justified as the area is significant as part of the Calder Freeway landscape corridor experience. The corridor:

offers a varied, interesting and attractive corridor compared with other corridors, such as to Ballarat or Geelong

is punctuated with a number of major landmarks, including Mt Macedon and Mt Alexander, with Big Hill a significant, albeit less dramatic, feature

offers important landscape markers and transitional spaces as one travels through the Box Ironbark Forests and the Big Hill ridgeline as one leaves Bendigo.

Council submitted that the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay should include the foreground area as:

it forms an essential setting and context for the ridge and because of its landscape values derived from the gently undulating topography, creek corridors, red gums and granitic outcrops

visually, the ridge, lower slopes and foreground of the respective Character Areas were considered by the study team to form an integrated landscape unit.

Council submitted that as the foreground merges “almost imperceptibly with its hillsides and ridgeline” that these features should be included in the Significant Landscape Overlay, “not necessarily to stop development in the foreground, but certainly to provide effective control over the siting and design of development”.

Council submitted that while much of Character Area 2 is not readily accessible, elevated areas are visible from the viewing corridors of the Calder Freeway, the railway line and other recreational routes. Council submitted that the “hilly topography can potentially absorb buildings sensitively sited behind and below the higher features”.

Council submitted that areas within the Rural Conservation Zone are not included, as the provisions of the zone, “in conjunction with application of a local policy, are considered to be adequate in protecting the significance of this area”. The Amendment does not propose inclusion of a Local Policy in the planning scheme.


The area recommended to be included in the Significant Landscape Overlay is broader than that recommended in the recent Central Victoria Regional Landscape Assessment Study, commissioned by the State Government and undertaken by GHD.

It is acknowledged that the Significant Landscape Overlay covers a large part of the study area. However, within the context of Greater Bendigo, the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay can be seen clearly to focus upon two areas ‐ Big Hill and the southern gateway to the city, and the forested enclave of Mandurang Valley.

Council submitted that seven submissions were received in relation to the Big Hill character area.


Page 30 of 56

Three of these submissions supported application of the Significant Landscape Overlay to the proposed area because it would:

protect important environmental values in the area and manages environmental risk associated with bushfire and salinity

protect an important gateway into the City

provides greater certainty for residents in the area.

R and G Moors (submitter 24) submitted that “the ridgeline and upper slopes of the Big Hill Range must remain as at present to maintain the visual impact on approaching Bendigo from the south”.

Four submissions objected to the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay on the following grounds which relate specifically to the findings of the Study.

The Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) (submitter 52) objected to the Significant Landscape Overlay as it may impact upon opportunities to undertake quarrying in the area. DEDJTR objected to the Amendment on the basis that a large part of Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 lies over an Extractive Industry Interest Area (EIIA), as identified in the Bendigo Supply Area: Extractive Industry Interest Areas report (GSV TR1998/6).


Clause 52 of the Bendigo Planning Scheme ‘Stone extraction and extractive industry interest areas’ requires that a Planning Authority must consider ‘the effect of the stone extraction upon the natural and cultural landscape of the surrounding land and the locality generally’.

Council submitted that the Amendment is not prohibiting any extractive industry, and any such activity would be subject to a planning permit and which would consideration of a range of planning matters, including visual impact.

Mr Connor submitted:

Whilst we do not oppose the appropriate, targeted application of the Significant Landscape Overlay within the Study area, we do not support its blanket application as it is currently proposed.

Mr Connor objected on the basis that:

The basis for the Significant Landscape Overlay rests solely on the Study and no other specialist reports, such as geological reports.

The Study has been prepared primarily to ensure that growth does not continue beyond Bendigo’s southern ridges.

There is no evidence within any of the documentation associated with the amendment, including the assessment itself, that Council has adopted an appropriate methodology for arriving at its conclusions.

The site has not been visited by the Council or the study team to inform the Study recommendations.

The information and data relied upon in the assessment appears to be outdated and inconclusive. A number of errors, omissions and a substantial


Page 31 of 56

lack of clarity further undermine the recommendations and findings. Comment: No information was provided as to what these errors or omissions are purported to be.

The Big Hill ridge line, the lowlands and the rolling hills to the south of the Big Hill Range should not be delineated as a single landscape character unit as they differ in many fundamental features.

More detail is required in relation to landscape and viewshed analysis to justify the broad application of the management actions and the Significant Landscape Overlay.

Mr Haack gave evidence that he undertook a visual assessment of the study area, including the surrounding links and neighbouring areas and undertaken a visual appraisal from the two vantage points for travellers, namely the Calder Freeway and railway line, along the southern approach to Bendigo. Mr Haack stated that his evidence only addressed the area proposed for application of Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3, and that the focus of his analysis was on the land known as Ravenswood Run.

Mr Haack gave evidence that:

apart from the Granitic Hills Woodland (EVC72), these landscape features identified as having high importance are appropriately acknowledged and protected by Council through the designation of applicable overlays and/or state and national heritage and environmental acts

The remaining undulating low lying areas that form the majority of the foreground are not unique to the municipality nor to the broader regions and I am unable to concur that they are of high landscape value.

Mr Haack concluded that he was unable to agree with the conclusions of the Study, or the “Statement of nature and key elements of the landscape” proposed by Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3. Mr Haack gave evidence:

Based on my visual appraisal, I disagree that the foreground landscape is significant based on providing a ‘setting’ for viewing the Big Hill Ridgeline along the approach to Bendigo from either the Calder Highway or the Melbourne to Bendigo railway line.

The limited transient views appreciated are either partial or filtered due to existing tree clusters across the paddocks, rising topography of the road/rail corridor, road cuttings and road/rail‐side plantings and are generally oblique viewing corridors.

I did not find that the area is open. In fact it is well enclosed and can only be appreciated in partial or filtered transient views that are generally oblique viewing corridors. I am unable to agree that there is an ‘expansive view of the Big Hill ridge’ nor that it ‘gradually reveals itself to travellers’. The ridgeline is surprisingly hidden with glimpses at repeated intervals to the highest points such as Big Hill Trigg Point and the section of the ridgeline extending south‐westward outside of the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay 3 boundary.


Page 32 of 56

Council submitted justification for the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay boundaries, stating that the Calder Freeway and the Calder Alternate Highway are logical boundaries to the south, as “these roadways approximate the arc of the ridgeline and define a foreground area of an approximately equidistant depth, therefore creating a logical boundary for the Character Area / Significant Landscape Overlay. They are also noted as viewing corridors”. Ravenswood was selected as the southernmost point of the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay area “as views to the southern extremity of the ridgeline from the Calder Freeway and railway line appear in this location”.

Mr Connor objected on the basis that large portions of the land cannot be seen:

The Directors of Ravenswood Run cannot understand why a Significant Landscape Overlay is proposed over large tracts of their land which simply cannot be seen from any public vantage points, and most importantly from the highway and railway line.

Mr Connor submitted that the rationale for the Significant Landscape Overlay curtilage or boundary is not compelling, nor is it rigorous. It was submitted that large tracts of land cannot be seen from the identified viewing points, and that given the landscape character identified, the positioning of the Significant Landscape Overlay appears to be arbitrary.

Mr Connor submitted that for a landscape to be included in a Significant Landscape Overlay that it must be able to be seen:

To be significant, a landscape must be capable of being seen, it must be visible from public vantage points.

Mr Connor referred to Council’s submission that detailed:

The direct visibility of a landscape from a public viewing location is one of many considerations about landscape management, including determining the extent of a Significant Landscape Overlay as proposed by the amendment.

In response, Council submitted:

the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay is ultimately recommended on the grounds of visual significance. A greater understanding of visual significance is derived through a comprehensive analysis of all landscape values .…While other landscape values such as geological or environmental values are noted as being of significance, they are values which ultimately form ‘supporting evidence’ for the protection of the visual values of the study area.

In considering the findings of other planning panels relating to application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, Mr Connor submitted that in the case of East Gippsland C68, that while the amendment was ultimately gazetted, “the Panel commented on the large area of one of the proposed Significant Landscape Overlays … and clearly considered that the issue of visibility is paramount”. Mr Connor cited an example from the East Gippsland Panel where landscapes that were found to be worthy of protection and were highly visible, but where no Significant Landscape Overlay was proposed.

Mr Connor submitted that “having regard to the export evidence of Mr Haack, it is clear that:


Page 33 of 56

(a) there are (substantive) areas which have been included in the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 which do not warrant inclusion

(b) there are areas which have not been included which warrant inclusion”.

There are significant tracts of land that are proposed to be included within Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 which cannot be seen from the only viewing points/viewing corridors identified in the statement of significance, namely “travellers approaching Bendigo along the Calder Highway and the Melbourne – Bendigo railway line”.

Mr Haack recommended an alternative alignment of the Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 boundary, (highlighted in orange) which included a smaller portion of the proposed overlay area, and an area not included in the Amendment (see Figure 5), stating:

I consider the ‘long‐crested ridgeline’ that ‘forms a significant landscape setting for the southern gateway to Bendigo’ to begin approximately 500m east of the railway tunnel traversing the north‐eastern boundary of Area B extending to the south‐east outside of the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 boundary, titled the Big Hill Ridgeline. The section of Big Hill Ridgeline that extends south‐easterly outside of the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 boundary that contains the Granitic Hills Woodland (EVC72) is a unique EVC to the municipality and is localised to this south‐easterly corner of the municipal boundary. I consider this area of the landscape to hold high landscape value.5

Accordingly, it is my opinion the Big Hill Ridgeline including the south‐easterly landscape outside of the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 boundary achieves the intended objective set out in Schedule 3 to the Significant Landscape Overlay under the “Statement of nature and key elements of landscape” and I consider these areas warrant a proposed control such as a Significant Landscape Overlay as illustrated in Figure 12: Proposed Revised SLO3 Curtilage.

5 Mr Haack’s evidence statement incorrectly referred to south‐west instead of south‐east. This was raised during

evidence and the Panel has adopted the corrected location references in this quote.


Page 34 of 56

Figure 5 Proposed Revised Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 curtilage Source: Landscape Architectural Expert Witness Statement, Appendix B, Figure 12

Other planning panels referenced by Council in support of the Planisphere landscape assessment study methodology also identified issues with application of the Significant Landscape Overlay and the challenge of determining suitable boundaries:

In Greater Geelong C177, the Panel states that while it accepts the methodology of the landscape assessment study:

With regard to the determination of overlay boundaries, are satisfied that the approach adopted of relating the overlay boundary to views rather than cadastral boundaries is appropriate because it will support planning objectives by encouraging development to be located away from areas that are exposed to coastal views. A similar principle normally applies to the application of land management overlays which address flooding, erosion and salinity risks. In these circumstances, scaling of maps establishes the extent of the overlays6.

In East Gippsland C68, it was considered that the areas covered by the Significant Landscape Overlay should be reviewed with the following objectives in mind:

to relate the ‘inland’ boundaries more closely to the topography, so that land covered by the overlay coincides with that land which is visible from the coast and the inland waterways, together with land which contributes

6 Greater Geelong C177 Panel Report, June 2010, p. 51


Page 35 of 56

to the visual character of the coastal environment when seen from approach roads and coastal viewpoints

where applicable, to extend the overlay inland beyond ridgelines a sufficient distance to include the horizon line and some land beyond it within the overlay in order to protect ridges from inappropriate development

to adopt an arbitrary inland boundary of 500 metres from the shoreline only where the topography is flat and vegetated, and an inland boundary based on the above criteria cannot be readily determined7.

In South Gippsland Amendment C45:

The project brief initially established indicative inland ‘reference points’ for the project but the scope of the project was refined to cover all landscapes that are visible from the coast, and from which the coast is visible. In this context, ‘visible’ is taken to cover established patterns of public viewing from roads, townships and recreational locations across the study area8.

In closing, Council provided the following responses to submissions and evidence relating to Big Hill and Ravenswood:

The landscape of the Big Hill foreground is visually complex. The numerous rises, smaller ridges and gullies create an intricate topography which distort view lines and the perception of distance and scale. The Significant Landscape Overlay boundary has been proposed across a wide area from the Calder to accommodate the numerous viewing experiences of this landscape from the key viewing corridors.

While the Big Hill crest appears to be a subtle landscape feature when viewed from the Calder, from within the Ravenswood site, the scale and definition of this landform can be fully appreciated. From the base or from atop its crest, the Big Hill formation at the trig point location is quite evidently a dramatic landform.

The panoramic view from the Big Hill trig point (east of the Calder) is outstanding. Long range views are afforded to distant peaks and ridges across the broader landscape, including Mt Alexander and Mt Macedon. From this vantage point the landscape system of the broader region, of which Big Hill is clearly a part, is evident. This view is of regional significance.

The Significant Landscape Overlay references the significance of Big Hill in the arrival journey into Bendigo. Reference to the significance of Big Hill in the outward journey from Bendigo should also be reflected in the Significant Landscape Overlay. This would also relate to the viewing opportunity from the crest and the cutting, whereby long range views are afforded over the rural woodlands landscape.

7 East Gippsland C68 Panel Report, April 2009, p. 121 8 South Gippsland C45 Panel Report, June 2009, p. 19


Page 36 of 56

Council submitted that it did not support the alternative boundary proposed by Mr Haack, stating that the evidence:

should be treated as a visual impact assessment not an assessment of landscape values

relied almost solely on visual aspects of the Big Hill area and did not consider other issues that holistically contribute to landscape significance such geology, historic values, social and cultural values

had limitations in relation to all of the viewpoints selected, such as roadside vegetation

selectively captured elements of a mapping exercise without any relationship to the visual aspects of the landscape

failed to capture the significant elements of the lowlands of Ravenswood Run, or the significant viewshed from the trig point of the ridgeline.

Council submitted that issues identified in East Gippsland Amendment C68 Panel in determining appropriate Significant Landscape Overlay boundaries illustrated:

The complexity involved in determining boundaries. The findings of this Panel demonstrate the need to be carefully discriminating in determining boundaries and to provide a clear rationale for the location of each boundary, which Planisphere and Council have aimed to do in this Study.

(iii) Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 – Mandurang Valley

Council submitted that the Study determined that there were three distinct character areas in the Mandurang Valley area (see Figure 3):

Character Area 3 – Mandurang Valley South

The boundary of this Character Area has been defined by cadastral and zone boundaries to include the southern sections of the Mandurang Valley which display an open, pastoral and largely undeveloped character and are located between the areas of designated National/Regional Park.

Character Area 4 – Mandurang Valley North

The boundary of this Character Area has been defined by cadastral and zone boundaries to include the northern sections of the Mandurang Valley which display an open and more developed character and are located between the areas of designated National/Regional Park.

Character Area 5 – Mandurang Valley Forest Interface

The boundary of this Character Area has been defined by cadastral and zone boundaries to include the parts the Mandurang Valley which adjoin the areas of designated National/Regional Park and display a forested character.

Council submitted that the Study recommended that the Significant Landscape Overlay be applied to:

All of Character Area 3, on the basis that the:


Page 37 of 56

area exhibits lower level of visual landscape values and moderate‐low level of other landscape values

area is moderately sensitive to change and its valued open, undeveloped character could be maintained if development is appropriately sited and designed

underlying Rural Living Zone does not provide adequate protection. No part of Character Area 4, on the basis that the:

area exhibits lower level of visual landscape values and moderate‐low level of other landscape value

area has a low sensitivity to future change due to extensive change that has already occurred as a result of vegetation clearing and recent development.

All of Character Area 5, on the basis that the:

area exhibits lower level of visual landscape values and moderate‐low level of other landscape values

area is moderately sensitive to change and its valued bushy character could be maintained if development is appropriately sited and designed, and vegetation retained as a visual buffer

underlying Rural Living and Low Density Residential Zones do not provide adequate protection to achieve this outcome.

Council submitted that only parts of the Mandurang Valley were selected because:

Mandurang Valley is hard to find – it is a ‘hidden valley’ which is an important part of its charm

the landscape is ‘finer grained’, when compared to Big Hill, as a result of smaller lot sizes, variations in zoning, a greater mix of land uses and development types, and irregular vegetation cover including ‘fingers’ of the regional / national park that extend into the landscape throughout the valley

the Mandurang Valley is of a lower level of visual significance in terms of relative landscape values

the Mandurang Valley North Character Area has been highly modified and “negatively impacted by unsympathetic development and vegetation clearing, some of which is extensive. This was considered to diminish the area’s sensitivity to further change, and that additional management through the Significant Landscape Overlay was not warranted”

the Mandurang Valley South and Forest Interface areas were recommended for inclusion in the Significant Landscape Overlay to manage future development outcomes and minimise for potential negative impact on the landscape.

Council submitted that thirty three submissions were received in relation to Mandurang Valley. Of these, thirteen supported application of Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4.


Page 38 of 56

Council provided a summary of the eleven submissions received that objected to the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay on grounds which relate specifically to the findings of the Study:

Submissions 20, 21, 25, 28, 35, 38 & 45

Why were some parts of the Mandurang Valley included in the Significant Landscape Overlay and not others? The areas subject to the overlay appear selective and not adequately justified.

Submissions 20, 21 & 38

Why were parts of Nankervis Road and Mandurang Road not included in the overlay?

Submissions 12 & 14

All of Tannery Lane should be included in the Significant Landscape Overlay. In particular, the north side provides the setting for views to One Tree Hill. Roadside vegetation along Tannery Lane should also be protected.

Submissions 20, 21, 25, 28, 38, 45

Why is the Mandurang Valley Forest Interface Character Area in the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay area and not other parts of the Mandurang Valley?

Submissions 35

Why is the Mandurang Valley South Character Area in the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay area and not other parts of the Mandurang Valley?

Submissions 20, 21, 25, 28, 35, 38, 45

The overlay will unduly restrict development.

Submission 23

The boundaries of the overlays do not appear to be defined or well thought out. The boundary of the overlay runs directly through our house and gardens (258 Tannery Lane).

Submission 44

The Mandurang Valley is not ‘productive agricultural land’ as described in the Study Report. The terms ‘relatively productive’ or ‘arable’ would be more accurate.

A number of submitters objected to Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4, suggesting that existing controls were adequate to protect landscape values in the Mandurang Valley:

“the aims of the proposed overlay are already covered to a great extent by existing legislation”, particularly in the Mandurang Valley (Geoff and Beth Hosking, submitter 23)

“the current planning regulations and overlays are sound enough to maintain the visual aesthetic values of the region” (Mandurang Valley) (Dr Parrat and Dr Togno, submitter 25 and Ms Monro, submitter 38).

Dr Parrat and Dr Togno (submitter 25) object to the selective application of the overlay on the grounds that if the visual aesthetic of the Mandurang Valley is critical, then the overlay should be applied across the whole community. The logic for selective application of the


Page 39 of 56

overlay is not clear ‐ “it is difficult to interpret from the documentation supplied the justification for the recommendations that have been put forward for approval”. In response to submissions, Council submitted that:

Areas excluded from the Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 4 were in the Mandurang Valley North Character Area and had already experienced a high level of change

the identified significant values of Tannery Lane are sufficiently protected through the existing heritage overlay and environmental significance overlay. “On balance, given the level of change experienced within Tannery Lane and the current statutory management of notable elements, it was considered to negate the need for an Significant Landscape Overlay”

the Mandurang Valley Forest Interface Character Area is included in the Significant Landscape Overlay to “protect the highly forested setting of the properties located at the edge of the Bendigo Box Ironbark Forest” and because the area is considered to be sensitive to future change

the Mandurang Valley South Character Area is included in the Significant Landscape Overlay as it is considered to be sensitive to future change in terms of further vegetation removal and new development that would impact on the preferred character of the area

the Significant Landscape Overlay is not intended to prevent or unduly restrict development, but to ensure that “development sits respectfully in the landscape and that vegetation cover is maintained and strengthened”. The proposed Significant Landscape Overlay Schedules allow flexibility in design responses and include permit exemptions for minor proposals

there was a mapping anomaly affecting 258 Tannery Lane and 44 Coolabah Drive, and the intention was to include the entire area of both properties within the Significant Landscape Overlay

the use of the term ‘productive’ referred to agricultural activity within the landscape rather than large scale agricultural activity, and “this could be reworded to clarify should the Panel see fit”.

In closing, Council submitted that while several submitters sought inclusion of the entire Mandurang Valley in the Significant Landscape Overlay, it was considered that the existing planning controls applied to Mandurang Valley North landscape were adequate for protecting significant elements, in particular heritage and environmental values.

(iv) Box Ironbark Forest

Council submitted that the Study identified one character area of public land, namely Character Area 6 – Box Ironbark Forest. This area is bounded by:

cadastral and zone boundaries to include the parts the Mandurang Valley which are located within, or immediately adjoin, the areas of designated National/Regional Park.

The Character Area 6 “exhibits a moderate level of visual landscape values, and higher levels of other landscape values”.


Page 40 of 56

Council submitted the area is not proposed to be included in the Significant Landscape Overlay as the area “is mostly within the Public Conservation and Resource Zone (or other public land) and subject to a land management strategy”.


The National and Regional Parks were not recommended for an Significant Landscape Overlay as it was considered the management plans for these areas and relevant legislation (Crown Land Reserves Act and National Parks Act) would adequately protect their landscape values. They were also not seen to be under pressure for development.

(v) Is the Significant Landscape Overlay onerous?

A number of submissions contend that the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay and its Schedules were onerous and would result in an increased number of planning applications and an increased cost for making improvements to properties.

Mr and Ms Hosking (submitter 23) submitted that “should these amendments be accepted, the result would be more time and money spent on administration”.

Mr Connor submitted that the proposed control is onerous, citing an example that “on unsighted land from the railway line or highway, a farmer will need discrete planning permission to construct or carry out works”.

Mr Connor submitted, by way of example, that to construct a hay shed that is greater than 100 square meters in floor area, a landowner would be required to submit a planning application accompanied by:

detailed site evaluation

landscape plan

visual impact assessment.

Mr Connor referenced East Gippsland Amendment C68, which states “in recommending that the strategic work be considered, the Panel referred to the onerous nature of the Significant Landscape Overlays and stated:

We consider that given the quite extensive permit requirements and decision guidelines set out in the each of the Significant Landscape Overlay schedules, the areas covered by the Significant Landscape Overlay’s should be more carefully and logically defined, so that land is not unnecessarily included. The extent of the areas covered by Significant Landscape Overlays need to be reviewed in light of the topography of the coastal land in particular.

Council submitted that a large portion of the study area, particularly properties in the Mandurang Valley, are already subject to a variety of planning controls and would require a planning permit for buildings and works anyway. These existing controls include the Bushfire Management Overlay, Environmental Significance Overlay, Development Plan Overlay and Vegetation Protection Overlay, or zone controls for properties on less than minimum sized lots, for example the Rural Living Zone.


Page 41 of 56

Council submitted that the Significant Landscape Overlay (Clause 42.03) contained controls suited to protection of significant landscapes in the study area, including:

a ’buildings and works‘ permit requirement with some exemptions for agricultural activities, fencing and vegetation removal. “The vegetation exemptions include those required for fire protection and road safety that were of concern to a number of submitters.”

provision within the schedule to include a unique statement of nature and key elements of landscape and landscape character objectives that are unique to each location

provision for a list of further exemptions from the buildings and works requirement in Clause 42.03. Proposed exempted works included:

Alterations and additions to existing dwellings or agricultural buildings less than 5 metres in height or 50m2 in area.

New agricultural buildings less than 5 meters in height and 100m2 in area.

Buildings ancillary to a dwelling (such as domestic sheds) less than 5 metres in height or 50m2 in area.

provision for a list of further exemptions relating to vegetation removal.

Council submitted that the proposed exemptions were reasonable and would allow landowners to undertake a “variety of works without additional planning requirements”. The schedule also allows for planning application information requirements to be specified, and decision guidelines which relate to the character objectives. The proposed guidelines require consideration of matters such as visual impact of buildings, siting, design, scale and character, and the impact of the loss of vegetation.

On this basis the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay will add another, “but essential, layer of consideration to the existing planning requirements. That layer will require the proponent and the City to have regard to important landscape values”.

(vi) Will the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay result in increased bushfire risk?

The CFA (submitter 51), submitted that:

The area identified for application of the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) is affected by the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO), with the BMO covering large areas of land surrounding the Big Hill and Mandurang. The CFA notes that there is vegetation not currently covered by the BMO that meets the criteria for BMO mapping as outlined in the DELWP Planning Advisory Note 46: Bushfire Management Overlay Mapping Methodology and Criteria.

The CFA outlined that the bushfire risk identified is primarily associated with the Box Ironbark Forest and from vegetation on private land on the outskirts of existing settlements.

The Bendigo and District Environment Council (submitter 9) submitted that the Study and the Amendment failed to deal with the severity of the wildfire problem. “The Big Hill Ravenswood area is a disaster waiting to happen as far as grass fire is concerned”. The submission states that the “actual fire risk for Big Hill Ravenswood is grass and is extreme” and “the Bendigo Landscape Assessment Final Report 2013 and the Amendment fail to deal with the severity of the problem.”


Page 42 of 56

Mr Fraser submitted that fire risk in the area is a major issue, particularly risk from grass fires, and that substantial buffers are required between high risk areas and property. This will become more pronounced with climate change as fires become more intense, frequent and less predictable.

Mr Fraser submitted that “the Significant Landscape Overlay should contain direction concerning fire mitigation in the grasslands especially concerning the Big Hill Ravenswood area”.

A number of submitters (20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 38 and 45) identified a range of concerns relating to bushfire risk resulting from application of the Significant Landscape Overlay:

increase bushfire risk as a result of restrictions to vegetation management that may limit landholders clearing land

impact on the landholders permission/guarantee to rebuild if a fire did destroy dwellings in the overlay area.

A number of submitters (7, 25, 26, 27 and 45) raised concerns that the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay would result in excessive regrowth on roadsides and on properties subject to the overlay, which may result in increased fire risk.

DELWP (submitter 7) submitted that consideration should be given to ecological thinning, regrowth management and species selection along roadsides.

Submitters 9, 18 and 30 suggested that a wildfire assessment should be undertaken across the study area, considering the potential for both grassfire and bushfire. It was suggested that a Bushfire Management Overlay may need to be applied following this assessment.

A number of submitters requested that further investigation and mapping be undertaken in relation to:

Biodiversity (submitters 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 30, 31, 39, 42 and 49)

Soils (submitters 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, 18 and 49)

Wildfire (submitters 9, 18 and 30).

Mr Lottkowitz (submitter 44) presented to the Panel that the report dealt inadequately with issues of climate change.

Council submitted that there are areas affected by the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay that are affected by the Bushfire Management Overlay in Mandurang. It submitted that the CFA issues were addressed by a number of changes to the Significant Landscape Overlay.

The CFA proposed changes to the Amendment to increase the consideration of bushfire hazard.

In summary, the proposed changes agreed to by Council include:

Under the heading Landscape in Clause 21.08, the sentence now reads ’It is important that development within, or immediately adjoining, these areas is sited and designed to respect their identified significant landscape character and values, and have regard to the hazard, in particular, bushfire.’” Clause 21.08‐4 Implementation under the heading of Zone and Overlays has also


Page 43 of 56

been updated to include the reference to the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) from the previous Wildfire Management Overlay (WMO).

(vii) Public Transport Victoria

Public Transport Victoria (submitter 47) submitted a recommendation to include a permit exemption in the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3, be included stating that “a permit is not required to construct a building or carry out works by or on behalf of VicTrack, Public Transport Victoria or a railway operator associated with the operation of the railway and use of the land for transport purposes.”

Council submitted that it agreed to this proposed exemption, and “was based on a description of the works that take place in the railway reserve and other permit exemptions that exist across Victoria for comparable works”.

4.3 Discussion

The Panel considers that it is appropriate to apply the Significant Landscape Overlay when protecting multiple values that collectively contribute to significant landscape character of an area, and when existing or alternative controls do not adequately protect values.

Whilst all of the panel reports consider application of a Significant Landscape Overlay, they all consider amendments to implement findings of state‐wide or regional landscape assessment studies, including the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study 2006 and the Great Ocean Road Region Landscape Assessment Study 2003.

Consequently, the cited planning panel reports recommend that the Significant Landscape Overlay be applied to regional and state significant landscapes, not locally significant landscapes, stating that landscape of local significance could be adequately “managed by general and specific character objectives and strategies identified in the MSS”9.

As discussed in Chapter 3 of this report, the Panel has found the Study does not determine the comparative significance of the landscapes it proposes to protect using the Significant Landscape Overlay. It does, however, rank the character areas within the study area as being of “higher” or “lower” significance relative to each other. This ranking does not assist with understanding the suitability of applying the Significant Landscape Overlay to the particular landscape character areas.

The Panel notes that there are no clear guidelines from State Government about the appropriate application of the Significant Landscape Overlay to landscapes of local, regional or State significance.

(i) Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3

The Panel is not convinced that the area proposed for application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 is appropriate, on the basis that:

large areas of the Study area are not visible from any publically accessible view points

proposed curtilage has primarily been determined by cadastral and management boundaries, rather than landscape features and visibility

9 South Gippsland C45 Panel Report, p. 17‐18


Page 44 of 56

areas are excluded from the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 on the basis of protection by other planning controls, in particular zone controls.

The Panel identified during site inspections, from traveling along the main roadways around and within the study area, and from a site inspection on Ravenswood Run, that:

the visual impact of Big Hill as you travel towards Bendigo along the Calder Highway is subtle, and as described by Planisphere, the Big Hill landscape merges visually with the broader landscape system

views to the Big Hill ridgeline are not expansive, but provide for glimpses of the escarpment and ridgeline at various locations along the Highway and other roads throughout the study area

the bulk of the foreground is not visible due to the undulating topography and roadside vegetation

views as you travel south from Bendigo are impactful and the Big Hill trig point (which has extremely limited public access) provides impressive distant views to Mt Alexander and Mt Macedon

views to the south eastern ridgeline and escarpment are prominent from various locations as you travel south along the Old Calder and new Calder Freeways (this area is not currently included in the Significant Landscape Overlay)

the most visually prominent landscape values include the Box Ironbark Forest, the Big Hill ridgeline and other native vegetation, such as old scattered River Red Gums

there is evidence of a negative visual impact on the Box Ironbark forest as a result of infrastructure works.

The Panel found merit in the evidence presented by Mr Haack that the study process and conclusions did not adequately justify application of the Significant Landscape Overlay. The evidence also raised questions about the visual assessment of the landscape, and subsequent conclusions about landscape character and significance of identified values.

The Panel notes that the original strategic driver for the Study identified the need for assessment of the Big Hill escarpment. The Panel also notes that Council submitted that the draft Central Victoria Landscape Assessment Study (2015) recommended a smaller area for application of a Significant Landscape Overlay in the study area.

The Panel accepts that there is some complexity in undertaking a landscape assessment and determining landscape significance, however the Panel considers it reasonable that the landscape unit must predominantly be visible, and that the controls are warranted on the basis that development in the subject land may change or impact on the desired landscape character.

The Panel agrees with the findings of the panel report for South Gippsland Amendment 45, and suggests that the term “‘visible’ is taken to cover established patterns of public viewing from roads, townships and recreational locations across the study area”10.

10 South Gippsland C45 Panel Report, June 2009, p. 19


Page 45 of 56

The Panel concludes that for a landscape to be deemed suitable for application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, that it first must be determined as a significant landscape, and that secondly, it must predominantly be able to be seen.

The Panel acknowledges that other cited panel reports identify that there are some issues with translation of the landscape assessment study findings into Significant Landscape Overlays, in particular determination of appropriate boundaries.

The Panel notes that the Study recommends the Significant Landscape Overlay boundaries be determined by roads and zone controls / cadastral data, essentially for ease of administration. When considering the suitability of boundary locations, the Panel refers to the planning panel report recommendation in East Gippsland C68 (2009), that the ‘inland’ boundaries relate more closely to the topography.

The Panel found that the Study conclusions did reference visibility, contours and elevation (p. 132) in relation to application of the overlay, but this was not translated into recommendations for the curtilage boundary. Given that a landscape unit is determined by geographic or natural features rather than constructed features or mapping logistics, it seems reasonable to the Panel that natural features be used as the basis of determining logical boundaries for a Significant Landscape Overlay.

Whilst convenient to determine overlay curtilage based on governance boundaries, the Panel considers it more appropriate to determine boundaries based on the site area and features of landscape significance and visibility.

With regard to the submission of DEDJTR, the Panel agrees with Council’s submission that the Amendment is not prohibiting any extractive industry, and any such activity would be subject to a planning permit and which would consideration of a range of planning matters, including visual impact.

(ii) Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4

Council submitted that the landscape character values of the Mandurang Valley were lower than for Big Hill, but that application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 4 was still warranted in areas where there is significant development pressure which may result in change to the landscape character.

Whilst application of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 has been determined based on the assessment of the significance of landscape character areas, there does appear to be some inconsistency in its application. In particular, some areas have been excluded as they are already protected by existing controls, such as Heritage Overlay and the Environmental Significance Overlay in Tannery Lane. However, in other parts of the Valley the Significant Landscape Overlay is proposed because the existing controls, such as Heritage Overlay and Environmental Significance Overlay, do not adequately protect values.

There does not appear to be strong community support for the application of Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 4, with twenty of the thirty three submissions relating to Mandurang Valley objecting to the Amendment.

The majority of submissions supporting application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 4 relate to ecological and natural landscape values, as opposed to visual amenity.


Page 46 of 56

The most evident visual landscape values in the Mandurang Valley relate to the forest interface properties. To protect landscape values by managing vegetation removal and ensuring that development is integrated with the landscape, it is suggested that the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 is appropriate at the forest interface.

Given that many questions have been raised about the consistency of application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, and the Panel suggests that application to the forest interface areas be reviewed to ensure consistency.

The Panel identified during site inspections, from traveling along the main roadways around and within the study area, that the visual values of the Mandurang Valley are inconsistent and the most visually prominent landscape values include the Box Ironbark Forest. It was the Panel’s view Areas on the forest interface where remnant vegetation has been protected and development has been well integrated with the landscape.

(iii) Application of the Significant Landscape Overlay over Public Land

The Box‐Ironbark Forest Character Area was ranked in the Study as higher and moderate for all landscape values, which was one of the highest rankings of all character areas in the Study. The Study did not, however, recommend application of the Significant Landscape Overlay on the basis that the underlying zone control adequately protected landscape values.

The Panel notes Planning Practice Note 2, Public Land Zones guidance on whether to apply an overlay to land zoned for public purposes:

In deciding whether to apply an overlay to land, the public land zones should be treated in the same manner as other zones … Like the application of any overlay, there must be specific justification for the additional requirement. Appropriate provisions must be made for the routine operations of the public use, such as exemption for regular maintenance11.

In reviewing other planning panels referenced by Council in support of the Planisphere landscape assessment study methodology, the Panel notes that other panel reports regularly reference the appropriateness of applying the Significant Landscape Overlay to public land.

The following Glenelg C52 Panel comments are relevant:

Planning panel reports from the coastal landscape amendments in the East Gippsland, South Gippsland, Bass Coast and Greater Geelong municipalities have consistently recommended that, contrary to the intention of CSLAS study design, it was not good planning policy to entirely exclude Crown land from the operation of the SLOs. The reasons have been well argued by successive panels and do not need to be reiterated at length in this Report.

The following East Gippsland C68 Panel comments are pertinent:

The degree to which objectives of Crown land management coincide with objectives to protect the visual qualities of significant landscapes varies and there are examples of development on coastal public land

11 Planning Practice Note 2, Public Land Zones, June 2015


Page 47 of 56

with adverse impacts on landscape values, such as toilet blocks, visitor centres, camp sites, kiosks, spas, surf lifesaving facilities, etc.

The exclusion of Crown land from the overlays may give an inappropriate public message that – in an inequitable fashion – the Government is not prepared to subject itself to the same level of planning scrutiny as that to which private land owners are subjected. The exclusion of Crown land results in overlay maps that look unconvincing so far as comprehensive recognition of landscape value is concerned.12.

The Panel observed during their site inspection that the public land, including Bendigo National Park, formed an integral component of the landscape significance of the area, and that the visual integrity of the landscape was being impacted negatively by infrastructure works such as powerline extension.

The Panel concurs with other panel findings that any revision of application of the Significant Landscape Overlay should consider public land, to ensure that approaches to land management align with the objectives to protect visual qualities of a landscape. Relevant permit exemptions for public land managers should be included in any revised schedule.

(iv) Bushfire

There is a need to balance amenity with risk management in all areas that are fire prone. The inclusion of the changes proposed by the CFA aim to achieve this balance for this Amendment . Community education is essential in achieving this balance of amenity and safety. The Panel acknowledges that bushfire, and grassfire is a major issue in the Bendigo region.

The changes to the schedules go in some part to addressing the broader fire risk in Mandurang, however further work is needed in Big Hill. The CFA, DELWP and Council need to continue working on an appropriate response to the fire threat and how any overlay applied can mitigate some of the risk. As discussed in Chapter 4 of this report, the CFA proposed to change the Amendment to increase the consideration of bushfire hazard and Council agreed to the proposed changes. A revised schedule should include this approach.

The community concerns about the on‐going risk of fire are noted. The Amendment was particularly related to the significance of landscape and it is the Panel’s view that the community was too narrow in its criticisms regarding the Amendment and its ability to address issues relating to fire. Since Black Saturday additions to the planning scheme and on‐going policy addresses the issue of prioritising human life from bushfire. The proposed Significant Landscape Overlays do not exist in isolation and all parts of the planning scheme must also be considered when a responsible authority is deciding whether to issue a planning permit.

12 Glenelg C52 Panel Report, March 2011, p. 29‐30


Page 48 of 56

(v) Exhibited Schedules

The Panel has not gone into detail or provided marked up Schedules for reasons outlined in this report. In particular, the “Statements of nature and key elements of landscape” sections need re‐drafting to link more appropriately with a revised Study and curtilage. The exemptions and wording provided by both the CFA and Public Transport Victoria should be carried over into any revised Schedule that arises out of the work required to complete the Amendment.

(vi) The need to re‐exhibit

The Panel does not endorse the Amendment in its current form and recommends a deferment rather than abandonment. It does so acknowledging the time, effort and ultimate cost in undertaking this type of Amendment. The need to re‐exhibit the Amendment will be a judgement call based on the course of action that the Council takes. The Panel does not consider that a reduction in the Significant Landscape Overlay on existing notified properties and Study refinements as proposed would not be considered a transformation.

The exhibited schedules as explained above would likely only require refinement to Section 1.0 of Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3 and 4 depending on the level of refinement that occurs. However if Council extends the Overlay in its re‐drafting then it would be considered that the purpose of the exhibited Amendment has changed and either re‐exhibition or a new Amendment process would be required, allowing those additional property owners to be notified. Whist the redrafted Schedules would refine the detail of the Schedules, the purpose of the Amendment would not be changed.

4.4 Conclusions

The application of the Significant Landscape Overlay as exhibited is not considered appropriate. Subject to further work as outlined in the conclusions and recommendations, the Amendment could be progressed.

In relation to the Significant Landscape Overlay the Panel concludes:

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

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

The Overlay controls do not increase the risk of bushfire as the planning scheme needs to be read in its entirety.

The comments provided by the CFA and Public Transport Victoria are appropriate once revisions to the Amendment occur ‐ relevant permit exemptions for public land managers should be included in any revised schedule

The Planning Scheme adequately provides for applications for stone extraction in the study area.

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



Page 49 of 56

The application of Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 should be reviewed with consideration of all landscape visibility and use of natural features to determine boundaries and a reduction in its size.

The Overlay should include the ridgeline and escarpment.

Consideration of the area to the south east of the exhibited area of Big Hill should be considered for a future Amendment.

In relation to the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 – Mandurang, the Panel concludes:


Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 should only be applied to the forest interface to protect the landscape values of Mandurang.

4.5 Recommendations

The Significant Landscape Overlay Schedules as exhibited are not supported. 3.Council should re‐examine the areas covered by the Significant Landscape Overlay. The areas should be more carefully and logically defined so that land is not unnecessarily included. This review should: a) include significant landscape areas zoned Rural Conservation Zone and

Public Conservation and Resource Zone b) include the ridgeline and escarpment at Big Hill and substantially reduce the

application to the remainder of the site at Ravenswood Run c) use landscape features to determine the overlay curtilage d) provide a logical boundary around the Box Ironbark forest and interface

properties.


Page 50 of 56

5 Other matters

5.1 Protection of environmental values in the study area

(i) The Issue

A number of submissions recommended additional studies and improved protection of natural assets in the study area, in particular relating to biodiversity, soils, geomorphology, erosion and salinity. This included environmental management practices on private and public land, in particular management of remnant vegetation (notably River Red Gums and the Box Ironbark forest), pest plant and animal control, establishment of habitat corridors and management of road reserves.

(ii) Evidence and submissions

A number of submitters (4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 24, 29, 30, 50, 36 and 42) supported the Amendment on the basis that it would result in improved protection of natural assets, in particular biodiversity and habitat for wildlife.

Some submissions raised concerns that the Significant Landscape Overlay would not adequately protect natural values, for example:

major problems with salinity in the Ravenswood area have long been recognised (submitter 8)

Ballarat and District Environment Council (submitter 9) supported the Amendment, but believed that the attention given to wildfire, salinity and erosion is inadequate – they would like to see “important flora and fauna areas mapped”

G and M Rosier (submitter 42) requested that the recommendations of the Dyson and Associates reports be incorporated into the management plans for the Significant Landscape Overlay, in particular actions relating to biodiversity, ecological mapping, salinity, erosion, groundwater and bushfire.

A large number of submitters requested that additional research be undertaken to fully understand environmental values and risks in the study area.

Submitters 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 30, 31, 39, 42 and 49 requested that the City of Greater Bendigo undertake biodiversity mapping for the study area, to ensure that key assets are identified and adequately protected and managed. The Bendigo Field Naturalists Club Inc. (submitter 29) stated “the area contains regionally significant ecological vegetation classes and habitat for fauna, some of which are declining or endangered”.

Submitters 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, 18 and 49 identified concerns about the fragility of the soils and many requested that the City of Greater Bendigo undertake further research to understand the soils in the area, with an aim to better understanding and managing threats such as salinity and erosion.

Council responded that the proposed studies are outside the scope of the landscape assessment, and that “these types of studies are relevant only to the application of other planning overlays”.


Page 51 of 56

A number of submitters (7, 9 and 19) suggested that there was a need for greater protection of significant vegetation, including roadside vegetation and old River Red Gums, which are found across the study area.

Submitters (7, 25, 26, 27 and 45) raised concerns that the Amendment would result in a range of issues that would impact negatively on roadside management, including increased vegetation resulting in increased risk of wildfire, increased wildlife deaths, restricted views and restricted areas for walkers and cyclists.

Pest plants and animals were identified as an issue that was not adequately addressed in the Amendment, stating that “the aims of the amendment do not acknowledge the rampant invasion of noxious and environmental weeds, or the environmental and economic problems caused by introduced pest animals” (G and B Hosking, submitter 23).

S Pelczynski and B Pelczynska (submitter 10) submitted that dead vegetation may provide important habitat for native fauna, and request that the removal of dead vegetation be included as a “permit is required” in the schedules to the Significant Landscape Overlay.

Dr Bardsley and Ms Radford (submitter 49) recommended that Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 be extended “to carefully consider the physical properties of the terrain which militate against development and require very careful management, i.e. salinity and erosion”.

Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30) submitted that further proposals should be added to the management plans to address environmental problems present at the ‘Big Hill / Ravenswood Valley’. These recommendations related to further investigation and management of hydrogeology, geology, biodiversity, bushfire, salinity and erosion, and implementation of Salinity Management and Erosion Management Overlays as part of the Amendment.

Ms Glaisher (submitter 8) submitted that whilst she was in favour of the Amendment that it would be useful to undertake further independent studies to better understand the “local geomorphology, erosion and salinity, aboriginal heritage values and biodiversity … to help clarify the implications for any proposed changes to land management in the area”. Ms Glaisher suggested that this would help people to understand the importance of the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay which would increase acceptance of possible constraints.

Ms Glaisher also submitted that as part of the Study, preliminary studies had identified ten aboriginal archaeological sites and that these demanded further investigation.

(iii) Discussion

It is evident that there are large number of environmental values and assets across the study area. There are varying levels of knowledge about the significance and appropriate management actions required to protect these values. Some of these values are protected by existing planning controls.

During the Panels site visit to the study area, it was observed that there were large areas of significant vegetation on public and private land, there was other significant vegetation including scattered old River Red Gums across the Big Hill study area, and there were large


Page 52 of 56

areas significantly impacted by salinity and erosion. There was a large area of revegetation planting on the Ravenswood Run property, that was undertaken by local Landcare groups, to assist with managing salinity across the region.

There is strong interest from the community in understanding the environmental values and risks of the study area, and ensuring that these are adequately protected and managed through planning controls.

It is clear that the Bendigo Landscape Assessment identified some of these values at a very high level, but thorough investigation was beyond the Study brief. A number of identified values, such as biodiversity, whilst somewhat protected by vegetation controls under the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay, may be better protected by a more specific control, such as the Environmental Significance Overlay.

A number of studies were identified by submitters that were not considered by the Bendigo Landscape Assessment. There may be a need to review these studies, and to undertake further investigation into environmental values and risks across the study area, and to ensure that planning controls adequately protect and manage these.

The Panel notes that the Study did not include any recommendations in the Landscape Management Framework relating to additional research or other planning controls to protect identified values. The Panel considers this an oversight.

(iv) Conclusions

The Panel concludes:

community interest and concern for the environment is evident

many of the issues raised by the community are beyond the scope of this Amendment and the purpose of the Significant Landscape Overlay

A number of submitters recommended additional controls be included in the Significant Landscape Overlay, including controls relating to salinity and erosion. The Panel agrees with Council and considers that these matters would be dealt with more appropriately through other planning controls, such as the Salinity Management Overlay and the Erosion Management Overlay.

5.2 Protection of the study area from development

(i) The issue

Many submitters believed that the intention of the Study and the Amendment was to prevent further development.

(ii) Evidence and submissions

A number of submissions (4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 17, 18, 24, 29, 30, 35, 36, 41 and 50) indicated support for the Amendment because it would deter or restrict future development of the study area.

Council submitted that in the areas subject to the Significant Landscape Overlay “do not envisage nor plan for further residential growth other than that enabled by the subdivision controls in the respective zones”. The City of Greater Bendigo’s strategic direction is to


Page 53 of 56

provide a non‐urban break around the city, with residential development to be supported only in areas zoned for rural living and in small towns. This was strongly supported by the Amendment C215 Panel Report.

Council submitted:

The proposed Significant Landscape Overlays are intended to protect the identified landscape values of the study area and to manage the impact that future urban development may have upon these values. It is beyond the scope of an Significant Landscape Overlay control to stop urban development.

The Design and Development Guidelines (Final Report, Appendix D) detail ways in which development can be accommodated in the landscape. This includes siting and design guidelines for subdivision layout, new buildings and structures, signage and infrastructure. The Study acknowledges that change is a part of the heritage of every landscape and that change will continue into the future. The aim of the Study is to manage how this change occurs.

It was evident from several submissions that support for the Amendment included a perception that overlay was a tool to limit or manage development in the study area:

This will help reduce the chance of these areas being despoiled by housing developments. Landscape significance for me means protecting the areas from developments. It doesn’t mean allowing developments because they meet some criteria on building design (Mr Morison, submitter 4).

If a development project was proposed again at Big Hill Ravenswood … having an Significant Landscape Overlay would go a long way towards stoping the destruction of a landscape the people of Bendigo find of such great value (Bendigo and District Environment Council, submitter 9).

Our expectation is that Planning Scheme Amendment C217, with its proposed Significance Overlays, will be sufficient to deter any such inappropriate development proposal in the future (Big Hill Acton Group, submitter 17).

To ensure that areas are protected from development that changes the landscape or degrades the value of the area… the geomorphology and hydrology of the Big Hill area are such that there would be major problems on site and downstream if residential development were permitted (Bendigo Field Naturalists Club, submitter 29).

It is vital that any proposed increase in residential land is balanced with the preservation of the natural landscape and the wildlife that reside there….We believe that the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay Amendment C217 will satisfy this important consideration” (Bendigo Sustainability Group, submitter 30).

In response to Mr Harper’s (submitter 35) question to Council about whether the Study was being “undertaken to prevent a large development in the Big Hill area”, Council responded that “the process was partly in response to development pressure in the general sense”.

Council submitted that the intent of the Significant Landscape Overlay over the Big Hill ridge was to “keep it clear of development to retain the ridge as a distinctive landscape feature.”


Page 54 of 56

(iii) Discussion and conclusion

It was clear from submissions that there was a perception by some members of the community that the purpose of the Amendment was to prevent residential development in the Study area. In some cases this led to support for the Amendment on this basis.

Council did clarify that the intention of the Amendment was not to prevent, but to manage development, in line with existing strategic directions and zone controls.

The Panel’s agrees with Council’s submission that the Significant Landscape Overlay is intended to protect the identified landscape values of the study area and to manage the impact that any future urban development may have upon these values.

The Panel concludes:

That any review of the Study and the Amendment documentation clearly state the purpose of the proposed changes to the planning scheme, in particular the purpose of the Significant Landscape Overlay, and clearly explain that It is beyond the scope of an the overlay control to stop urban development.

5.3 Fee Simple

(i) Submissions

A number of submissions (12) raised the matter of Fee Simple. In closing, Council provided the following information:

A number of the submissions to the amendment objected on the basis that the Significant Landscape Overlay would restrict their “Fee Simple” property rights.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission describes Fee Simple as a form of land ownership “unconditional freehold estate in land for an unlimited duration”.

There is a range of legislation that limits a person’s use of their freehold title. Fee Simple does not create a “free for all” property owners. This legislation covers a variety of issues including the environment, mining, fencing and planning.

All land within Victoria (other than land owned by the Commonwealth Government) is subject to planning controls. The Planning and Environment Act (1987) places obligations on Council’s acting as a planning authority to further the objectives of planning as set out in Section 4(1) of the Act. Included within these objectives is a requirement to:

to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;

In the case of the current amendment, the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay is seeking to achieve this particular objective.

(ii) Conclusion

The Panel makes no further comment on the matter and agrees with Council’s response.


Page 55 of 56

Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment No. Submitter No. Submitter

1 Donald and Rosemary Monro 28 Michael and Heather Campbell

2 Lucas Hodgens 29 Bendigo Field Naturalists Club

3 Rodric and Heather MacLeod 30 Bendigo Sustainability Policy Group

4 Peter Morison 31 Shane Rohde

5 Christine Hooper 32 Chayanie and Jared Marwood

6 Chrisanne and Grant Blennerhassett 33 Pam and Ian Nicholas

7 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

34 Dr Jennifer Alden

8 Rosemary Glaisher 35 Tom Harper

9 Bendigo and District Environment Council

36 Craig Mildwaters

10 Stanislaw Pelczynski and Barbara Pelczynska

37 Paul Volta and Virginia Bell

11 Rosemary Porter, Graham McDonald and family

38 Kim and Jim Monro

12 Karen Thomas 39 Dianne Lawless and Samuel Nielson

13 Anne Bridley 40 The National Trust

14 Andrew Price 41 Brian and Julie Evans

15 Leonard Handley 42 Gill and Mick Rosier

16 Spiire on behalf of Ravenswood Run 43 Tract on behalf of Ravenswood Run

17 Big Hill Action Group 44 Steve Lottkowitz

18 Dr Joel and Nilumi Ziffer 45 Jarrod Taylor

19 Peter Millar 46 Tract on behalf of SIARA Pty Ltd

20 D Monro 47 Public Transport Victoria

21 S Monro 48 Robbie and Sue Sutton

22 Noreen Boord 49 Dr John Bardsley and Wendy Radford

23 Geoff and Beth Hosking 50 Timothy Bardsley

24 Robin and Glenise Moors 51 CFA

25 Dr Jenny Parrat and Dr John Togno 52 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

26 Pam Floreani 53 Peter Mitchell

27 Max Floreani


Page 56 of 56

Appendix B Document list

No. Date Description Presented by

1 27/1/2016 Part B submission of the City of Greater Bendigo City of Greater Bendigo

2 27/1/2016 Geological Survey of Victoria Technical Record 1998/6 – Bendigo Supply Area – Extractive Industry Interest Area

DEDJTR

3 27/1/2016 Ravenswood Salinity Province Big Hill Action Group

4 27/1/2016 Big Hill Action Group presentation and additional materials

Big Hill Action Group

5 27/1/2016 USB of submission Jill Rosier / Big Hill Action Group

6 28/1/2016 Introductory submission on behalf of Ravenswood Run Pty Ltd

Ravenswood Run

7 28/1/2016 A3 Map – Ravenswood Run and proposed Significant Landscape Overlay

Ravenswood Run

8 28/1/2016 A1 Map / aerial photo – Ravenswood Run and proposed Significant Landscape Overlay

Ravenswood Run

9 28/1/2016 Schedule to the Farming Zone Ravenswood Run

10 28/1/2016 A. Environmental Significance Overlay B. Restructure Overlay

Ravenswood Run

11 28/1/2016 Panel Report ‐ East Gippsland C68 – Coastal Landscapes and Urban Settlement Plans, April 2009

Ravenswood Run

12 28/1/2016 Submission to Planning Panels Victoria on Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217

Wendy Radford and Dr John Bardsley

13 28/1/2016 A3 Map Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 4 Wendy Radford and Dr John Bardsley

14 29/1/2016 A3 Map – Current zones and proposed Overlay and A3 Map of current Overlay controls

City of Greater Bendigo

15 29/1/2016 Submission S Pelczynski and B Pelczynska

16 29/1/2016 Further comments on Significant Landscape Overlay

Bendigo and District Environment Council

17 29/1/2016 USB of submission Bendigo and District Environment Council

18 29/1/2016 Closing comments City of Greater Bendigo

19 29/1/2016 Proposed amendments to SLO Schedules with track changes showing

City of Greater Bendigo

Planning and Environment Act 1987 - City of Greater …...Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel...

Documents

Transcript of Planning and Environment Act 1987 - City of Greater …...Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel...