Planning Panels Victoria GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT … · 2020-01-14 · Greater...

Planning Panels Victoria

GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C41

January 2004

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, Amendment C41 Report of Panel, January 2004

2

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION 3 2 THE EXHIBITED AMENDMENT 6 3 ECONOMIC OVERVIEW 10 4 STATE & LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES 18 5 PROPOSED REZONING OF LAND 23 6 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT & CONCLUSION 41 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 44 APPENDIX A KEY DOCUMENTS 45 APPENDIX B INDUSTRIAL LAND STRATEGY

KEY FRAMEWORK PLAN 46


3

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Panel Lawrie Groom and Eugene Kneebone were appointed as a Panel on 6 August 2003, to consider and hear submissions, and to prepare a report on proposed Amendment C41 (the Amendment) to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. The Amendment, if approved, seeks to implement some of the recommendations of the Bendigo Industrial Land Strategy 2002 (the Strategy), change Local planning policy, and rezone land (including surplus Crown land, at the request of the Department of Sustainability and Environment). The Panel was requested to consider two modifications to the exhibited Amendment affecting land in the West Bendigo Precinct, at the corner of Marong Road and Gold Association Road, West Bendigo (also referred to in some of the documentation as Gold Associates Road), and land in the Golden Square/Quarry Hill Precinct, in Belle Vue Road, Golden Square. The Panel was also requested to endorse a correction to the Audit Summary Table for Precinct 12 within the Strategy report. This is necessary as the Amendment proposes to include the report as a reference document in the scheme. The Panel addresses the Amendment in this report, and also comments on three related matters: enforcement, notification of parties about the Amendment, and consultation.

1.2 The Panel’s Process The Panel held a Directions hearing on 5 September 2003, in the City of Greater Bendigo’s Council Chamber, Council offices, Lyttleton Terrace, Bendigo. The Panel undertook several unaccompanied inspections of the area, and the Council organised conducted inspections of specific sites that were proposed to be rezoned, for the Panel, Submitters and Others, on 21 October and 18 November 2003. The Panel is familiar with Bendigo and the industrial land planning policies in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, as it had conducted a hearing earlier in 2003 on Amendment C50 to the scheme. The public hearing of evidence and submissions was conducted on 21 and 22 October 2003, in the Reception Room at the old Bendigo Town Hall, Lyttleton Terrace, Bendigo; while days three and four of the hearing (to consider a late submission and other matters) were conducted on 17 and 18 November 2003, in the Council Chamber. The Planning Authority, the City of Greater Bendigo (the Council) was represented by Mr Andrew Cockerall, Strategic Planner, Ms Marg Allan, Manager, Strategic Planning, and Mr Brian Gould, Executive Manager, Economic Development.


4

The following Submitters to the Amendment, and Others, made presentations to, or attended the site inspections with the Panel: • Mr Trevor Budge, Planning Consultant, and Ms Mary Conwey, Research

Planning Design Group, for Mr Andrew Hoare, Big Hill Investments (Submission No 12)

• Mr Kevin Jackson, Planning Consultant, Conceptz, for Mr David Roberts

(Submission No 15) • Mr John Mooney, for Mrs Marie Mooney (Submissions Nos 5 and 9) • Mr Robin Breheny, for self and Mrs Shirley Breheny (Submissions Nos 10 and

9) • Mr Brett Bilton, for self and Ms Irene Ryan (Submissions Nos 8 and 9) • Mr Bill Harper and Mr Mervyn Rushton, Deborah Triangle Traders

Association Inc (Submission No 18) • Mr Tim Biles, Planning Consultant, Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd, for the

Guy Family interests (Submission No 20) • Mr Ian Thompson, and Mrs Rosalie Thompson, GV Cultivation Centre Pty Ltd,

with Mr Adrian Cummins, land surveyor (Submission No 3) • Ms Kim Perrow, for self and Mr Kevin Arthur (Submission No 4) • Mr Kim Holmberg, about proposed rezoning of land in Furness Street, Kangaroo

Flat (refer letter dated 3 November from K Holmberg to Council; see also Submission No 3)

• Mr Ron Youl and Mr Max Emmitt (Submission No 19) • Ms Julie Jones, Project Officer, and Mr Norm Stimson, Crown Land

Assessment Officer – Land Victoria, North West Region, Department of Sustainability and Environment (letter dated 3 November 2003, from Department to Council about proposed rezoning of land corner Marong and Gold Association Road, West Bendigo)

• Mrs Marilyn Cunningham, Mr Rodney Cunningham, Mrs Margaret Hartley

and Mr Brian Hartley, about proposed rezoning of land corner Marong and Gold Association Road, West Bendigo.


5

The Panel also heard evidence from an expert witness for the Council, Mr Matthew Lee, an economist with Essential Economics Pty Ltd, in support of the report Overview of Importance of Industry to the Bendigo Economy (October 2003). Mrs N Holliday (Submissions No 11), did not make a presentation to the Panel in support of her submission. Council provided the Panel with copies of the submissions, a number of reports and papers, including the Bendigo Industrial Land Strategy 2002; these and other key documents referred to by the Panel are listed in Appendix A to this report. An extract from the Strategy, the Key Framework Plan, is included in Appendix B. In preparing this report, the Panel followed the approach outlined in the circulated Strategic Assessment Guidelines for Planning Scheme Amendments. These guidelines provide a framework for the evaluation of amendments. In particular they seek to make planning more strategic and policy based so that the strategic focus of planning schemes is maintained and not undermined or ignored by subsequent amendments. The Panel also considered whether the Amendment would have any impact on the implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy, Melbourne 2030 – Planning for Sustainable Growth (Melbourne 2030). These assessments and the Panel’s conclusions are summarised in section 6 of this report The nature of the exhibited Amendment is explained in the next section of this report.


6

2 THE EXHIBITED AMENDMENT

2.1 Purpose of the Amendment The Amendment, if approved, seeks to implement some of the recommendations of the Strategy, change Local planning policy, revise the industrial land policy and rezone land, including surplus Crown land. Council advised the Panel that the Amendment:

recognises that there are industrial areas that are now inappropriately zoned due to a variety of factors such as residential encroachment and poor access to services and transport infrastructure. The amendment seeks to provide future direction to residents and industry. (Submission)

The final draft Report for the Three Year Review of the Municipal Strategic Statement (June 2003), prepared by Isis Planning, refers to the Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee (1988) on the new format scheme. That report identified the need to evaluate the adequacy of the supply of industrial zoned land and to consider whether the management of the interface between industrial and sensitive uses in the scheme was appropriate. The completion of the Strategy, consequential proposed changes to the Local Planning Policy Framework and the proposed rezoning of land, are some of Council’s response to these issues. These are the issues considered by the Panel in this report. The proposed changes to the Local Planning Policy Framework are as follows: • Adding to Clause 21.02-6 in the Overview section of the Municipal Strategic

Statement (MSS), a statement introducing and explaining the Bendigo Industrial Land Strategy

• Adding to Clause 21.05-1 in the Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

section of the MSS, a strategy that seeks to ensure that the rezoning of land to residential does not encroach on land needed for industrial development and any existing buffer requirements

• Adding a paragraph to Clause 21.05-4 in the Economic Development section of

Objectives, Strategies and Implementation of the MSS, that makes reference to the employment sectors that locate in industrial areas

• Amending Industry Strategies in Clause 21.05-4 of the Economic Development

section of Objectives, Strategies and Implementation of the MSS, that identifies the need to identify land for large scale industrial developments, promote co-locating with consideration for infrastructure requirements, and encourage industry to investigate marketing strategies, rather than financial inducements


7

• Amending the Strategic Framework – Bendigo Urban Area plan in Clause 21.06-1 of the Strategic Framework section of the MSS to identify the East Bendigo industrial precinct, and to make minor corrections to the plan

• Adding a section to the Urban Growth and Consolidation Policy in Clause 22.01

of the Local policy section to provide that housing should not intrude on the established buffers required by existing industry

• Replacing the industrial policy at Clause 22.06 of the Local policy section with a

new Industrial Land Policy that seeks to implement the Strategy by providing greater guidance about what is expected of industrial development within the municipality; the policy at Clause 22.06-2, identifies the Goornong Industrial Precinct as the preferred location for rural based industries; it also includes the Strategy as a policy reference document within the scheme.

The land proposed to be rezoned in the exhibited Amendment, is: • Goornong Industrial Precinct – proposes to rezone part CA 1 Midland Highway

and CA 7A Axedale Road, Goornong, from Rural Living to Industrial 3 Zone, and to delete the Development Plan Overlay (DPO) (Map 11)

• Long Gully Precinct – proposes to rezone land bounded primarily by Havilah

Street, Wood Street, Holdsworth Road and Eaglehawk Road from Industrial 1 Zone to Industrial 3 Zone (Maps 18 and 19)

• West Bendigo Precinct – proposes to rezone site 1, that is land on the corner of

Marong Road and Gold Association Road from Industrial 3 Zone to Business 3 Zone (Map 18)

• West Bendigo Precinct – proposes to rezone site 2, that is 116-132 Marong Road

from Industrial 1 Zone to Business 3 Zone (Map 18) • West Bendigo Precinct – proposes to rezone site 3, that is 170-180 Wattle Street

and 9 Acacia Street from Industrial 1 Zone to Residential 1 Zone, and to apply and Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) (Map 19)

• West Bendigo Precinct – proposes to rezone site 4, that is 132 Lily Street from

Industrial 3 Zone to Business 3 Zone (Map 18) • Golden Square/Quarry Hill Precinct – proposes to rezone part of the Deborah

Triangle area, approximately bounded by Breen Street, railway line, Adam Street and Belle Vue Road from Industrial 1 Zone to Business 3, Mixed Use Zone, and an Environmenal Audit Overlay (EAO), where required. Also proposes to rezone surplus Crown land to Business 3, Residential 1, Public Use Zone 1, Public Park and Recreation Zones (Maps 22 and 23)


8

• Kangaroo Flat South Precinct – proposes to rezone land bounded by the Bendigo Creek, Cannon Lane, Hammill Street and the Crusoe Reservoir from Industrial 3 Zone to Low Density Residential Zone (Map 26).

The Strategy did not identify the Crown land proposed to be rezoned in this Amendment. The rezoning of these pieces of land was included by Council at the request of the Department of Sustainability and Environment, to correct anomalies and to rezone land that has been declared surplus to the requirement of the Government. Much of the land is proposed to be rezoned to an Industrial 3 Zone, or to a Business 3 Zone, that is to a zone that works as an interface between industrial zones and local communities, or to a zone that encourages integrated development of offices and manufacturing industries. These elements of Amendment propose to rezone land to a zone that is consistent with surrounding land uses, or to a use that would facilitate industrial development. In other cases, the Amendment proposes to rezone industrially zoned land to a residential zone because of residential encroachment, or because the land is isolated or poorly serviced, or because the existing zone does not reflect use of the land. The Panel was requested to consider two modifications to the exhibited Amendment, and to recommend that the following sites be deleted from the Amendment: land in the West Bendigo Precinct, at the corner of Marong Road and Gold Association Road, West Bendigo, and land in the Golden Square/Quarry Hill Precinct, in Belle Vue Road, Golden Square. This is discussed in section 5 of this report.

2.2 Exhibition of the Amendment Council adopted the Strategy at its meeting on 17 June 2002. At that meeting, Council also decided to prepare an amendment to facilitate the rezoning of land identified in the Strategy, develop appropriate planning policy, and to change the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) to include findings from the Strategy. The Amendment was prepared and Council at its meeting on 16 December 2002, resolved to exhibit Amendment C41. The Amendment was exhibited from 30 January to 10 March 2003. Notices were placed in the Government Gazette and the Bendigo Advertiser, sent to relevant Ministers, government bodies and service authorities, and were served on 473 affected persons and groups. (Council submission) The Panel heard submissions from some landholders that they had not received these notices; this matter is addressed in Section 5 of this report. Twenty submissions were received, and Council, at its meeting on 21 July 2003, considered the submissions and agreed to request the Minister to appoint a Panel. Council also decided to endorse a draft Development Plan Overlay (DPO) to resolve the future planning of the Deborah Triangle area of Golden Square/Quarry Hill precinct. Council proposed to include some of this land in a Residential 1 Zone.


9

Council referred all of the submissions to this Panel, which the Panel has read and considered, including further submissions, a late submission, and other correspondence that arose during the course of the hearing. The next section of this report includes an economic overview of the municipality.


10

3 ECONOMIC OVERVIEW

3.1 Background The City of Greater Bendigo is 150 km north west of Melbourne and is described in Council’s Annual Report as the major regional service centre for north central Victoria. It has an area of 2,995 km2, a population of 85,779 people (that grew by 1.2% between 1976 and the 2001 census), and is the third largest urban centre in the State. The urban area is surrounded by a number of state and regional parks. There are 4,000 enterprises within the municipality that employ in excess of 30,000 people with an economic output of $3.2 billion per year. Manufacturing employs 12.6% of the workforce and generates a total of $826 million annually from four key groups: food processing, textiles and clothing, car components, and high technology engineering. (Annual Report 2001-2002) Council advised the Panel that the 2003 Victorian Population Bulletin estimates that the municipality had a resident population of 91,831, as at 30 June 2002. Council estimates that the municipality will have a population of 111,879 in 2016. The wider regional economic implications of the Amendment were not the subject of specific submissions referred to the Panel. It was true however that economic implications (along with social and environmental concerns), lie behind most submissions. The Panel is aware of the major economic drivers and implications of the recently adopted Amendment C50, and the yet to be considered Amendment C51 which relate to the Strategy. These amendments complement the present matters before the Panel. They deal variously with a Food Manufacturing Precinct in Victa Road, Wellsford (Amendment C50), and the recommendations of the East Bendigo Local Structure Plan (February 2003) on other land surrounding the Wellsford site (Amendment C51), much of which is identified as having the potential for industrial use, after appropriate rezoning. The three Amendments are related, insomuch as they deal with existing or proposed industrial land in the municipality. Amendment C50 has created additional (specialised) industrial land for food manufacturing; Amendment C51 will, in the event of its full or partial approval, create additional industrial land in East Bendigo; whereas this Amendment largely seeks to consolidate and rationalise presently zoned industrial land. The thrust of the present Amendment is to reduce the pool of inappropriately industrial land (with the clear exception of land identified for rural industries). The Panel therefore believes that this reduction must seen against the gains of more appropriately located, sized and presented land through Amendment C50 and possibly, Amendment C51.


11

This section will make more explicit, the implicit economic basis for the Amendment. In doing so it will draw upon the expert evidence provided as a result of the Panel's Directions, and Council's comments where they touch on economic matters. The Panel will then set out its own findings as a result of these considerations.

3.2 Bendigo Industrial Land Strategy The Council representative took the Panel through the Strategy that was prepared by Gutteridge Haskins & Davey (GHD) in association with Essential Economics. The purpose of the study was to identify the demand for industrial land, setting this against the supply of presently available industrially zoned land. Future locations for industrial land were identified and graded for their suitability together with requisite servicing needs. The Strategy sets out its key objectives in the project brief:

1. Audit the existing industrial land in respect to services available, accessibility and limitations imposed by surrounding land uses and transport routes;

2. Ascertain the present and anticipate future demand for industrial land; 3. Establish the amount of industrial land currently available and suitable for

noxious industry, heavy industry, medium industry and light industry; 4. Identify and nominate areas suitable for the levels of industrial uses

identified in (3) above; 5. Identify land currently zoned industrial that may be more appropriately

zoned; 6. Nominate areas that may be suitable for future industrial zoning; 7. Nominate areas where high priority for servicing may be appropriate and

investment to provide servicing in the form of industrial estates; and 8. Review Best Practice nationally in respect to the industrial land usage and

incentives to attract industry, to identify a method of implementation. The Panel notes that Objectives 5 and 6, set a measurable task, to which the parties to the hearing could respond. The recommended outcomes of Strategy also provide the Panel with a partial measure of the Amendment's success or otherwise:

• Rationalisation of existing industrial zones; • Aggregation, extension to, limitation of existing industrial zones and/or

establishment of new industrial zones;


12

• A suite of preferred uses for each existing and any proposed industrial zones, and particular precincts within any zones;

• Prioritised areas for service installation; and • Areas for development of industrial park(s) and any other identified need in

respect to the provision of adequate land and services for industrial development and other incentives.

The Panel believes that the first two nominated outcomes above seem particularly applicable to the consideration of this Amendment. The Panel was informed that some 62 industrial areas were examined in the Strategy and these were consolidated into 19 identified industrial precincts. These form the framework for implementation of the Strategy, including the Amendment. In addition, several other sites were nominated for rezoning by the Department of Sustainability and Environment in the Golden Square/Quarry Hill precinct. The following assessment criteria were used a basis for the re-zoning recommendations: • Precinct size and shape • Present level of development • Standard of access • Existing landscaping • Location and distance from the Central Business or Activity District • Current uses within, and surrounding the precinct • Infrastructure assessment. The Panel believes that the assessment of the Precincts has been generally competent and has been based on well-researched data. The methodology employed in the development of the Strategy included interviews with key stakeholders and interested individuals, and an infrastructure audit of each precinct. The Panel believes that the methodology was a satisfactory way of documenting major opportunities and constraints. The Panel however notes complaints expressed by some submitters, claiming that they were not contacted during the preparation of the Strategy. Some of the recommendations of the Strategy led to rezoning proposals. As an outcome of the audit of the 19 industrial precincts and subsequent analysis, category ratings from "A", indicating areas most suitable for new and expanding industrial activities due to location and servicing, to "E" which indicate long term,


13

green field sites. These are identified on the Key Framework Plan, which is included in Appendix B of this report. The Council advised the Panel that the audit provided a useful indication of the quantum of industrial land 'theoretically' available for development. This revealed a hierarchy of development from land ‘Under Development’ with 260.9 ha (27%), to a relatively small quantum of 43 ha (4.4%) ‘Fully Developed’ land. Overall the Strategy reveals that of a total of 968.1 ha of industrial land, 68% or 657 ha requires a substantial or major upgrade of infrastructure. The Panel believes that the "A to E" rankings provide a useful guide in assessing the merits of proposals subject to the Amendment. The Panel on its site visits observed many vacant sites in established industrial precincts. The Panel also noted the dilemma that had been raised in the Strategy and confirmed by the Council, that the areas were frequently of different standards, often fragmented, sometimes untidy, and on land that required access, would need environmental upgrades and high levels of new infrastructure. The Council guided the Panel through the implication of the seven tasks to be pursued in the implementation of the Strategy. Council confirmed it had adopted the Strategy (Task 1); commenced re-zoning via Amendments C50 and C41 (Task 2); undertaken a Local Structure Plan for East Bendigo through Amendment C51 (Task 3); and is preparing an Economic Development Plan in 2003-04 (Task 4). It is also reviewing its processes, responding to the Government’s Better Decisions Faster (Task 5); reviewing and monitoring the Strategy (Task 6); and considering and providing for necessary infrastructure in its capital works budget. The Panel makes reference to an important implementation task, enforcement, in section 5 of this report. Council provided information on recent industrial land sales:

In East Bendigo alone so far in 2003, 6 hectares of fully serviced vacant industrial land has been sold at an average $38 per m2. This figure compares with 1.1 ha sold in 2002 at $11 per m2 for the precinct. Also in East Bendigo, 14 hectares of unserviced or partially serviced vacant industrial land has been sold this year at $4 per m2. In addition to this is the 29 hectare food manufacturing precinct off Victa Road at $2.65 per m2. In 2002 sales in unserviced or partially serviced land totaled 4.8 hectares at an average of $3.80 per m2. Other recent land sales include:

• 4.4 hectares in Fairview Road, Kangaroo Flat;

• 3.12 hectares of unserviced land in Gray Road, Kangaroo Flat ($12.50 per m2); and


14

• 2.1 hectares of unserviced land in Hattam Street, Golden Square ($20

per m2). Anecdotal evidence also suggests that the general price of industrial land has doubled in the past six months. (Submission)

The Panel accepts that the trend supports the need to identify industrial (including green field land), at perhaps a greater rate than that forecast in the Strategy. A long-term view however, may reveal a 'flatter' trend, consistent with the Strategy’s relatively conservative estimates.

3.3 The Importance of Industry to the Bendigo Economy The Panel considered economic evidence and a report from Essential Economics Pty Ltd, the economists that had provided analysis for the Strategy. The major thrust of Essential Economics’ presentation by its economist, Mr Matthew Lee, was to underscore the importance of industry to the Bendigo economy.

The Bendigo Industrial Land Strategy shows that the sectors which typically locate in industry areas are Manufacturing, Transport & Storage, Wholesaling, and Construction. In total, these sectors account for a total of some 8,600 jobs and this is equivalent to 28% of all employment in Bendigo. (page 12) Other documentation also supports the view that industry is important to Bendigo. For example, a publication entitled "City of Greater Bendigo-Manufacturing” (December 2002) confirms that the Manufacturing sector is very important to the economic and employment base in Bendigo, showing that this sector is the largest contributor in terms of economic output in Bendigo. On an annual basis Manufacturing generates: • $962 million or 23% of total economic output;

• $163 million in wages and salaries;

• $474 million in exports; and

• $294 million in value-adding to the local economy. In employment terms, Manufacturing directly supports some 4,500 jobs (or approximately 13% of all jobs in Bendigo) and is the third largest sector in employment terms after Retailing and Health & Community Services (ABS Population Census, 2001). At a time when the Manufacturing sector, nationally, has generally suffered declining employment levels, this sector in Bendigo has actually experienced an increase in jobs, with approximately 330 net jobs or at a modest 4% increase in the inter-censal period, 1996 to 2001.


15

Mr Lee described the broader context of Bendigo's economic development. This included its role as an industrial centre; the growth of activities that locate in industrial areas; population and labour force growth; the stock of (largely unsuitable and fragmented) industrial land, and longer term forecasts of future demand. Mr Lee drew the Panel’s attention to the section in the Strategy that noted the importance of stakeholders in Bendigo investigating ways:

… to enhance [the] provision of industrial land, infrastructure and services. A strong industrial base combined with investment and employment multipliers, will significantly underpin the regional economy, provide new and expanded opportunities for existing and new firms, and enhance living standards for the community. (page 21)

The supply and demand equation for industrial land was also canvassed in the consultant's evidence. In relation to the supply issues, Mr Lee generally agreed with Council's assessment of industrial land stock:

In summary, the Strategy shows that there is considerable vacant industrial land in Bendigo. However, there are a number of important limitations associated with size, access, buffers, etc which mean available land is not necessarily suited to the needs of the market or particular components in the market. The East Bendigo Local Structure Plan (Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd, February 2003) involves planning for the future industrial development of the East Bendigo area. The LSP finds that of the 363 industrial land parcels in East Bendigo, only 71 parcels or 20% are vacant (LSP Tables 3 & 4). Moreover, only 16 parcels or 22% of all vacant land in the area is now below 5,000m2 in area. The LSP notes that, in effect, there is an over-supply of large parcels in the area, and there is a need for land subdivision. Moreover, the LSP notes that because land is vacant, it is not necessarily available for sale.

Overall, the evidence from the Industrial Land Strategy and other investigations shows that there is considerable industrial land in Bendigo, but it requires good planning, the provision of services, and promotion in order to attract new and expanding firms and investment.

The Panel observes that this conclusion could be seen to be somewhat at odds with the Council's reported experience of a lively industrial land market over recent months. The two views could however be reconciled if the present market phenomena can be thought of as a response to the few opportunities to purchase 'good' industrial land. Essential Economics’ dealt with this matter under evidence on demand factors, that is the "strong demand for vacant industrial blocks". Further, that "a relatively low level of industrial land sales on an annual basis may simply reflect the lack of available land coming onto the market". The economist was not surprised that new industrial land "is generally quickly taken up" (as reported by Council). Essential Economics cited the situation in East Bendigo in 2002 when some 17 sales took place,


16

totaling 9.9 ha (compared with one 4.0 ha sale in 2001, and two sales of approximately 1.3 ha each in 2000):

Indeed, there is evidence that the forecast requirements for vacant serviced industrial land in Bendigo, as presented in the Industrial Land Strategy, are now on the low-side. The Strategy (p 24) forecasts that the municipality would need between 50 ha and 80 ha of industrial land by 2021, with demand averaging between 2.5 ha and 4 ha, annually. However, as indicated above, recent sales of industrial land in February 2003 (7 ha) and for calendar year 2002 (9.9 ha) far exceed the average level of demand identified in the Industrial Land Strategy. Of course, over a longer period there will be variations in land availability and take-up in accordance with cyclical conditions in the economy.

Essential Economics also reported "healthy bidding" at the auction of a recently partially serviced industrial land parcel at the corner of Victa Road and Piper Lane, where a "well above reserve" price was achieved. Other data suggests that prices are increasing at a significant rate, with serviced land selling up to $233,000 per ha in 2003, compared with $160,000 per ha in 2002:

Overall, it is evident that demand exists for industrial land which meets market requirements. While Bendigo has a considerable stock of industrial land, not all of this is actually readily available or suitable to meet market demand.

Essential Economics concluded:

Overall, it is evident that industry is very important to the Bendigo economy in terms of investment, jobs, multiplier effects and inter-industry linkages. This sector, and the Bendigo community in general, would benefit in a considerable way if the provision of serviced and well-located industrial land can be guaranteed in Bendigo.

The Panel believes that with regard to well located, partially serviced and fully serviced industrial land, the present supply and demand equation is somewhat 'out of balance'. The outcome of the Amendment together with other initiatives will, in the medium to long term, hopefully address this matter. Industry remains important to the Bendigo economy, both in terms of its contribution to sustainable job creation and the 28% of employment sectors that seek location on industrial land. Of all industrial sectors, manufacturing is a key driver of the Bendigo economy, both through direct employment (4,500 jobs) and the investment and employment multipliers it generates, both locally and in the wider regional economy. Over the next two decades there will be a need to find an additional 2,000 jobs in Bendigo to provide for the projected expansion of the labour force. The adequate


17

supply of serviced industrial land will go a long way to contributing to the expansion of existing firms and the attraction of new firms which will in turn contribute to the take-up of a significant proportion of jobs growth. Because industrial development is the subject of intense competition between regions, to succeed, Bendigo must be able to offer an attractive variety of industrial sites to the property market. Amendment C41 must be seen in conjunction with the adopted Amendment C50 and proposed Amendment C51, as they all in some measure flow from the recommendations of the Strategy. Whilst the thrust of the Amendment is to rationalise and consolidate, the two parallel amendments have to do with the identification and provision of additional appropriately zoned industrial land. The three amendments should balance ongoing supply with projected demand for suitable industrial sites. Whilst the Strategy provides a well researched basis for the amendments that follow, to some extent its projections of demand for 'good' industrial land have proven to be overly conservative. Council has made a 'workmanlike' beginning in its approach to implementing the Strategy. Effective and efficient decision making, monitoring of outcomes on the ground and the provision of budget allocations for infrastructure, will need to grow if the Strategy’s key objectives are to be realised. Bendigo, although having an abundance of industrial land is not satisfying demand. This is because much of it is unserviced, fragmented, and not seen by the market as being in the right location or available at the right size. On the other hand, there appears to be good demand for attractive industrial properties, which are readily purchased by the market, at a premium price. Panel Findings The Panel finds that: • The Amendment, together with the adopted Amendment C50 and other planning

initiatives, seeks to implement the Strategy. The next section of this report considers the Amendment in terms of the overall objectives of planning, as well as State and Local policy.


18

4 STATE & LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES

4.1 Introduction This section of the report considers the Amendment in terms of the overall objectives of planning, as well as State and Local planning policy.

4.2 The Objectives of Planning Section 6 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act), provides that a planning scheme (and hence an amendment to a scheme such as Amendment C41) “must seek to further the objectives of planning in Victoria within the area covered by the scheme”. Section 4 (1) of the Act provides that the objectives of planning in Victoria are:

(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land; (b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity; (c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria; (d) 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; (e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community; (f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e); (g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

These objectives can serve as a check list of matters to be taken into account when an amendment is being considered. The Panel used these objectives to identify and assess the key planning issues. For instance, the Panel considered that the following planning objectives are relevant: • To provide for the fair orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of

land • To secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational

environment


19

• To facilitate development • To balance the present and future interests of all Victorians. The Act also provides that the Planning Authority (the Council) must “implement” these objectives and “provide sound, strategic and co-ordinated planning of the use and development of land in its area (Ss. 6 & 12). Section 12 of the Act provides that the Authority must have regard to the Minister’s Directions, the planning provisions, MSS, strategic plans, policy statements, codes or guidelines in the Scheme, and significant effects the amendment might have on the environment, or which the Authority considers the environment might have on any use or development envisaged in the amendment. These matters were addressed in the Explanatory Report exhibited with the Amendment. The Panel addressed these matters in the light of State and Local planning policies and strategies. The Scheme states that it is the State Government’s expectations that Authorities (and hence Panels) will endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development. (Clause 11.01)

4.3 State Planning Policy State planning policies must be taken into account when amendments are prepared to the planning scheme. The Panel formed the view that the relevant State planning policies are: • Economic well-being that seeks to support and foster economic growth and

development • Planning for urban settlement that seeks to ensure a sufficient supply of land and

to facilitate the orderly development of urban areas • Industry that seeks to ensure availability of land for industry and to facilitate

sustainable development and operation of industry. The economic and employment benefits of the Amendment were addressed in the previous section of this report. The Strategy gives effect to ensuring a supply of industrial land and identifies East Bendigo as the preferred location for industrial investment, marketing and expansion. The Amendment is consistent with these policies. The Act provides that a planning authority must have regard to Minister’s Directions when it prepares an amendment. Minister’s Direction No 1, Potential Contaminated Land is relevant. The purpose of this direction is:


20

to ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for a use which is proposed to be allowed under an amendment to a planning scheme and which could be adversely affected by any contamination.

Council advised the Panel that sites within the Golden Square/Quarry Hill Precinct, and site No 3 within the West Bendigo Precinct “have been used for industry and/or mining in the past and therefore are considered to be ‘potentially contaminated land’.” (Submission) As a consequence Council resolved to place an Environmental Audit Overlay on the land to ensure the requirements of the Direction are met. Council advised the Panel that Council’s records “do not provide any history of industrial development” on the sites to be rezoned in the Kangaroo Flat South Precinct. (Submission) Minister’s Direction No 6, Rural Residential Development is relevant. The purpose of this direction is:

To ensure that an amendment which has the effect of allowing rural residential development is prepared only after having regard to appropriate strategic considerations and the suitability of land for that development.

Council advised that this direction has an impact on Precinct 18, Kangaroo Flat/Big Hill which is a proposed rezoning of land from Industrial 3 Zone to Low Density Residential Zone. Minister’s Direction No 9, Metropolitan Strategy is also relevant. This direction provides that a planning authority must have regard to the Metropolitan Strategy, Melbourne 2030, when it prepares an amendment. Policy 3.1 is relevant, and the Panel agrees with Council that the Amendment will play a role in promoting Greater Bendigo as a place to live, set up businesses and find a job. Finally, the Panel notes that the Amendment is consistent with the Minister’s Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes.

4.4 Council’s Corporate Plan and the Municipal Strategic Statement The Panel examined Council’s Corporate Plan, Council Plan 2003-2006, and notes that the Council is committed to growing the local economy by supporting local business retention and expansion, and assisting industry to identify land for development. (page 6) The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is another key document that must be taken into account when preparing amendments to schemes. The MSS recognises in Clause 21.02-3, that the Bendigo urban area contains important regional facilities for industry. The overview of industry in Clause 21.02-6 states that:

There are large areas set aside for industrial development, particularly in the Bendigo urban area. However, many of these areas are not available for development by new, large industries because of a combination of factors


21

including the availability of large lots, immediate access to reticulated services, direct access to major transport networks and the proximity of existing housing. … Council recognises the need for a definitive plan for the use of existing industrial areas, and for new areas particularly addressing the above problems and providing for the overall coordination and marketing of industrial areas. (Clause 21.02-6)

The Amendment proposes to change this clause in the MSS by adding a statement introducing and explaining the Bendigo Industrial Land Strategy. There were no submissions regarding this proposal. The Panel considers that the proposed change is consistent with the Strategy. Council’s Vision Statement in Clause 21.04-1, provides that the planning and development of the municipality will be based on encouraging economic opportunities and employment generation, and promoting strong economic growth through industrial development. The Amendment proposes to add a strategy to Clause 21.05-1 in the Objectives, Strategies and Implementation section, that seeks to ensure that the rezoning of land to residential does not encroach on land needed for industrial development and any existing buffer requirements. There were no submissions regarding this proposal. The Panel considers that the proposed change is consistent with the Strategy. The industry objective section of Clause 21.05-4 recognises the employment and other impacts that economic promotion has on maintaining a healthy economy; and in response to the objective of encouraging diversification of industry, proposes as a strategy, the preparation of a plan that identifies land for industry. The Amendment proposes to add a paragraph to Clause 21.05-4 in the Economic Development section of Objectives, Strategies and Implementation, that makes reference to the employment sectors that locate in industrial areas. There were no submissions regarding this proposal. The Panel considers that the proposed change is consistent with the Strategy. The Amendment also proposes to amend the strategy to identify the need to identify land for large-scale industrial developments, promote co-locating with consideration for infrastructure requirements, and encourage industry to investigate marketing strategies, rather than financial inducements. There were no submissions regarding this proposal. The Panel considers that the proposed change is consistent with the Strategy.

4.5 Local Planning Policy The scheme includes Council’s Local Industrial planning policy, at Clause 22.06. The basis of the policy is described, as are its objectives and individual policies, which relate to facilitation, improvement to the built environment, and amenity. The Local policy also includes a site-specific policy for the East Bendigo Food Manufacturing


22

Precinct, which was inserted into the scheme by Amendment C50 on 14 July 2003, that is after this Amendment had been exhibited. The Amendment proposes to replace the industrial policy with a new Industrial Land Policy that seeks to implement the Bendigo Industrial Land Strategy 2002 by providing greater guidance about what is expected of industrial development within the municipality; the policy at Clause 22.06-2, identifies the Goornong Industrial Precinct as the preferred location for rural based industries; it also includes the Strategy as a policy reference document within the scheme. Because of the sequencing of the amendments to the scheme, the proposed Industrial Land Policy does not include the Local policy for the East Bendigo Food Manufacturing Precinct. The precinct policy will need to be retained in a sub-clause before or after the Goornong Industrial Precinct policy. The Amendment also proposes to: • Change the Strategic Framework – Bendigo Urban Area plan in Clause 21.06-1 of

the Strategic Framework section of the MSS to identify the East Bendigo industrial precinct, and to make minor corrections to the plan; and to

• Add a section to the Urban Growth and Consolidation Policy in Clause 22.01 of

the Local policy section to provide that housing should not intrude on the established buffers required by existing industry.

There were no submissions regarding these proposed changes to Local policy. The Panel considers that the proposed changes are consistent with the Strategy. Panel Findings The Panel finds that: • The Amendment addresses and is consistent with relevant State and Local

planning policies, Council’s Corporate Plan, and the Strategy • The changes to the MSS and Local policy respond to issues identified in the

Strategy • The Local policy for the East Bendigo Food Manufacturing Precinct will need to

be retained in a sub-clause before or after the Goornong Industrial Precinct policy, at Clause 22.06.

The next section of this report considers each of the proposals to rezone land.


23

5 PROPOSED REZONING OF LAND

5.1 Introduction This Section considers the proposed rezoning of land within the precincts.

5.2 Goornong Industrial Precinct This precinct is quite distinct from the other precincts under consideration. It is not only physically distant from the precincts clustered around the urban core of Bendigo, but provides for a substantial increase of industrially zoned land with an emphasis on rural-based industries, that would logically prefer to locate out of town. The Goornong Industrial Precinct has a specific reference in the proposed Industrial Land Policy, which replaces Clause 22.06 in the Scheme in recognition of its proposed special role. Identified as Precinct 2 in the Strategy, the subject site that is proposed to be rezoned is located off the Midland Highway, the Goornong - Axedale Road and Englishs Road, some 28 km north-east of Bendigo's CAD. The Strategy comments that:

The precinct has a low potential for development due to the nature of the existing and surrounding land usage. However, the area should be promoted for rural based industries given its location and highway frontage.

The Panel observed during its inspection that the site is extensive (some 74 ha), largely undeveloped with little landscaping, apart from native vegetation, with good exposure to the highway. Those industries that have located within the precinct provide agricultural equipment or supplies. The use of the land seems to be appropriate to the relatively isolated setting and its subdivision into relatively large parcels (above 2 ha). The Amendment proposes to rezone CA 1 & CA 7A, which is the land adjoining the precinct to the west from Rural Living Zone to Industrial 3 Zone and to delete the DPO. This will have the effect of increasing the size of the precinct by some 80%. The consolidated industrial land will be contained within a site that is bounded on all sides by defining roadways, that also provide good access to most of the industrial developments. Whilst no immediate demand has been identified for the proposed expansion, it will create an area which has the potential to gain a critical mass of like, rural-based industries. This precinct could build into a specialised rural industry estate. The hope would be that the specialised rural industries market takes up the additional opportunity. No impact on residential or other sensitive uses is foreshadowed and no impacts on environmentally sensitive areas are apparent. This proposal did not attract any submissions. The Panel supports the proposal.


24

Panel Finding The Panel finds that: • The proposed expansion of the Goornong Industrial Precinct by the rezoning the

Rural Living land in CA 1 & CA 7A to Industrial 3 Zone and deleting the DPO, is supported.

5.3 Long Gully Precinct This precinct is fully developed and is identified as Precinct 9 in the Strategy. In contrast to the above mentioned Precinct 2, it is located just 1.6 km from Bendigo's CAD, and is primarily bounded by Wood Street, Holdsworth Road, Havilah Road and Eaglehawk Road, Long Gully. The Amendment proposes to rezone this land from Industrial 1 Zone to Industrial 3 Zone. The proposal was the subject of both supporting and opposing submissions, although no party made a presentation to the Panel. The Strategy describes the 31.3 ha precinct as combining "a variety of uses that include a high occurrence of service industries. The area is considered to have a low level of amenity as a direct result of poor maintenance within the precinct". The Panel noted both the untidy presentation of the precinct and undesirable encroachment of industrial uses on neighbouring residential and other sensitive uses. It seems to the Panel that this is an 'old style estate', although some developments seemed to be of relatively recent origin. Typical uses are motor repairs, panel beaters, manufacturers and a supermarket. The Long Gully Precinct does not demonstrate the importance of the buffering of incompatible uses, to the detriment of the residential uses which surround (and constrain) any future expansion of the industry. A supporting submitter (Submission 1), was received from Mr N W Healy, Director of Peerless Products Pty Ltd of Havilah Road. The Panel had observed that Peerless Products attractively presents its Company's showroom and head office premises, in general contrast to other light industrial uses within the precinct. Mr Healy commented in his submission:

The condition of most of the developments in Havilah Road is nothing short of shocking. The buildings are of a low standard and quality. There has been no landscaping done whatsoever. None of these owners take any pride or care in their property, other than ourselves and BTB Smash Repairs. However the rest are like junk yards.

Mr Healy reflected on the embarrassment this causes when interstate and international visitors (suppliers and customers) visit, and expressed concern about the apparent lack of enforcement of planning controls by Council. He concluded: "If they [neighbouring properties] cannot afford to beautify their business premises to a standard that meets the beauty of Bendigo then they should not be in business."


25

Without necessarily adopting Mr Healy's turn of phrase, no doubt borne of frustration, the Panel is inclined to agree with his observations. The Panel considered Submission No 13 from Mrs Dorothy Bradley of Holdsworth Road, a resident of some 50 years. Her dwelling now adjoins (at its rear) Bendigo Relocatable Buildings (BRB) - (opposing submitter, see Submission 7). Mrs Bradley complains that an industrial use has “unlawfully” extended onto the land that adjoins her property after the destruction by fire of the dwelling previously located on the land. Mrs Bradley stated that this was despite "... myself and other neighbours collected 88 signatures from residents of Holdsworth Road and surrounding streets to oppose such a move". Mrs Bradley went on to write that her backyard, together with those of her neighbours, were now unusable because of the loss of amenity and privacy caused by the industrial encroachment. Council advised the Panel that no planning approval had been granted for the present storage and related purposes to which the former residential site is being used. The Council advised that BRB is intending to relocate its manufacturing activities (in whole or in part) to a large Industrial 1 zoned site in Kangaroo Flat over the coming months. The Panel is not able to verify this intention, as BRB did not attend the hearing. Existing planning controls include the application of the Industrial 1 Zone combined with Overlays for Salinity Management, Land Subject to Inundation and Environmental Significance. The Amendment proposes to rezone the precinct from Industrial 1 Zone to Industrial 3 Zone in accord with the Strategy’s recommendations. The two opposing submissions were also reviewed by the Panel. As mentioned above BRB of Wood Street and Kinross Streets, stated that the company wished to move to the Long Gully Industrial Estate because of its central position and good road access. The company complained of apparent Council disinterest (compared with experience at its Queenland operations) and a lack of dealing with a "planning application" for some 12 months. The Panel understands the “application” is a proposal (Amendment C35) to rezone the Wood Street land where the 'unlawful' storage is occurring. The Panel notes that the draft report on the three year review of the MSS states that Amendment C35 was initiated in December 2001, and seeks to rezone 9-11 Wood Street, from Residential I to Industrial 1 Zone. The Amendment is now on hold pending the owner investigating other alternative sites, and the determination of this Amendment. BRB also expressed concern over a perceived loss of value, as the proposed rezoning to the Industrial 3 Zone would constrain its operations. Ultra-Steel, steel fabricators and welders, of 8 Wood Street (opposite BRB) also opposed the Amendment (Submission 16). This Company states that the land "must remain Industrial 1 Zoning" to support the company’s heavy industry in steel fabrication which has been operating successfully for 17 years and is highly valued by the company. The company intends to continue operations on this central site. The


26

submission expressed concerned that if the rezoning proceeds "we may receive complaints in the future that we cannot address". Council in its commentary on this submission stated that although this type of business would now require a permit, Ultra-Steel would have non-conforming use rights:

This business is currently within 200 metres, however the recommended buffer distance is 500 metres. Therefore, a use permit is required in both the IN1Z & IN3Z.

The Panel, in relation to non-conforming use rights, received an indication of how this kind of application is determined by Council. The Council advised that in 2002, it had processed some 10 applications for the "existing use" provisions in the planning scheme and that "only one of these applications was refused". The Panel is sympathetic to the dilemmas thrown up by the kind of industrial/residential interface issues in the Long Gully Industrial Precinct. It can understand the concerns of industrial manufacturers who perceive that their future production, upgrading and expansion would be threatened by a proposed 'back-zoning', to a zone of lower intensity. On the other hand, the Panel believes that it is intolerable, that long-standing or indeed any residents should have their residential amenity eroded, and in some cases destroyed, by industrial encroachment without adequate buffers. This is apparently made worse in the case of the Long Gully Industrial Precinct, by the seeming lack of pride in the public presentation and maintenance of properties by some owners and operators. The Panel, in its June 2003 report on Amendment C50, noted concerns expressed to it on Council’s enforcement practices and the poor presentation of industrial estates. It wrote:

The Panel’s site inspection provided a stark reminder to the parties of how an unsightly presentation can inhibit interest by increasingly sophisticated export markets. (page 32)

Council acknowledged the problem and advised the Panel that it is working with industrialists to removed rubbish, improve landscaping and generally tidy-up industrial estates. On the related matter of enforcement, Council advised the Panel that it did not employ or contract a specialist planning enforcement officer and that the planning enforcement function is undertaken by Council’s Statutory Planners, with some assistance provided by Local Laws and other Officers. The Auditor-General’s report on Land Use and Development in Victoria (1999) contains a section on the enforcement of planning controls where he noted that Councils reacted to complaints and that “checking of compliance with the planning scheme or permit conditions was not routinely undertaken by Councils.” The Auditor-General stated:


27

Without regular compliance checking Councils could not provide assurance that:

• developments had not been undertaken without obtaining permits; and • all or some conditions on permits had not been ignored by applicants.

(page 121) The Auditor-General reported that the situation could be improved by councils:

• Considering, in conjunction with the Department of Infrastructure, the development of compliance procedures which place the onus on applicants to demonstrate compliance;

• conducting an education program to highlight town planning processes

and associated obligations to the local community; • conducting compliance audits of a random sample of permits; • targeting compliance audits directly at contentious issues where there are

consistent problems with the implementation of planning scheme requirements; and

• developing a protocol for dealing with complaints and documenting

enforcement activities undertaken. (page 122) The Panel believes that the planning system with its policies, strategies, controls and permit conditions can never be fully effective without visible enforcement conducted within a regime such as that suggested by the Auditor-General. With respect to the Amendment, the Panel sees no need to depart from the recommendations of the Strategy and the support thereof from Council. Panel Finding The Panel finds that: • A self-help clean up, landscaping and better public presentation campaign assisted

and co-ordinated by Council, would assist the precinct's marketing potential and value as a centrally located, well accessed location for industry

• Council should review its planning enforcement functions and program of future

activities • The proposed Industrial 3 Zone is the preferred zone for the precinct combined

with a sensitive application of "existing use" provisions of the Scheme, especially with regard to long standing industrialists that have a record of considerate use and communication with residential and other neighbours.


28

5.4 West Bendigo Precinct The West Bendigo Precinct, unlike other precincts, comprises four high profile sites, each with its own distinct characteristics. They are largely constrained from further industrial expansion due to surrounding land uses and the individual characteristics of the sites. They are described in the Strategy as Precinct 12, comprising: • 12a - Marong Road (Calder Highway) and Gold Association Road, West Bendigo • 12b - 116-132 Marong Road, West Bendigo (on the Calder Highway) • 12c - 170-180 Wattle Street and 9 Acacia Street, Bendigo • 12d - 132 Lily Street, Bendigo. Council drew the Panel’s attention to an error in the Audit Summary Table of the Strategy report concerning Precinct 12. The table does not match the numbering on the precinct map nor does it match the numbering of the maps that form part of the Amendment documents. The Location section of the Audit Summary Table should read “12b – Marong Road, West Bendigo”; and “12c Wattle Street, Bendigo”. This is important as the Strategy report is proposed to become a reference document in the scheme. Panel Finding The Panel finds that: • The Strategy report should be corrected as noted above. Precinct 12a, Gold Association Road, (exhibited as Site 1), located on the Calder Highway, adjacent to Specimen Hill, is by far the largest of the four and is some 2.9 km from Bendigo's CAD. It is described in the Strategy as having a generally unkempt appearance with residential and commercial conflicts. The Panel observed that the site appears to be a former gold mining area, with regrown vegetation, various cross tracks, and dumped car bodies. The Strategy states that it is "not industrial in nature" and has the "potential for rezoning to commercial, business or residential". The Industrial 1 and 3 Zones presently apply, together with Overlays which include Wildlife Management, Vegetation Protection 2, and Environmental Significance 2. The Strategy states that the site is "potentially contaminated with mercury tailings". A Business 1 Zone was recommended by the Strategy but Council has proceeded to exhibit a Business 3 Zone in this Amendment. A late submission was received by Council after the completion of Day Two of the Panel hearing from Mr Ken McMahon, Manager Crown Land Management, North West Region, Department of Sustainability and Environment, concerning the future of certain Crown land in the precinct, that is CA 51 N Section L:


29

The subject area is Crown land and is well vegetated. … The site together with other Crown land to the east is recommended as a Bushland Reserve under the Environment Conservation Council. The Department requests that Council approach the Panel regarding this area with a view to amending the proposed zone and believes that the Public Purpose Conservation Zone, would be most appropriate in this case.

The Panel understands that the Department did not make a submission during the exhibition period because key staff was occupied with major Victorian wild fire threats. The Panel considered the request, and agreed to reconvene in November 2003, and conducted a second accompanied inspection of the subject site. The outcome of this was both surprising and disappointing to the Panel. The reason for this is twofold. Firstly representatives of the Department, Ms Julie Jones, Project Officer, and Mr Norm Stimson, Crown Land Assessment Officer (who attended the site inspection), did not present any evidence to support its rezoning request. The second surprise was that certain owners and occupiers of land that abutted the subject land, who having been notified of the reconvened hearing by Council, advised the Panel that this “was the first they had heard of the proposed rezoning”. Mrs Marilyn Cunningham, Mr Rodney Cunningham, Mrs Margaret Hartley and Mr Brian Hartley also indicated that they were opposed to the proposed BU3 Zone. Further, they were unsure of the planning implications of a proposed PPCZ to their immediate north. Whilst the Council records indicated that notification of these and other affected landowners had occurred during exhibition, they were clear in their minds that the recent notification was their first opportunity to become aware of the Amendment. The Auditor-General’s report on Land Use and Development in Victoria (1999) contains a section on the notification of parties affected by an amendment. The report states:

Given the high level of community awareness and sensitivity to the planning process, the absence of an adequate decision-making trail could result in parties materially affected by proposed amendments not provided the opportunity to support, oppose or seek changes to such amendments. (page 95)

The Auditor-General suggested that accountability within councils would be enhanced if they:

• Developed a comprehensive checklist of the legislative notification requirements including relevant parties required to be notified of amendments, such as Ministers and authorities; and

• accurately recorded all parties notified. (page 96)


30

The Panel supports the Auditor-General, and promotes the use third-party endorsed mailing lists for proof of posting, and where necessary, Australia Post registered post for proof of delivery. During the site inspection the Panel was advised that the Go Cart Track which operates under an annual license from the Department is presently under review. Further, this facility which is generally central to the precinct, has had a sizable part of its land (inadvertently), included in the Amendment. The Panel was also advised that its present zoning (Special Use Zone 4 - Private Sport & Recreation Facilities) is possibly inappropriate to the present use. Council requested the Panel to recommend that Precinct 12a, Site 1, corner of Marong Road and Gold Association Road be removed from the Amendment so that Council can investigate the matter further, consult with the parties and develop a proposal for a future Amendment. The Panel supports this proposal. Panel Finding The Panel finds that: • Council should review its system of legislative notification requirements. • Precinct 12a, Site 1, corner of Marong Road and Gold Association Road be

deleted from the Amendment. Precinct 12b (Site 2 as exhibited) 116-132 Marong Road, West Bendigo is also located on the Calder Highway some 2.5 km from Bendigo's CAD. It is a fully developed, high profile site, presently zoned Industrial 1 Zone. As it is tightly constrained by surrounding uses and possesses limited potential for industrial expansion, the Strategy recommends rezoning to a Business 3 or 4 Zone. Council exhibited a Business 3 Zone, which is consistent with proposals for similar areas elsewhere. There were no submissions opposing the proposal. The Panel inspected the site and agrees that it should be rezoned to Business 3 Zone. Panel Finding The Panel finds that • Precinct 12b (Site 2) 116-132 Marong Road, West Bendigo (on the Calder

Highway) should be rezoned to Business 3 Zone. Precinct 12c (Site 3 as exhibited) at 170-180 Wattle Street and 9 Acacia Street, is a fully developed, and is located some 800 metres from Bendigo's CAD, with good highway accessibility. It is presently zoned Industrial 1 Zone with application of a Heritage Overlay. The site consists of existing residential and business uses with little prospect of further industrial development. The Strategy recommends that the land be rezoned to a Residential 1 Zone. Council agreed and exhibited the preferred


31

residential zone together with an Environmental Audit Overlay to deal with any residual industrial contamination. There were no submissions opposing the proposal. The Panel inspected the site and agrees that it should be rezoned to Residential 1 Zone together with the proposed Overlay. Panel Finding The Panel finds that • Precinct 12c (Site 3) 170-180 Wattle Street and 9 Acacia Street, Bendigo,

should be rezoned to Residential 1 Zone, with an Environmental Audit Overlay. Precinct 12d (Site 4 as exhibited) is a small site of a former bakery at 132 Lily Street, some 1.3 km from Bendigo's CAD. It is presently zoned Industrial 3 Zone. The Strategy recommends "Rezone to Business 3 Zone to facilitate re-use as accommodation, shop or entertainment use." The Council chose to adopt the recommendation and exhibit a Business 3 Zone, which is consistent with other proposals in this and other inner Bendigo precincts. There were no submissions opposing this proposal. The Panel observed during its inspection that there is good potential for recycling the building or the redevelopment of the site, and supports the proposal. Panel Finding The Panel finds that • Precinct 12d (Site 4) 132 Lily Street, Bendigo, should be rezoned to Business 3

Zone.

5.5 Golden Square/Quarry Hill Precinct. This inner city precinct is described in the Strategy as Precinct 13, and includes land that ranges from being fully developed to land that is vacant. It is some 50.5 ha in size and from 800 metres to 2.5kms from Bendigo's CAD. The Panel observed during various inspections that it has circuitous road patterns and some undulating land forms. The Amendment proposes to rezone part of the Deborah Triangle area, approximately bounded by Breen Street, the railway line, Adam Street and Belle Vue Road from Industrial 1 Zone to Business 3, Mixed Use Zone, and an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO), where required. It also proposes to rezone surplus Crown land to Business 3, Residential 1, Public Use Zone 1, Public Park and Recreation Zones. Council advised the Panel that sites within the Golden Square/Quarry Hill Precinct “have been used for industry and/or mining in the past and therefore are considered to be ‘potentially contaminated land’.” (Submission) As a consequence Council resolved to place an Environmental Audit Overlay on the land to ensure the requirements of the Direction are met.


32

The audit conducted as part of the Strategy allocated the land a Category B status as: "existing industrial areas suitable for consolidation and possible expansion within the present land allocation". With respect to likely future uses, the Strategy states:

Few traditional industrial activities remain in these precincts as they typically include wholesale, commercial sales or display uses. Being located on the periphery of the Bendigo central commercial precinct, this will play an increasingly popular location for commercial and business uses requiring larger land areas and proximity to markets.

This precinct attracted the most submissions (both in support of, and in opposition to, the Amendment's proposals). It subsequently was the most discussed matter at the hearing. It is subdivided into the following precincts: • 13a - Allingham Street, Golden Square • 13b - Breen Street/Bell Vue Road, Golden Square (much of which, is also

included in the area known as the 'Deborah Triangle') • 13c - Garsed Street, Quarry Hill. Precinct 13a abuts the railway line to the south as an elongated strip. As recommended in Strategy and supported by Council, the Amendment proposes to rezone the land from the Industrial 1 Zone to the Business 3 Zone. There were no submissions opposing this proposal. The Panel inspected the site and noted that the proposal is consistent with other similar rezoning proposals in the Amendment. Panel Finding The Panel finds that • Precinct 13a, Allingham Street, Golden Square, should be rezoned to Business 3

Zone. Precinct 13b forms the top end of the Deborah Triangle area, and is approximately bounded by Breen Street/railway line, Adam Street, and Belle Vue Road. It is located some 1.1 km from Bendigo's CAD. The Strategy indicates that the precinct is over 75% developed and is the largest and certainly the most complex and mixed use component of the precinct. The Strategy recommends the rezoning of the entire precinct to Business 3 Zone. The Council in response has preferred a combination of BU3Z and Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) with an Environmental Audit Overlay. It further supported the rezoning of surplus Crown Land to a range of zones including Business 3, Residential 1, Public Use or Public Park and Recreation Use Zones.


33

The Panel considered presentations from Mr Bill Harper and Mr Mervyn Rushton on behalf of the Deborah Triangle Traders Association and in their own interests, (Submissions 17 &18) in support of the Amendment and in particular, in support of the rezoning of CA 32D from Public Use 7 Zone to BU3Z. They stated:

Deborah Triangle contains over 200 businesses employing approximately 2000 people. A wide mixture of businesses including retail, wholesale and service exist in the Deborah Triangle. There is no heavy industry in the area.

The Council provided the Panel with a map that identified the locations of submitters whose main concern was the future of an area of land off Belle Vue Road. Five neighbouring submitters were shown and a score or petitioners that were mainly located in Belle Vue Road south of or abutting the site to the east off Woodward Road. Prominent among the submitters was Mr John Mooney (Submission 5). Mr Mooney drew the Panel's attention to a Local Area Strategy Plan (also called an Outline Development Plan) that had been prepared by the Council for the Belle Vue Road Locality in 1997. This plan had proposed "residential infill" for the subject site. Council confirmed this, and provided a copy of the document to the Panel. Council advised that it had abandoned the previous planning process when it found that the plan had attracted strong opposing submissions. Submitters claimed that they had never had formal 'closure' on this matter after participating in the planning process in good faith. This complaint was reinforced by a tabled letter from the Council, dated 30 March 1999, which stated in part:

Council will review and take into consideration each submission. The Outline Development Plan shall be thoroughly reviewed and amended where applicable prior to adoption by Council. All submitters shall be informed of any proposed amendments and a forum shall be held to outline changes prior to adoption.

Other opposing (neighbouring) submitters included Mrs Marie Mooney, G Wallis, Thomas and Ann McGaw, Mr Brett Bilton and Irene Ryan, and Mr Robin and Mrs Shirley Breheny (who have maintained the reserve in the precinct for some 26 years). There was considerable discussion on the future of this site concluding with a request from Council:

During the hearing it became apparent that further consultation was required with surrounding landowners regarding the future use of Crown Allotment 32D on the corner of Belle Vue Road and Porter Street, Golden Square. Council is now of the view that CA 32D should remain in a Public Use 7 (Other Public Use) Zone until a further community consultation process has


34

been completed. Should the Panel be agreeable to this approach, Council will initiate a public consultation process as soon as practicable. It should be noted that Council remains of the firm view that Crown Allotment 32E (owned by Mr Harper) should remain in a Business 3 Zone and that Crown Allotments 26D, 32C and 31B should remain in a Residential 1 Zone as presented to the Panel.

The Panel agrees with Council that it is necessary to resume and complete earlier consultation with affected parties, and to incorporate the outcome in another amendment to the scheme. Consultation will provide local residents and businesses with a structured way to work with Council and the Department to exchange and verify site information; develop and test planning options (and perhaps develop new ideas) in a process of deliberative discussion; and seek to negotiate an outcome that satisfies local people. It will of course be important to communicate the outcome of the consultative process to the parties, and ideally, to finalise the process before Council requests the Minister to appoint a Panel (if required). The Panel, during its reconvened hearing on Day Three, heard again from John Mooney, who whilst applauding the Council's willingness to commence this process, submitted:

… I believe the Panel should also include [in the consultative process] the privately owned land CA32E, which was purchased from the former Crown Lands office …

The Panel, whilst understanding Mr Mooney’s submission about CA 32E, believes that if this request were granted, apart from causing hardship to the purchaser (Mr Harper) it should also logically apply to three small residual land parcels also sold to abutting residential properties (CA 26D, CA 32C and CA 31B), which would concern these other purchasers. Any development for building and (further) works on Mr Harper’s land will require a planning permit and neighbouring property interests (such as Mr Mooney's mother) will have the opportunity to have a statutory input into the determination of an application. The Panel believes on balance, that Council’s submission is reasonable and should be supported. The Panel commends Council for its willingness to respond in a very positive way to correct an earlier oversight in process. Panel Finding The Panel finds that: • The Belle Vue Road site, except land that has been sold by the Department,

should be deleted from the Amendment so that Council can consult with the parties to develop a proposal for a future Amendment to the scheme.


35

• The land that has been sold should be rezoned in the manner proposed by Council, that is to Residential 1 Zone, and Business 3 Zone.

Mr Ron Youl and Mr Max Emmitt (Submission 19) made a presentation to the Panel in support of the Amendment as it affects land (CA 96 Section C, Sullivan and Thistle Streets) on which they are operating as an extractive industry. They are the intending purchasers of the site from the Department, a former "Red, White and Blue Mine" and later Council tip. There were no submissions opposing the proposed rezoning of this site. The Strategy recommends that the land be rezoned from Public Park and Recreation Zone to Business 3 Zone and this was adopted for the Amendment by Council. The Panel inspected the site and agrees with the proposal. Panel Finding The Panel finds that: • CA 96 Section C, off Sullivan and Thistle Streets should be rezoned to Business 3

Zone. A submission (Submission 2) was received from Mr Tom Forko of Hakea Street who sought to have his property at 13 Adam Street, Quarry Hill rezoned from Residential 1 Zone to Business 3 Zone. No reasons were stated in support of the request apart from the observation that certain neighbouring properties were believed to be so rezoned. Council advised the Panel that this site is peripheral to the exhibited Amendment and would be only one of many similar cases where owners may wish to achieve a business rezoning. The Panel could not support an exception being made in this case. Panel Finding The Panel finds that: • 13 Adam Street, Quarry Hill should not be considered as part of this Amendment. The Panel considered a further submission with respect to Precinct 13. Mr Kim Perrow and Mr Kevin Arthur (Submission 4) requested that land at 180-180a Breen Street be rezoned from Public Use 4 (Transport) Zone to Business 3 Zone. Council advised the Panel that:

The land is presently zoned Public Use 4 (Transport) which does not reflect the current ownership of the land and appears to be a mapping anomaly. These parcels are surrounded by the proposed BU3Z and the most appropriate zone for the land would be BU3Z. However the land is peripheral to the Amendment and would require separate rezoning.


36

The Panel endorses a sympathetic and speedy resolution of this issue, which could be achieved through the Council's preferred path of a planned "clean-up" amendment. Panel Finding The Panel finds that: • 180-180a Breen Street should not be considered as part of this Amendment. Precinct 13c Garsed Street is adjacent to an inner city site (just 800 metres from Bendigo's CAD), which is presently undergoing significant renewal. The Panel is familiar with this area both from its site inspections and the Amendment C50 process, as one of the food manufacturers that intends to relocate to the food manufacturing precinct at Wellsford, is presently located in this area. The Strategy states that the area presents an "Opportunity for commercial business, mixed with residential zoning". Council has accordingly adopted the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) in the exhibited Amendment. There were no submissions opposing this proposal. Submission 20 however, goes to an identified omission, which was drawn to the Panel’s attention in a presentation from Mr Tim Biles, planning consultant, Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd, on behalf of the Guy Family interests in Garsed Street. Whist Mr Biles endorsed the Amendment, he expressed concern about a portion of his client's property that is contiguous to the proposed MUZ land, which has remained in a Public Use Zone Transport. Mr Biles sought to have his client’s land, a former railway reserve, included in the Amendment. Mr Biles believes that this is clearly an anomaly, as the property was purchased some five years ago from the Victorian Government. Mr Biles further indicated that his clients are in discussions with the owners of the nearby Marketplace development and also involved in a Council sponsored planning exercise. This has to do with developing planning concepts for the Station Precinct, which could see the Guy properties linked to a potential Marketplace development. In this eventuality, and for other orderly planning and valuation reasons, it was argued that the proposed Mixed Use Zone should extend over all the property owned by the Guy Family. Mr Biles tabled an aerial photograph with property boundaries of the Marketplace and the Guy Properties were shown to be, not only adjacent, but also contained within, the planning boundary of the Railway Precinct. Council advised the Panel that:

Whilst it is acknowledged that the present zoning of this land is not consistent with its ownership, and that the MUZ may be the most appropriate zone, this land did not form part of the exhibited amendment and as such cannot be included in the Amendment without further exhibition.

The Panel must endorse this course of action, especially given the wider redevelopment planning that is taking place in the immediate area.


37

Panel Finding The Panel finds that: • The land subject to Submission 20, a former railway reserve, near Garsed Street

should not be considered as part of this Amendment.

5.6 Kangaroo Flat South Precinct This land (Precinct 18) of 25.4 ha is described in the Strategy in the following terms:

This precinct is located at Furness Street, Kangaroo Flat, approximately 7.6 km from Bendigo's CAD. It is bounded by Crusoe Road in the north, Cannon Lane and Hammil Street in the east and the Crusoe Reservoir in the south west. The precinct is relatively undeveloped and includes a high proportion of reserved land.

The Strategy sees this land as mainly undeveloped and given its landscape and environmental values, is more suitable for rural living than a strategic industrial future. The Strategy recommends that the precinct should be rezoned from Industrial 3 Zone with an Environmental Significance Overlay, to Rural Living/ Low Density Residential Zone. In order to maintain conformity with the planning scheme, the Strategy notes that permits can be issued to existing industrial and related uses, pursuant to clause 63 of the scheme. Council endorsed the recommendation and selected the Low Density Residential Zone in the exhibited Amendment. The Panel considered a presentation from Mr and Mrs Thompson of G V Cultivation Centre Pty Ltd (and by implication other property that the Thompson's either own in their own right, or with others on the north side of Furness Street), in support of Submission 3. Mr Ian Thompson made his presentation with his surveyor, Mr Adrain Cummins. Mr Thompson stated that:

In 1986 my wife and I created G V Cultivation Centre Pty Ltd, a company specializing in the importation and distribution of agricultural tillage machinery throughout Victoria, South Australia, Southern New South Wales and Tasmania. We began operations in Shepparton in 1986 but relocated to Bendigo and since that time have operated the business from its present location in Furness Street Kangaroo Flat.

Mr Thompson explained that two other businesses (Bendigo Caravan Hire, and Bendigo Caravan Services) have also operated from the site for ten years. The Panel in its two inspections of the land observed that the businesses were well presented and improvements, involving site works and landscaping, contributed to the property. Whilst Mr Thompson has no concern of the proposed zoning over the land on the south side of Furness Street, he believes that if a zoning applied to the north side that it would inhibit the natural expansion of his business to adjoining land purchased in the late 1990's for this purpose. Whilst Mr Thompson understands that "non-


38

conforming use rights" would apply, he is concerned nevertheless that the rezoning would inhibit the confidence in, the value of, and the ongoing viability of his business interests. Council advised the Panel that:

As this business is lawfully operating, it will have existing use rights if the land is rezoned to a Low Density zone in accordance with Clause 63 of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. Planning approval is also able to be attained to give further effect to this prior to any change of zoning.

The Panel was informed that G V Cultivation Pty Ltd had in fact received a planning permit on 16 October over 64-66 Furness Street which would allow the "Use of the land for industry, warehouse and retail sales". The Council further commented that in deciding applications for extensions to buildings under Clause 63, Council must be satisfied that the proposal will not increase the level of detriment to neighbours in the area and that this is usually done through notification. As indicated earlier, of the ten applications determined under the provisions of Clause 63 of the Scheme last year, only one had been rejected by Council. As there were very few affected land holders on the north side of Furness Street the Panel enquired if the views of other property interests could be sought. Council agreed to seek the same and provided a response to the Panel from the single property owner that was not part of the Thompson interests. The relevant owner, Mr Kim Holmberg made a presentation to the Panel on Day Three and stated in his letter of 3 November:

As major landowners along Furness Street, the proposal to rezone the area from Industrial Zone 3 to Low Density Residential Zone is very welcomed. My wife and I both feel that the area has changed to a more residential nature. The present level of development is transforming this part of Kangaroo Flat into an attractive and very well serviced area to live in, build homes, bring up families and so on ... I do not see the need for industrial development in this immediate area in the foreseeable future.

It is apparent that a possible north/south divide in the zoning along Furness Street cannot be achieved on the basis of Mr Holmberg's comments. On balance, the Panel believes that the recommendation of the Strategy as supported and exhibited by Council is the best approach for this precinct. This view has been reinforced by the wide ranging planning permit recently issued to G V Cultivation Pty Ltd and Council's recent sympathetic administration of Clause 63 of the scheme to resolve continuing use rights issues.


39

Panel Finding The Panel finds that: • The land in Precinct 18, Kangaroo Flat South should be rezoned from Industrial 3

Zone to Low Density Residential Zone, as exhibited in the Amendment.

5.7 Other Related Matters The Panel considered two further submissions and presentations about matters that whilst not subject to the Amendment, were felt by Submitters to be relevant and related to the Amendment. Precinct 19 'Big Hill' is located on the Calder Highway, approximately 9.2 km from the Bendigo CAD. It is some 3.4 hectares in size and previously was the location of the Hilton Hosiery Factory. The Strategy indicates that:

The site is considered to have high development potential due to its main road frontage and levels of servicing.

This location's longer term potential as a "key industrial precinct" is recognised in the Strategy "with possible future expansion to the south to provide better access and overall amenity". The Strategy recommends that the precinct should retain the Industrial 1 Zone, and this was supported by Council. Mr Trevor Budge, planning consultant, Research Planning Design Group made a submission (Submission 12), on behalf of Mr Andrew Hoare, Big Hill Investments, owner of the land on the southern extremity of the subject site. This land is serviced with electricity, water, telephone and gas and has a frontage to the Calder Highway and a rear boundary adjoining the Bendigo-Melbourne railway reserve. Mr Budge supports the Strategy and the Amendment but:

... encroaching residential land constitutes a substantial threat to a number of Greater Bendigo's existing and future industrial areas (including Mr Hoare's land) and that is not consistent with urban consolidation policies.

Mr Budge made reference to a document titled Bendigo Gateway Enterprise Park- Big Hill Proposed Rezoning which was forwarded to Council on 19 June 2003. This proposal sees Mr Hoare’s land as part of a larger industrial enjoying locational, highway access and exposure, and servicing advantages. Mr Budge submitted that:

Precinct 19 should retain the current Industrial 1 zoning. Precinct 19 should be recognised as having long term potential for expansion to the south of the site, due to its prime Calder Highway frontage location, 'gateway' location on the Melbourne side of Bendigo, availability of services and availability of adjacent land for expansion services.


40

Whilst this matter is not before the Panel for consideration or comment as such, it is an indication of a key landowners thinking, which the Panel agrees, is consistent with the direction of the Strategy. Panel Finding The Panel finds that: • The land in Precinct 19, ‘Big Hill’ should remain in the Industrial 1 Zone, as

recommended in the Strategy and supported by Council. The Beischer Street Industrial Area, Bendigo East, (Precinct 11), was a matter that was the subject to both a submission and presentation to the Panel. It was not subject to the Amendment's proposals. The Panel considered a presentation from Mr Kevin Jackson, planning consultant, Conceptz, for Mr David Roberts, (Submision 15). Mr Roberts owns a 4 ha site, which was issued with a planning permit for subdivision into 16 light industrial lots on 3 September 2003. The proposed estate has a single access for 13 lots off Beischer Street to the west, with three lots enjoying frontage to Crook Street to the east. The Council has required a 20 metre buffer area for "Public Open Space" along the elongated southern boundary that "… must be transferred to Council at no cost, as part of the subdivision." This requirement is not a concern to the submitter as such, and indeed it fulfils the typical actions outlined in Strategy to cover boundary interface situations such as is the case in this instance. That is where the Strategy is seeking to minimise impact on residential and other sensitive areas where there is an interface with industry or proposed industry. In this case, it is a residential subdivision to the south which being largely developed, does not have any dwelling built as yet along the subject boundary. Mr Jackson believes that the development of his client’s land could be delayed if any objections from neighbouring residents were pursued at VCAT. The Council, whilst noting that the subject land is not part of the exhibited Amendment and should be considered separately, did offer the opinion that the retention of the Industrial 3 zoning, combined with a Design and Development Overlay would provide more certainty to the landowner. Alternatively, the owner could request a rezoning of his land in a future Amendment to the scheme. The Panel believes it would be inappropriate to offer any opinion or finding in this case, beyond that the Council and other interested parties should remain in discussions and monitor any arising concerns should the approved subdivision proceed in one form or another. The next section of this report includes the Panel’s strategic assessment of the Amendment.


41

6 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT & CONCLUSION

6.1 Introduction Section 12A of the Act requires controls on the use and development of land in a planning scheme to relate to the objectives and strategies set out in the MSS for the municipality. It is therefore important for the Panel to ensure that there are clear linkages between the MSS and the application of zones, overlays, schedules and policies, and that links to the Council’s Corporate Plan are apparent. In a similar manner, an amendment should seek to support and implement State planning policy. This section of the report is a broad assessment of the Amendment and brings together the work of the Panel, in the form of a ‘check list’.

6.2 Strategic Assessment of Amendment C41 Is an Amendment Required? Yes, as it seeks to implement important recommendations of the adopted Strategy. Strategic Justification There is sufficient strategic justification in State and Local planning policy. Planning and Environment Act The Amendment as modified, would not cause detriment to the built or natural environment. Issues of concern that were identified during the hearing are proposed to be subject to consultation by Council with landholders and the Department. The Amendment addresses relevant social and economic effects and the Panel believes that it is part of a number of initiatives of Council that will provide positive economic benefits to the community. The Amendment is consistent with the Minister’s Direction on the form and content of planning schemes, and Minister’s Direction’s Nos 1 and 6. The Amendment meets the requirements and is consistent with the Minister’s Direction on Melbourne 2030. State Planning Policy Framework The Amendment is consistent with the State Planning Policy Framework.


42

Local Planning Policy Framework The Amendment is consistent with the Local Planning Policy Framework, and the proposed changes respond to issues identified in the Strategy. Changes to the MSS The proposed changes to the MSS respond to issues identified in the Strategy. Changes to Local Policy The Amendment proposes to replace the existing Industrial Policy with a new Industrial Land Policy that seeks to implement the Strategy by providing greater guidance about what is expected of industrial development within the municipality. The proposed policy identifies the Goornong Industrial Precinct as the preferred location for rural based industries. The proposed policy also includes the Strategy as a policy reference document within the scheme. Use of the VPP The uses of the proposed zones and overlays are appropriate to each location and respond to the Strategy. Referral Authorities The Amendment does not propose any new referral authorities. Outcomes of the Amendment The Panel believes that the Amendment, together with other Council initiatives will provide positive economic benefits to the community.

6.3 Implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy, Melbourne 2030 – Planning for Sustainable Growth

What aspects, if any, of the Metropolitan Strategy are relevant? The policy that promotes Greater Bendigo as a place to live, set up businesses and find a job (policy 3.1). How does the Metropolitan Strategy Affect the Amendment? The Amendment is consistent with these policies.


43

Is the Amendment consistent with any directions and policies in the Metropolitan Strategy? Yes, policy 3.1. Does the Amendment support, give effect to or assist the implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy or can it be reasonably modified to do so? Yes. Will the Amendment compromise the implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy? No. Does the Amendment highlight any conflict between the Metropolitan Strategy and other aspects of the planning scheme? No.

6.4 Panel’s Conclusions The Panel supports the direction of the Amendment and has found that it is consistent with the adopted Strategy, planning policy and the other planning initiatives of Council. The Panel supports the rezoning of land proposed by Council, subject to the deletion of land from the Amendment in the Deborah Triangle area, and on the corner of Marong and Gold Association Roads. Council proposes to consult with the parties in these areas and to develop proposals for a future Amendment to the scheme. The error in the Audit Summary Table in the Strategy report will need to be corrected. The process has also identified a number of parcels of land that warrant rezoning in the proposed “clean-up” Amendment being prepared by Council. The Panel has drawn attention to the need for Council to review its procedures on enforcement, and the notification of parties affected by an Amendment. The Panel has made some observations on consultation, and there was discussion at the hearing on the need for landscaping and other works to improve local amenity of some industrial areas. The Panel concludes that apart from specific identified issues, the Amendment is consistent with planning policy, is sustainable, and that there will be a net community benefit if it is adopted in a modified form.


44

7 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That Amendment C41 be modified to exclude:

• Land in the West Bendigo Precinct at the corner of Marong Road and Gold Association Road, West Bendigo; and

• Land in the Golden Square/Quarry Hill Precinct, in Belle Vue Road, Golden

Square, except the land that has been sold by the Department. 2. That the modified Amendment, as described above, be adopted. 3. That Council corrects the Audit Summary Table for Precinct 12 in the Strategy

report. 4. That Council addresses the matters raised in this report concerning enforcement,

and the notification of parties affected by Amendments.


45

APPENDIX A KEY DOCUMENTS Auditor-General (1999) Land Use and Development in Victoria:

The State’s Planning System Performance Audit Report No. 62 City of Greater Bendigo (1997) Good Design Guide for Industry City of Greater Bendigo (2002) Annual Report 2001-2002 City of Greater Bendigo (2003) Council Plan 2003 - 2006 Essential Economics (October 2003) Overview of Importance of Industry to

the Bendigo Economy Gutteridge Haskins & Davey, in association with Essential Economics (June 2002) Bendigo Industrial Land Strategy Isis Planning (June 2003) Report for the Three Year Review of the

Municipal Strategic Statement (Final Draft)


46

APPENDIX B INDUSTRIAL LAND STRATEGY KEY

FRAMEWORK PLAN

Planning Panels Victoria GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT … · 2020-01-14 · Greater...

Documents

Transcript of Planning Panels Victoria GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT … · 2020-01-14 · Greater...