Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
PanelReport
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217
SignificantLandscapeOverlays
1April2016
PlanningandEnvironmentAct1987
PanelReportpursuanttoSection25oftheAct
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217
SignificantLandscapeOverlays
1April2016
BrettDavis,Chair
LisaKendal,Member
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Contents
Page
ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................1
1
Introduction................................................................................................................4
1.1 TheAmendment......................................................................................................4
1.2 ThePanelprocess....................................................................................................4
1.3 Thesubjectarea......................................................................................................5
1.4 Background..............................................................................................................7
1.5 Issuesdealtwithinthisreport................................................................................8
Planningcontext.........................................................................................................9
2.1 Policyframework.....................................................................................................9
2.2 Planningschemeprovisions..................................................................................10
2.3 MinisterialDirectionsandPracticeNotes.............................................................10
2.4 Discussionandconclusion.....................................................................................11
BendigoLandscapeAssessmentStudymethodology................................................12
3.1 Theissues..............................................................................................................12
3.2 Evidenceandsubmissions.....................................................................................12
3.3 Discussion..............................................................................................................21
3.4 Conclusions............................................................................................................24
3.5 Recommendations................................................................................................25
ApplicationoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlay......................................................26
4.1 Theissue................................................................................................................26
4.2 Evidenceandsubmissions.....................................................................................26
4.3 Discussion..............................................................................................................43
4.4 Conclusions............................................................................................................48
4.5 Recommendations................................................................................................49
Othermatters...........................................................................................................50
5.1 Protectionofenvironmentalvaluesinthestudyarea.........................................50
5.2 Protectionofthestudyareafromdevelopment..................................................52
5.3 FeeSimple.............................................................................................................54
AppendixA
SubmitterstotheAmendment
AppendixB
Documentlist
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
ListofTables
Table1
Page
PartiestothePanelHearing....................................................................................5
ListofFigures
Page
Figure1
LandscapeAssessmentarea....................................................................................6
Figure2
Amendmentarea.....................................................................................................7
Figure3
LandscapeCharacterareas...................................................................................18
Figure4
ValuesSummarytable...........................................................................................19
Figure5
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
ListofAbbreviations
CFA
CountryFireAuthority
CSLAS
CoastalSpacesLandscapeAssessmentStudy2006
DELWP
DepartmentofEnvironment,Land,WaterandPlanning
DTPLI
DepartmentofTransport,PlanningandLocalInfrastructure(former)
EIIA
ExtractiveIndustryInterestArea
EPA
EnvironmentProtectionAuthority
EVC
EcologicalVegetationClass
GRZ
GeneralResidentialZone
LAS
LandscapeAssessmentStudy
LPPF
LocalPlanningPolicyFramework
MSS
MunicipalStrategicStatement
SLO
SignificantLandscapeOverlay
SPPF
StatePlanningPolicyFramework
theStudy
BendigoLandscapeAssessment,BigHillandMandurangValleyFinal
Report(2013)
UGB
UrbanGrowthBoundary
VPP
VictoriaPlanningProvisions
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Overview
AmendmentSummary
TheAmendment
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217Significant
LandscapeOverlays
CommonName
BigHillandMandurangValleyLandscapeAssessment
PlanningAuthority
CityofGreaterBendigo
Authorisation
Conditional25March2014
Exhibition
18Juneto30July2015
Submissions
NumberofSubmissions:53
27supportedtheAmendment,orsupportedwithchanges
22objectedtotheAmendment;and
4submissionsraisedanumberofissues.
PanelProcess
ThePanel
BrettDavisandLisaKendal
DirectionsHearing
CityofGreaterBendigooffices,16November2015
PanelHearing
CityofGreaterBendigooffices,2729January2016
SiteInspections
Unaccompanied16November2015and27January2016,
accompanied28January2016
DateofthisReport
1April2016
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
ExecutiveSummary
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme (the Amendment) was prepared by the City of Greater
Bendigo(Council)asPlanningAuthority.
Asexhibited,theAmendmentproposesto:
Introduce updates to the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clauses 21.08 and 21.10 to
reflect the strategic recommendations of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill
and Mandurang Valley Final Report (2013) (The Study) and to include the Study as a
referencedocument
IntroducetwonewschedulestotheSignificantLandscapeOverlay(Schedule3and4)to
theBigHillandMandurangareas.
The Panel has considered all written submissions as well as submissions and evidence
presentedandtestedduringtheHearing.
Keyissuesraisedinsubmissionsincluded:
studypurposeandmethodology
extentandapplicationoftheproposedSignificantLandscapeOverlay
environmentalprotectionandvalues
bushfirerisk
protectionofthestudyareafromdevelopment
feesimpleandcompensationrights.
ThePanelhasreviewedthestructureandcontentoftheSchedulesandtheStudyindetail.
ItisconcernedthattheStudyishardtoread,thejustificationofconclusionsisunclear,and
thishasthepotentialtocausesomeconfusiontoallstakeholders.Thiswasreflectedinthe
diversesubmissionsandopinionsreceived.
ThePanelhascarefullyconsideredthesubmissionsandevidencepresentedtoitinrelation
to the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay and has identified that it has a
number of deficiencies. The Panel accepts that there is complexity in undertaking a
landscape assessment to determine landscape significance; however in this instance the
Panelconsidersitreasonablethatthelandscapemustpredominatelybevisible.
The Panel is of the view that the current extent of the Significant Landscape Overlay
mappingisfartoobroad,determinationoftheoverlaycurtilageisinconsistentandfurther
workisrequiredtogiveconfidencethattheSignificantLandscapeOverlayisacceptable.The
PanelfoundthatwhiletheStudydidreferencevisibility,contoursandelevationinrelation
to the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, this was not translated into its
recommendationsfortheextentofthecurtilage.
The Panel concurs with other Panel findings that any revision of the Significant Landscape
Overlayinthefutureshouldconsidertheinclusionofpublicland.
TherewasconfusionbysomesubmittersthattheSignificantLandscapeOverlaywasatool
torestrictdevelopment.Developmentpotential,particularlyofRavenswoodRunwasnota
matterforthePaneltoconsideratthisHearing.ThePanelstaskistodecidewhetherornot
theapplicationofaSignificantLandscapeOverlayisstrategicallyjustified.
Page1of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
TheonlyexpertevidencewascalledbyrepresentativesforRavenswoodRunandthePanel
placedsignificantweightontheobservationsofitsexpertMrHaack.
Whilst the Council has demonstrated a substantial amount of work in relation to the
preparation of the Amendment, the lack of clarity of stated purpose, and translation of
findingsintooverlaycontrolshasledthePaneltonotsupporttheAmendmentinitscurrent
form.ThePanelfoundthatthelinkornexusbetweentheStudyanditstranslationinto
theimplementationofaSignificantLandscapeOverlayasexhibitedwasnotjustified.
The Panel has recommended deferment rather than abandonment. It does so
acknowledging the time, effort and ultimate cost in undertaking this type of Amendment.
The need to reexhibit the Amendment will be a judgement call based on the course of
actionthattheCounciltakes.
InrelationtotheStudy,thePanelconcludes:
ThereisnonexusbetweentheStudy,extentoftheOverlayproposedandtheSchedules.
The Study process would be more reliable and convincing if the study team had
undertakenasiteinspectionofthelargestparceloflandinthestudyarea
A landscape assessment study relying on secondary sources of information to
complement visual analysis and consultation should demonstrate evidence of this
throughout the document through, for example, a literature review, source references
andabibliography.
Itwouldbebeneficialtohaveagreaterunderstandingofcomparativesignificanceofthe
landscape assessed, to help understand the relative importance of protection and
appropriatetoolstoachievethis.
The Study recommendations would be more robust if the report and study process
demonstrated more clearly how the findings from community engagement were
consideredandintegratedintothefinalrecommendations.
The Study should be revised in line with the conclusions and an Executive Summary
prepared.TheExecutiveSummaryshouldthenbeusedasaReferenceDocument.
InrelationtotheSignificantLandscapeOverlaythePanelconcludes:
TheapplicationoftheOverlayhasbeeninconsistentinsomecasesbroadlyappliedand
inothercasesirregular.
TheOverlayshouldnotbeusedasatooltolockoutdevelopmentpotential.
TheOverlaycontrolsdonotincreasetheriskofbushfireastheplanningschemeneedsto
bereadinitsentirety.
ThecommentsprovidedbytheCFAandPublicTransportVictoriaareappropriateonce
revisions to the Amendment occur relevant permit exemptions for public land
managersshouldbeincludedinanyrevisedschedule
The Planning Scheme adequately provides for applications for stone extraction in the
studyarea.
InrelationtotheSignificantLandscapeOverlaySchedule3BigHill,thePanelconcludes:
SignificantLandscapeOverlaySchedule3asexhibitedisnotsupported.
The application of Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 should be reviewed with
consideration of all landscape visibility and use of natural features to determine
boundariesandareductioninitssize.
Page2of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
TheOverlayshouldincludetheridgelineandescarpment.
Consideration of the area to the south east of the exhibited area of Big Hill should be
consideredforafutureAmendment.
2.
The adoption of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang
ValleyFinalReport(2013)(theStudy)asaReferenceDocumentisnotsupported
initscurrentform.TheStudyshouldberevisedtoinclude:
a) an Executive Summary with details of the Study findings and
recommendations.
b) clearlynumberedsubheadings,numberedtables,figuresandmaps,with
listingofallelementsinanassociatedlistoftables,figureormaps
c) cleardefinitionsrelatingtolandscapesignificance
d) abibliographyreferencingallsourcematerial
e) aclearnexusshouldbedemonstratedbetweentheStudy,theextentof
anyOverlayandwordingtotheSignificantLandscapeOverlaySchedules.
3.
Page3of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Introduction
1.1
TheAmendment
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 (the Amendment) was prepared by
CouncilasPlanningAuthority.
Asexhibited,theAmendmentproposesto:
introduce updates to the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clauses 21.08 and 21.10 to
reflect the strategic recommendations of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill
and Mandurang Valley Final Report (2013) (the Study) It also introduces two new
schedulestotheSignificantLandscapeOverlay.
InparticulartheAmendmentproposesto:
amendClause21.08tobetitledEnvironmentandlandscape.
amend Clause 21.081 Overview to include reference to landscape values of Big Hill,
MandurangValleyandBoxIronbarkregion.
amendClause21.082Objectivestoincludeanobjectiverelatingtotheprotectionand
managementofareaswithsignificantlandscapecharacterandvalue.
amendClause21.083Strategiestoincludeastrategyrelatingtosensitivedesignand
developmentwithinareasofidentifiedlandscapevalue.
amendClause21.084ImplementationtoupdateunderZoneandOverlay,andunder
Further strategic work removes reference to completing a landscape assessment of
ruralareassuchasBigHillandreplaceswithareferencetoencouragefurtherstrategic
work to identify and investigate other areas of potentially significant landscape
character.
amend Clause 21.10 to include the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and
MandurangValleyFinalReport(2013)asareferencedocument.
insertthefollowingnewSchedulestotheSignificantLandscapeOverlayatClause42.03:
SLO3appliestoBigHillSignificantLandscapeArea,and
SLO4appliestoMandurangValleySignificantLandscapeArea.
AmendtheScheduletoClause61.03toinsertreferencetonewplanningschememaps
for SLO3 on map nos 26SLO, 29SLO, 31SLO and 39SLO, and SLO4 on map nos 24SLO,
26SLO,27SLO,28SLO,29SLO,31SLO&39SLO.
1.2
ThePanelprocess
The Panel met in Councils Bendigo offices on 27 29 January 2016 to hear submissions
abouttheAmendment.
ThoseinattendanceatthePanelHearingarelistedinTable1.
Page4of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Table1
PartiestothePanelHearing
Submitter
Representedby
CityofGreaterBendigo
AndrewCockerall(SeniorStrategicPlanner)assistedby
HelenKnightofPlanisphere
DEDJTR
RichardHancock
BigHillActionGroup
BruceCarpenterandGillRosier
SteveLottkowitz
RavenswoodRun1
PaulConnorofCounselinstructedbyStephenPole
(Spiire),whocalledthefollowingexpertwitnesses:
PeterHaack,LandscapeArchitect,UrbisPtyLtd
WendyRadford
DrJennyParratandDrJohnTogno
SharonMunro
DrJohnTogno
JarrodTaylor
StanislawPelczynskiandBarbaraPelczynska
BendigoandDistrictEnvironment
Council
StuartFraserandGillRosier
ThePanelconductedanunaccompaniedsiteinspectionon16and27January2016andan
accompanied inspection (with Council, Mr Connor and community representatives) of the
RavenswoodRunpropertyon28January2016.
1.3
Thesubjectarea
Figure1depictsthesubjectareaasoutlinedinred.
RavenswoodRunmadetwowrittensubmissionstotheAmendmentthroughdifferentconsultantsSpiire(submitter16)
andthroughTract(submitter43).
Page5of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Figure1
LandscapeAssessmentarea
Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final Report,
2013,p15
TheAmendmentappliestolandasshowninFigure2.
Page6of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Figure2
1.4
AmendmentArea
Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final Report,
2013,p131
Background
PlanispherewasengagedbyCounciltopreparetheStudy.TheStudywasundertakenovera
13monthperiodfromJanuary2012toFebruary2013.
The project brief from Council required a review of best practice landscape assessment to
inform its methodology. The Study was required to include a landscape management
framework which included statutory and nonstatutory approaches and management
actions.
Itinvolvedcommunityengagement,aperiodofcommunityexhibitiontoprovidefeedback
on the draft report, and regular meetings with a Project Reference Group and Steering
Committee.
CouncilintendedtheStudytoactasapilotstudytodevelopamethodologyforuseinother
partsofthemunicipality
Page7of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
1.5
Issuesdealtwithinthisreport
ThePanelconsideredallwrittensubmissions,aswellassubmissionspresentedtoitduring
the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been
assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of
specificsites.
ThePanelhascarefullyconsideredthesubmissionsandevidencepresentedtoitinrelation
to the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay and has identified that it has a
number of deficiencies. The Panel recommends that further work be carried out on the
Studyandontheextentoftheproposedoverlay.
Thisreportdealswiththeissuesunderthefollowingheadings:
Planningcontext
BendigoLandscapeAssessmentStudymethodology
ApplicationoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlay
Othermatters.
Page8of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Planningcontext
2.1
Policyframework
(i)
StatePlanningPolicyFramework
CouncilsubmittedthattheAmendmentissupportedbythefollowingclausesintheSPPF:
Clause11Settlement
- Clause11.12LoddonMalleeSouthRegionalGrowth
Clause12EnvironmentalandLandscapeValues
- Clause12.011ProtectionofBiodiversity
- Clause12.04SignificantEnvironmentsandLandscapes
- Clause12.042Landscapes
Clause13EnvironmentalRisks
Clause15BuiltEnvironmentandHeritage
Clause16Housing.
(ii)
LocalPlanningPolicyFramework
CouncilsubmittedthattheAmendmentsupportsthefollowinglocalplanningobjectives:
Clause21.021UrbanForestInterfaceissupportedbecausetheAmendmentseeksto
furtherprotectlandwithinoradjoiningtheselandscapes
Clause 21.05 Settlement is supported because the Amendment seeks to protect and
maintainforestedareassurroundingBendigo
Clause 21.08 Environment is supported because the Amendment will enhance and
complementexistingstrategiestoprotecttheenvironmentalassetsofGreaterBendigo,
inparticulartheBoxIronbarkregion
Clause22.01DevelopmentattheUrbanForestInterfacePolicyissupportedbecause
the Amendment will enhance protection for land which interfaces with Box Ironbark
forests
Clause 22.02 Rural Dwellings Policy is supported because the Amendment will
complement the objectives of this clause by ensuring that any future development is
sensitivelydesignedtominimiseimpactsonnaturalandlandscapevalues
Clause 22.08 Highway Entrances and Boulevards Policy is supported because the
AmendmentwillspecifydesignrequirementsforanydevelopmentaroundBigHill,asthe
primarysoutherngatewaytotheCityofGreaterBendigo
Clause22.09CalderFreewayandCalderHighwayEnvironsPolicyissupportedbecause
the Amendment will implement objectives to protect key viewing corridors including
viewstoandviewsfromtheHighway.
Page9of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
(iii)
OtherplanningstrategiesorpoliciesusedinformulatingtheAmendment
CouncilPlan
Theme5:Sustainability
1. The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive
andappealingplacearevaluedandconserved
5.1 ProtectandconserveGreaterBendigosnaturalenvironmentandsettings
forthefuture
RuralAreasStrategy(2009)
FutureStrategicWork:SignificantLandscapeOverlayAstudyfortheBigHill
escarpment,partsoftheMandurangValleyandareasoftheCampaspe/Axe
Creek.
LoddonMalleeSouthRegionalGrowthPlanReference
12. Environment
FutureDirectionProtectidentifiedvisuallyimportantlandscapesandcultural
andbuiltheritageplaces
2.2
Planningschemeprovisions
(i)
ZonesandOverlays
The Amendment proposes to introduce two new schedules to the Significant Landscape
Overlay:
Schedule3BigHillSignificantLandscapeArea
Schedule4MandurangValleySignificantLandscapeArea.
ThepurposeoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlayis:
Toidentifysignificantlandscapes
Toconserveandenhancethecharacterofsignificantlandscapes.
The schedules are proposed to be applied to land currently subject to the Farming Zone,
RuralLivingZoneorLowDensityResidentialZone.
Thelandmayalsobesubjecttootheroverlaycontrols,includingtheBushfireManagement
Overlay, Design and Development Overlay, Environmental Significance Overlay, Erosion
ManagementOverlay,HeritageOverlay,RestructureOverlay,SalinityManagementOverlay
andVegetationProtectionOverlay.
2.3
MinisterialDirectionsandPracticeNotes
Council submitted that the Amendment meets the relevant requirements of the following
MinisterialDirectionsandPlanningPracticeNotes:
Page10of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
(i)
MinisterialDirections
MinisterialDirection11StrategicAssessmentofAmendments
The Amendment is consistent with Ministerial Direction 11 (Strategic Assessment of
Amendments)
TheFormandContentofPlanningSchemes(s7(5))
The Amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of
PlanningSchemesunderSection7(5)oftheAct
ThePanelhasalsoidentifiedasrelevant:
(ii)
PlanningPracticeNotes
PPN2PublicLandZones
TheAmendmentconsidersapplicationofanoverlayonpublicland.ThePracticeNotestates
thatindecidingwhethertoapplyanoverlaytoland,thepubliclandzonesshouldbetreated
inthesamemannerasotherzones.
2.4
Discussionandconclusion
While the Amendment generally meets the requirements specified in the Local and State
PlanningPolicyFrameworks,forreasonsoutlinedinthisreport,thePanelconcludesitdoes
not implement the objectives effectively and requires further work. This is discussed in
Chapter3and4.
Page11of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
BendigoLandscapeAssessmentStudy
methodology
3.1
Theissues
ThePanelHearingandsubmissionprocessraisedissuesaboutwhetherthemethodologyfor
theStudywassuitablefor:
achievingthepurposeofthestudy
determininglandscapesignificanceofthestudyarea
justifyingtheconclusionsandrecommendationsofthestudy,inparticularapplicationof
theSignificantLandscapeOverlaytopartsofthestudyarea.
TheapplicationoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlayisdiscussedinmoredetailinChapter4.
3.2
Evidenceandsubmissions
CouncilsubmittedtheStudydividesthestudyareaintodifferentlandscapecharacterareas,
andusesavaluesframeworktoassessthesignificanceofeachofthesecharacterareas.It
submittedthatthepurposeoftheStudywasto:
gainadetailedunderstandingofthecharacterandvaluesoftheBigHilland
Mandurang Valley landscapes, and to develop a framework for their future
managementastheycontinuetochangeovertime.
The intent from the outset was for the Study to act as a pilot study, testing the
methodologyforuseelsewhereinthemunicipality.
Council submitted that the Study methodology was based on a process developed by
Planisphereoverthelastdecade,andhadbeenacceptedbytheStategovernment,multiple
Councils and Planning Panels, and underpins many successful planning scheme
amendments.CouncilsubmittedthatPlanispherehasreceivedStateandnationalawards
fromthePlanningInstituteofAustraliaandtheAustralianInstituteofLandscapeArchitects
for their landscape assessment studies. Most recently the methodology has been used in
the six draft regional Landscape Assessment Studies (LASs)being undertaken by the State
government.
CouncilsubmittedthattheStudyisdifferenttotheregionalLandscapeAssessmentStudies
in that it is a local, not regional scale, study and it drills down to locally Significant
Landscape Overlays, through a deeper and more localised exploration of values and
communitysentiment.
TheStudystatesthatthisworkstemsfromtheCityofGreaterBendigoRuralAreasStrategy
(2009), which identified these two areas as being the most atrisk from development
pressure(p.10).
TheStudymethodologycomprisedthefollowingsteps:
Step1:Identificationoflandscapecharacterandlandscapevalues
Step 2: Assessment of landscape significance and setting future character
directions
Page12of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
FieldsurveysandavisualassessmentwasconductedbytheStudyteamtoidentify
aestheticandvisualvaluesofthestudyarea
Secondarysourcesofinformationwerereviewed,includinghistoric,environmental,
scientific,culturalandsocialinformationorresearchmaterial;and
Community consultation was undertaken to identify and understand how the
communityvaluesthelandscape.
EachoftheseinputsintotheStudyprocessisdiscussedbelow.
Page13of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
(i)
Fieldsurveysandvisualassessment
Council submitted that the visual assessment was based upon site surveys undertaken by
the study team, through driving all of the study area roads, walking a selection of
recreational access trails, stopping at viewing points and accessing a number of private
properties through arrangement with landowners. The important viewing locations,
viewingcorridorsandscenicroutesareidentifiedintheStudy(p.5664).TheStudyalso
documentedpatternsofviewing,orwayinwhichallpartsofthelandscapeisexperienced.
Documentation of this assessment was presented in the Study through photos taken by
Planisphere,andthoseprovidedbythecommunity.
(ii)
Secondarysources/Scientificandexpertevidence
Anumberofsubmitterswereoftheopinionthatthemethodologyandstudyprocessdidnot
adequatelyconsiderscientificstudiesorspecialistreports,andthereforethattheStudydid
notprovideasoundbasistounderpintheconclusionsandrecommendationsofthereport.
TheBendigoandDistrictEnvironmentCouncil(submitter9)notedthattheassessmentwas
happeningataveryhighlevelandtherewaslackofconsiderationwithintheAmendment
andsupportingdocumentationofanumberofsignificantmattersincludingwildfire,salinity,
erosion,floraandfaunaandgeomorphology.
TheBendigoandDistrictEnvironmentCouncil(submitter9),BendigoFieldNaturalistsClub
Inc. (submitter 29), Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30), Gill and Mick Rosier
(submitter 42) and Dr John Bardsley and Ms Radford (submitter 49) submitted that the
report prepared by Phil Dyson (2004) Landscapes, Groundwater Systems and Salinity
Management in the Northern Sector of the Harcourt Granodiorite Metamorphic Aureole
Complex, which was not referenced in the Study, provided valuable information and
recommendationsrelatingtosoilissuesandmanagementconsiderationsforthestudyarea.
Mr Connor of Counsel, on behalf of Ravenswood Run, objected to the Amendment in its
current form on the basis that the Study provided insufficient evidence to support its
recommendations.
MrConnoralsoquestionedtheaccuracyandcurrencyoftheinformationanddatathatthe
Studyreliedonindrawingitsconclusions,statingthatitisourunderstandingthatCouncils
positionhasbeenlargelyformulatedbasedupontheresultsoftheAssessmentandnoother
specialist reports and the information and data relied on in the preparation of the
Assessmentappearstobeoutdatedandinconclusive.
In response, Council submitted a reference to two specialist studies underpinning the
geologicalsignificanceofBigHill:
ThegeologicalsignificanceoftheBigHillrangeisdescribedinanumberof
references.
GeologyofVictoria,GeologicalSocietyofVictoria,2003
GeologicalSurveyReport99,D.P.CherryandH.E.Wilkinson,1994.
Page14of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
(iii)
Communityconsultation
Councilsubmittedthatthecommunityengagementprocesswasimplementedinaccordance
with the Community Engagement Plan that was developed by Planisphere with guidance
from the Project Reference Group and Steering Committee. The approach to community
consultationandfindingsaredocumentedinChapter3oftheStudy.
FocussedengagementwasundertakenthroughtheProjectSteeringCommitteeandProject
ReferenceGroup:
TheProjectReferenceGroupandSteeringCommitteewereestablishedatthe
project commencement to provide focussed input at each project milestone.
The Project Reference Group included people with a specialist knowledge of
the area including representatives from Parks Victoria, Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Landcare groups, heritage organisations,
FarmingConsultativeCommittee,FieldNaturalistsClubandAboriginalAffairs
Victoria.TheSteeringCommitteeincludedrepresentativesofrelevantCityof
GreaterBendigodepartments,CouncillorsandDTPLI(nowDELWP).
Broader community consultation was undertaken through various engagement tools and
methods, including Councils website, a project blog, four community bulletins a survey,
community photographic exercise, media releases, two community workshops in both Big
Hill and Mandurang (ie a total of four workshops) and a public display of the draft Final
Reportandmediareleases.
Council submitted that one of the Study team members, also met individually with local
propertyowners,publiclandmanagersandheritagegroupstoresearchtheculturalvaluesof
thestudyarea.
Big Hill Action Group (submitter 17), Gill and Mick Rosier (submitter 42) and Dr John
Bardsley and Wendy Radford (submitter 49) indicated strong support for the community
consultation process. Dr Bardsley and Ms Radford state that thorough and broad
consultationwasahallmarkoftheLandscapeAssessmentReport.
Geoff and Beth Hosking (submitter 23) and Tom Harper (submitter 35) questioned the
effectivenessoftheconsultationprocess.InrelationtotheMandurangareatheysubmitted
thattheywerenotawareofmanylocalpeoplewhohadanyknowledgeoftheAssessment
andhowitwouldaffectthem.
In response to questions raised by Mr Harper about the number of participants in the
consultation process, Council clarified that 70 people attended workshops and 19 people
respondedtoashortsurvey.
Dr John Togno (submitter 25), representing Sharon Munro (submitter 21), submitted that
thetownplanningdocumentsprovidedbytheCounciltocommunitythroughouttheStudy
and the Amendment process were not easy to understand and could be threatening to
those not familiar with the professional language. He suggested that the City of Greater
Bendigocouldimproveitscommunicationwithresidentsinrelationtoplanningmatters.
MrHarpersubmittedthathedoubtedthatmanypeoplewouldhavereadtheAssessmentin
itsentiretyduetothevastamountofinformationcontainedwithinits200+pages.
Page15of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
MrConnorquestionedtheextentandlevelofinfluencethattheProjectControlGroupand
theSteeringCommitteeprovided.MrConnorsuggestedthattheSteeringCommitteemay
haveundulyinfluencedtheoutcomesoftheproject.
In response to Mr Connors assertions, Council submitted that the establishment of a
SteeringCommitteeandtheReferenceGroupispartoftheCitysstandardapproachtothe
governanceofsuchprojects.Councilstatedthattheprocesswasdesignedtoensurethat
thereisownershipoftheprojectacrossunitswithinCouncilandexternalstakeholders.
(iv)
RavenswoodRun
Ravenswood Run is the largest land holding in the study area, representing approximately
2,080hectaresandconstitutesbetweenandonehalfoftheproposedSignificantLandscape
Overlay,Schedule3area.MrConnor,submittedthathisclientwas:
notawareofanyvisittothesitebyCouncilanditsappointedconsultantthat
may have informed the appropriate preparation and finalisation of the
Assessment.
MrConnorsubmittedthatthevisualassessmentprocesswasnotadequate,asmoredetail
wasrequiredinrelationtolandscapeandviewshedanalysis.
MrConnorsubmittedthatthestudyprocessdoesnotjustifytheconclusionthattheBigHill
ridge line, the low lands and rolling hills to the south of the Big Hill Range is a single
landscape character unit on the basis that more detail is required in relation to viewshed
mapping and landscape character profile before appropriate recommendations can be
determined.
MrConnorcalledMrHaack,aLandscapeArchitectfromUrbistoprovideexpertevidenceon
landscape significance. It was Mr Haacks evidence that the mapping and overlay analysis
wasoverdone,andthattheprocesswaslightongroundassessment.
MrConnorsubmitted:
WedonotbelievethatthecharacterisationoftheBigHillridgeline,thelow
landsandrollinghillstothesouthoftheBigHillRangeasasinglelandscape
characterunitisjustifiedbytheprocess.
Council submitted that a visual assessment methodology based on detailed viewshed
mapping was not considered suitable for this type of landscape assessment study, as it
focusedonsingleviewpoints.Viewshedmappingwasnotrequiredbythestudybrief:
It is a methodology appropriate for a Visual Impact Assessment and
determiningtheappropriatesitinganddesignofnewdevelopmentwithinthe
landscapeWhileusefulinunderstandingtheimpactofdevelopmentupona
specificpartofalandscape,itisnotaholisticanalysisapproach.
Council submitted that it was not possible to visit all private land in the Study area. It
confirmed:
thestudyteammadeabriefvisittotheRavenswoodHomestead.Otherwise,
the Ravenswood site has been viewed from publicly accessible locations and
Page16of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
nearbysites.Aerialphotographywasalsousedtogainanunderstandingof
thesite.
The Panel accepted an invitation to visit the Ravenswood Run property as part of the
Hearingprocess,andthissitevisitwasundertakenbyrepresentativesofinterestedparties
onThursday28January2016.
During the site visit the Panel observed that the large property contained a number of
significantlandscapefeatures,includingwaterways,remnantvegetation,inparticularRiver
RedGums,areasofrevegetation,heritagebuildings,rockyoutcrops,steepescarpmentsand
theBigHillridgeline.
The Panel observed that due to the large size of the property and undulating topography,
many of the features are not visible from publically accessible viewing points. During the
site visit it was confirmed by Ms Knight that the Study team had not undertaken a field
surveyoftheRavenswoodRunproperty.
(v)
DeterminationofLandscapeSignificance
The Study mapped six landscape character areas (see Figure 3), and assessed their
significancewithconsiderationoffivevalues(p.8093):
Visual
- Landscapefeatures
- Edgesorcontrasts
- Views
HistoricalandCultural
- Documentedpreandpostcontactheritagevalue
- Documentedinheritageregistersandlists,photographsandearlymaps
Environmental/Scientific
- Documentedenvironmentalorscientificvalue
- Archaeological,floraandfaunahabitatsandgeologicalvalues
Social
- Lifestyle,tourism,recreationalorartistic
Economic
- Generationofincomethroughagricultureorattractingvisitorstothearea.
Page17of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Figure3
LandscapeCharacterAreas
Source:BendigoLandscapeAssessment,BigHillandMandurangValley,2013,p.43
Councilsubmittedthat:
Planispheres landscape assessment studies are discriminating while the
character analysis covers large areas (often a whole municipality), the
identification of significant landscapes is generally confined to discrete
locations. This was a particularly important consideration in this Study
becauseitisintendedasthefirstofseveralstudiestocoverotherpartsofthe
citysrurallandscape.
(vi)
Landscapevalues
Council submitted that landscape significance was determined in the Study through a
process of developing an understanding of landscape character and landscape values.
Landscapesignificancewasdefinedasthedesignationofaparticularlandscapeasspecial
or important arising from its landscape values, including aesthetic values and other
documentedvaluessuchashistoric,environmental,scientific,socialorothervalues.
TheStudyincludedaValuesSummarytable(Figure4)whichranksthelandscapevaluesof
each landscape character area as higher, moderate and lower. The Study stated that all
values are considered to have equal weight in determining the future management
objectivesforaparticulararea(p.80),howeverinresponsetoaquestionfromthePanel
about the weighting of values, Ms Knight clarified that visual significance was the primary
driver.
Page18of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Figure4
ValuesSummarytable
Source:BendigoLandscapeAssessment,BigHillandMandurangValley,2013,p.95
TheValuesSummarytableconcludesthat:
Big Hill has higher visual, historic and cultural and environmental and scientific values,
withmoderatetolowersocialvaluesandeconomicvalues
MandurangValleyisshowntohavelowervaluesforallapartfrommoderatehistorical
andculturalvalues
theBendigoBoxIronbarkcharacterareaisratedashigherandmoderateforallvalues.
Council submitted that it considered the landscape setting of the study area within the
contextofthemunicipalitytoprovidecontextandanindicationofcomparativesignificance
of the Study area. The Study includes a section on General Character of the Greater
BendigoLandscape(p.2427)butdoesnot,however,includeastatementofcomparative
significanceoftheStudyareawithotherlandscapesacrosstheCity.
Council submitted that the Central Victoria Landscape Assessment Study, which was
scheduletobecompletedin2015butwhichhasnotyetbeenfinalised,woulddefinewhich
places,featuresandviewsaremostsignificantacrosstheregion.
TheStudyexplainsthatwhileitispossibletoinferarankingofsignificancefromtheValues
Summary table, (e.g. Higher could be taken to mean State, Moderate to mean Regional,
Lower to mean Local), it may be wiser to defer a definitive ranking until a landscape
assessmentofthewholeofGreaterBendigohasbeenundertaken(p.94).
Numerous submitters identified a wide range values of the study area, predominately
relatingto:
Managing development Reducing potential for negative impact of development,
maintaining a compact city, keeping development within the city/urban growth
boundaries
Page19of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Environmentalvaluesbiodiversity,ecological,wildlifecorridors,protectionofremnant
vegetation,National/StateParks,reducingpotentialforfragmentationofremnants
Visualamenityaestheticvalues,naturalbeauty,highvisibilityruralcharacter,Cityinthe
Forest,softentheurbanedgeboundaries,protectionofpleasingoutlooks
HeritageandSocialvalueshealthandwellbeing.
Inrelationtovisualappreciationofthestudyarea,anumberofsubmittersstatedthatthey
consideredthelandscapetohavevisualsignificance:
RosemaryGlaisher(submitter8)submittedthattakingthebroadview,thereiswhatthe
approachestoourbeautifulcitylooklikethereisasenseofpassingthrougharelatively
unspoiltforestandbluetimberedhillsasyoudriveintoBendigo.
Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30) submitted that the Amendment will
complement and retain the magnificent entry to Bendigo, and that South Mandurang
thisisauniqueforestedareaofBendigo,valuedbylocalsandvisitorsalikeforitsrural
amenity and pleasing visual outlook afforded by the Box Ironbark forests and the flora
andfaunathattheycontain.
Gill and Mick Rosier (submitter 42) submitted that the Big Hill / Ravenswood
landscapeisviewedassignificantasthesoutherngatewaytoBendigo,withitsdistinctive
landforms,heritageandculturalvalues,andfortheretentionofFarmingZonewithinthis
area.
MsParratandMrTogno(submitter25),whoareresidentsofMandurang,statedthatwhile
theyappreciatethattherearesomeinthecommunitywhowouldconsidertheirproperty
visuallyappealing,thatappearstointegratewiththelocalindigenouslandscape.However,
thisvisualheritagelandscapeisonlyaround20yearsoldandtheresultofrevegetationand
plantingforapersonalfirewoodsupply.
TheNationalTrustofVictoria(submitter40),supportedtheAmendment.TheNationalTrust
maintainsaregisterofsignificantplaces,andstatedthatwhiletheNationalTrusthasnot
classified the Big Hill and Mandurang Valley as a significant landscape, we appreciate the
workofGreaterBendigoCityCouncilinredressingthisknowledgegapandseekingplanning
controlsforthisimportantlandscape.
In relation to visibility of a landscape in determining landscape significance, Council
submitted:
The Study methodology acknowledges the visibility of a landscape as a
contributing factor to determining its sensitivity to change and appropriate
management mechanisms. However, the visibility of a landscape is not a
factorindeterminingitssignificance(FinalReport,p80).Ifalandscapeisnot
easily viewed, it is not considered that it is less significant as a result. The
abilitytoviewalandscapedoesnotnegateitsvisualandothervalues.
Alandscapewhichisnotcurrentlyvisiblemaybevisibleorvisitedinthefuture.
Thismightincludeadditionalwalkingtrails,internalroadsthroughthesiteor
viewingpoints.
Page20of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
(vii)
Communityvalues
Anumberofsubmittersindicatedthattheyunderstoodtheintentionoftheprocesswasto
representcommunityvaluesasakeydeterminantoflandscapesignificance.
DrBardsleyandMsRadford(submitter49)submittedthattheyunderstoodtheprocessis
about a subjective valuation of the landscape as a whole by the community as a whole.
TheyconcludedthatthefinalStudyreflectedthecommunitysvaluationofthelandscape.
TheBendigoandDistrictEnvironmentGroup(submitter9)indicatedthattheassessmentof
landscape significance is considered to be a subjective process, and the opinions,
preferences, values, feelings and judgements of those who participated in the Big Hill
Mandurang Valley Final Report 2013 cannot be ignored as not being relevant to what
constitutessignificance.Thepeoplefindthelandscapessignificant.
InresponsetoaquestionfromthePanelabouttherelativeweightingofcommunityviewsof
thelandscapesignificance,MsKnightonbehalfofCouncilclarifiedthatthedeterminationof
landscape significance was ultimately a professional opinion supported by data and
consultation.
Under cross examination, Mr Haack gave evidence that, in his opinion, whilst Planisphere
has pioneered community engagement methods in landscape assessment; these can be
giventoomuchweight.
InresponsetosubmissionsandevidenceCouncilstatedthat:
ThevalueofcommunityinputhasbeenclearlydemonstratedduringthisPanel
hearing.Wehaveheardsubmissionsfromthepeoplewholiveinthisareaand
knowitintimately.ThishasprovidedthePanelwithinformationthatwould
nototherwisebeevidentoravailable.
WedisagreewiththeRavenswoodsubmissionthatastudyshouldbedoneby
expertsinanobjectivefashionandwithoutinputfromthecommunity.
Manycommentsfromthecommunitydonotreflectthestudybrieforscope,
buthavebeenreportedinthedocumentnonethelesstorecordthecommunity
views.
The assessment of landscape values undertaken in the Study in Chapter 4 is
based upon evaluation of criteria set out in the study method. Information
providedbythecommunityhasbeenincludedinthisassessmentasitrelates
to these criteria, where it is directly relevant to the Study assessment
methodology.
3.3
Discussion
In support of the Study methodology, Council explained that the landscape assessment
methodologywasbasedoninternationalbestpracticeandhasbeenacceptedbytheState
government,multipleCouncilsandPlanningPanels.Councilcitedanumberofpanelreports
tosupportthisposition.
Page21of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
In reviewing a number of these panel reports, the Panel identified that while the panel
reportsacceptedthelandscapeassessmentmethodologyasacrediblemethodology2,the
studies are not directly comparable as they were regional, as opposed to local, landscape
assessmentstudies.
CouncilalsocitedasrelevantthesixLandscapeAssessmentStudiesthatarecurrentlybeing
undertakenbytheStateGovernmentusingthePlanispheremethodology.Againitisnoted
bythePanelthatthesestudiesarenotdirectlycomparableastheyarebeingundertakenat
aregionalscale.
ThePanelnotesthattheStudyisalocallandscapestudy,notstateorregional,thatCouncils
intention was to run this as a pilot project for possible application in other parts of the
Municipality. As a local pilot study, an adjustment was made to the previously used
methodologytoallowfordeeperandmorelocalisedexplorationofvaluesandcommunity
sentiment.Councildidnot,however,explainanychangestothemethodologyinrelationto
determinationofappropriatemanagementrecommendations.
Onthebasisthatthisisapilotstudyforlocallandscapeassessmentstudies,itisimportant
that effectiveness of the Study methodology for achieving the Study purpose be carefully
assessed,andmodifiedasrequiredforfutureapplication.
A review of the cited panel reports identified a number of issues relevant to this
Amendment, in particular appropriate application of the Significant Landscape Overlay.
ThesearediscussedfurtherinChapter4ofthisreport.
In preparation of the Study, the Panel notes that the consultant team undertook field
surveys and viewed the study area from a number of publically accessible viewing points,
andfromsomepropertieswithintheStudyarea.Planisphereexplainedthatgiventhesize
ofthestudyareathatitwasnotpossibletovisitallproperties.
Given the significance Ravenswood Run, representing a large proportion of the study area
(over 2,000 hectares), much of which cannot be seen from publicly accessible viewpoints,
the Panel was surprised that therewas no attempt by theStudy teamto undertake a site
inspectionofthisland.
Whilst the study team used aerial photography and assessed the property from publicly
accessible viewpoints, this would not have provided a full appreciation of the landscape
values of the Ravenswood Run. In doing so, it was apparent to the Panel on the
accompanied site inspection that vast tracts of land earmarked for the Overlay were not
appropriate.
Mr Connor suggested that more detailed visual analysis was required, including viewshed
mapping.CouncilarguedthatviewshedmappingwasnotsuitablefortheStudy,asitwas
moresuitedtovisualimpactassessment.ThePanelunderstandsthatviewshedanalysiscan
provide a detailed visual assessment, and there may be value in using this method in
conjunctionwithassessmentofotherlandscapevalues.
GreaterGeelongC177PanelReport,June2010,p50
Page22of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Inrelationtosecondarysourcematerial:
The Study identified a number of source documents in Background Documents and
PolicyContext(p17).ThemajorityoftheseareCouncilstrategicplansandthelistdoes
notincludeanyscientificstudiesorexpertsourcesofinformation.
TheStudyincludesanumberofmapsandinformationaboutlandscapecharacteristicsin
the Study area. For example Chapter 2 of the Study, Landscape Character, includes
figures and plans showing bioregions, topography and water form, geology, elevation,
slope,ecologicalvegetationclassesandheritageassets.Thissectiondoesnot,however,
include reference to the significance of these assets or reference to any particular
sourcesofscientificdataorresearchunderpinningtheinformation.
Chapter four of the Study includes Landscape Values tables for each of the Landscape
Character areas, and identifies the source of information for each of the identified
values.Thesourcesofinformationidentifiedinclude[field]survey,community,planning
controls, and in relation to heritage values it makes reference the heritage overlay or
VictorianHeritageRegister.ThereisonereferencetoDSEinthetable,whichthePanel
assumesreferstotheStateDepartmentofSustainabilityandEnvironment.Referenced
sourcesofinformationaregenerallynotincluded.Thetablesdonotclearlyidentifythe
significanceofvalues,suchasheritageassetsorecologicalvegetationclasses.
AppendixCoftheStudyincludesdetailedCharacterAreaAnalysisPapersforeachofthe
landscape character areas. Only occasional reference is made in the text to source
documents. Information relating to vegetation identifies the remnant ecological
vegetation classes, but with only occasional reference to status or significance. The
analysisofvegetationsignificancerelatesprimarilytothecharacterandvisualimpactof
the vegetation, rather than its scientific importance. Planning controls for each of the
landscapecharacterareasarepresentedinsomedetail.ThetwoBigHillCharacterareas
includereferencetotwosourcedocumentsinfootnotes,oneunspecifiedNorthCentral
CMAdocumentfrom2005andanothertitledToBigHillandBack.
The Study does not include a bibliography documenting secondary sources, so itis not
obvioustothereaderthatwhatthesesourcesareandhowtheyhavebeenconsideredin
theStudy.
DuetothelackofinformationintheStudyaboutthesourcedocumentsanddatauseditis
notpossibleforthePaneltoformajudgementabouttheextenttowhichthismaterialwas
usedinformulationoftheStudy.Norwhethertheinformationusedisaccurate,outdatedor
inconclusive.
ThePanelagreesthatthecommunityengagementprocessundertakenbyPlanispherewas
comprehensive and appreciated by many members of the community. The community
consultationprocessprovidedthecommunitywithmanyopportunitiestocontributetothe
project,withareasonablenumberattendingworkshopsandasmallnumberrespondingto
thesurvey.
However, the Panel understands that a number of submitters suggested that the
consultationprocesswasnotadequateandthatmanyinthecommunitywerenotawareof
theStudy.Submittersalsoraisedtheissuethatthetownplanninginformationprovidedby
Councilwasdifficulttounderstandandcouldbethreatening,andthattheStudyreportwas
toolargeandmaynothavebeenreadbymanyinthecommunity.
Page23of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
The question of over emphasis on community opinion was raised. Whilst it is stated by
CouncilthattheStudyisultimatelyanexpressionofprofessionalopinioninformedbydata
and consultation, there are a number of aspects of the Study process, submissions and
hearingwhichraisequestionsinthePanelsviewaboutwhetherthiswasachieved:
limitedfieldassessment
lackofreferencesecondarysources
several submitters indicating that they understood that the Study recommendations
wouldbesubjectiveandbasedoncommunityopinion
Landscape Significance and Values Assessment (Chapter 4 of the Study) identifies
communityasasourceofthemajorityofidentifiedvalues
Inclusionofcommunitysubmissionsthatdonotrelatetothestudypurpose(ratherthan
documented in an appendix or separate document) which can appear to give them
undueweightorsignificance
MrHaacksevidencethattheprocessprovidedtoomuchweighttocommunityinput.
Whilst the Study stated that in the determination of landscape significance all values are
consideredequally,MsKnightclarifiedthatvisualsignificancewasthekeydeterminant.The
PanelfounditwouldbehelpfuliftheStudyclearlyexplainedhowtheweightingofvalues
wasapplied.
This was illustrated in the time it took for Council to clearly articulate how the Values
Summary(Figure4)worked.Forexample,inresponsetoaquestionfromthePanelabout
themeaningoftheranking,inparticulargivenMandurangValleywhichisrankedprimarily
aslower,MsKnightstatedwhilstMandurangwaslistedaslower,thisdidnotmeanthat
thelandscapesignificancewaslow.Thisis anindicationofrelativesignificance,andwas
stillatalevelwarrantinginclusionintheSignificantLandscapeOverlay.
The Panel found this logic hard to interpret. How the general public could interpret it is
anothermatteragain.ThepurposeofrankingthecharacterareasintheStudyisnotclear.
In fact, the Study concludes that it may be wiser to defer a definitive ranking until a
landscapeassessmentofthewholeofGreaterBendigohasbeenundertaken(p.94).
CouncilssubmissionstatedthattheStudyidentifiedlandscapesignificancewithrespectto
landscapecontextandcomparativesignificanceacrosstheMunicipality,yetthePanelfound
noevidenceofthisintheStudy.
It would have been valuable if the Study had explained the comparative significance of
landscapes in the study area, to assist with understanding how the subject landscape
compares with other areas within the Municipality or beyond. This has implications for
application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, and this is discussed in greater detail in
Chapter4ofthisreport.
3.4
Conclusions
Whilst the Planisphere methodology has been developed and tested over some time, and
referencesinternationalbestpractice,thishaspreviouslybeenappliedtoregionalandState
projects.AsthisStudywasundertakenasapilottotestthemethodologyforfuturelocal
landscapeassessmentstudies,thePanelconcludesthatthereareopportunitiestorefinethe
process to better suit local application of landscape significance assessments. The Study
Page24of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
does not clearly explain how community values were integrated with other inputs and
prioritised.
The Study requires revisiting to ensure that it is clearly understood and referenced
appropriately.ThePanelisoftheviewthatanExecutiveSummaryisisrequired.
ThePanelconcludesthefollowinginrelationtotheStudymethodology:
ThereisnonexusbetweentheStudy,extentoftheOverlayproposedandtheSchedules.
The Study process would be more reliable and convincing if the study team had
undertakenasiteinspectionofthelargestparceloflandinthestudyarea.
A landscape assessment study relying on secondary sources of information to
complement visual analysis and consultation should demonstrate evidence of this
throughout the document through, for example, a literature review, source references
andabibliography.
Itwouldbebeneficialtohaveagreaterunderstandingofcomparativesignificanceofthe
landscape assessed, to help understand the relative importance of protection and
appropriatetoolstoachievethis.
The Study recommendations would be more robust if the report and study process
demonstrated more clearly how the findings from community engagement were
consideredandintegratedintothefinalrecommendations.
The Study should be revised in line with the conclusions and an Executive Summary
prepared.
3.5
Recommendations
1.
2.
The adoption of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang
ValleyFinalReport(2013)(theStudy)asaReferenceDocumentisnotsupported
initscurrentform.TheStudyshouldberevisedtoinclude:
a)
an Executive Summary with details of the Study findings and
recommendations
b)
clearly numbered subheadings, numbered tables, figures and maps, with
listingofallelementsinanassociatedlistoftables,figureormaps
c)
cleardefinitionsrelatingtolandscapesignificance
d)
abibliographyreferencingallsourcematerial
e)
aclearnexusshouldbedemonstratedbetweentheStudy,theextentofany
OverlayandwordingtotheSignificantLandscapeOverlaySchedules.
Page25of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
ApplicationoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlay
4.1
Theissue
IstheuseoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlayappropriate?
4.2
Evidenceandsubmissions
AnumberofsubmissionsquestionedtheblanketapplicationoftheSignificantLandscape
OverlaytoBigHill,andinconsistentapplicationoftheoverlayintheMandurangarea.The
issueiswhetherornottheapplicationoftheOverlayiswarrantedinitsexhibitedform.
(i)
SuitabilityoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlay
TheAmendmentproposestoapplytheSignificantLandscapeOverlaytoareasoflandscape
significance,includinglandwhich:
hasdemonstratedlandscapevalueandsignificance
issubjecttopressureforchange
hasamoderatehighsensitivitytothatchange
isnotadequatelyprotectedthroughtheunderlyingzonecontrol.
CouncilsubmittedinitsreporttoCouncilon21September2015,thatthestrategicreference
for the Study was from the City of Greater Bendigos Rural Areas Strategy (2009). This
strategy recommended future strategic work including development of a Significant
LandscapeOverlayfortheBigHillescarpmentandpartsoftheMandurangValley.
Council submitted that the Significant Landscape Overlay has been chosen as it is
considered to be the most appropriate tool as a planning control specifically designed to
protectandmanagesignificantlandscapevalues.ThisSignificantLandscapeOverlayallows
for management of the key threats to landscape values, including vegetation removal and
unsympathetic development. The overlay also has provision for determining preferred
landscape character, and prescribing design objectives, application requirements and
decisionguidelines.
The choice of overlay also took into consideration the intention to protect areas of
landscape significance across a number of values, rather than protecting individual
elements,suchasusingtheHeritageOverlaytoprotectheritagevalues.
Councilsubmitted:
whenalandscapeassessmentiscompleteditistypicallyimplementedthrough
the use of the Significant Landscape Overlay, however there is no specific
guidance from the State Government on the application of the Significant
LandscapeOverlay.
Using Victorias Planning System (May 2015), describes the function of the Significant
LandscapeOverlay:
toidentify,conserveandenhancethecharacterofsignificantlandscapes.The
schedule to the overlay must explain the significance of the landscape,
togetherwiththeintendedoutcomesofimposedrequirements.
Page26of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
CouncilsubmittedthatitisfirmlyoftheviewthattheSignificantLandscapeOverlayisthe
mostappropriateplanningschemetooltouseinimplementingtheStudy.
Mr Hodgens (submitter 2) submitted that the Amendment would ensure that the subject
areaswillbecomeevenmoresignificant.Itwillsoftentheboundaryofthenewresidential
growthandtheruralresidentialareas.
Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30) supported the proposal for a Significant
Landscape Overlay on the basis that it follows extensive analysis and community
consultation by Council, aiming for an holistic understanding of landscape values,
encompassing social, environmental, ecological, geological and aesthetic significance.
Bendigo Sustainability Group also submitted that the Significant Landscape Overlay
complementstheBendigoResidentialDevelopmentStrategy,theIntegratedTransportand
LandUseStrategyandwillensureasociallyandenvironmentallysustainablefutureforour
regionalCityintheForest.
Ms Thomas (submitter 12) submitted that the Amendment sends a message that our
community values the unique quality of a city within a park and the beauty of its
surroundings.
MsBoord(submitter22)supportedtheAmendmentasitwouldprotectthelandscapesand
naturalenvironmentthatareelementsthatcontributetoBendigosuniquecharacter.
Council submitted that areas suitable for application of the Significant Landscape Overlay
weredeterminedbyreviewingcurrentplanningpolicyandcontrolstoidentifygaps.This
applied to land within the Farming Zone, Rural Living Zone and Low Density Residential
Zone.
Council referred to a number of planning scheme amendments that have accepted the
PlanispherelandscapeassessmentprocessinapplyingtheSignificantLandscapeOverlay.In
thecaseofSouthGippslandPlanningSchemeAmendmentC45,whichsoughttoimplement
findings of the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study 2006 (CSLAS) including
applicationofaSignificantLandscapeOverlay,thePanelfoundthefollowing:
Amendment C45 also recognises the significance of particular landscapes of
State and Regional significance through the application of Significant
LandscapeOverlays(SLO1,2and3)whichprovidemorerigorouscontrolsover
builtformandvegetationremoval
The exclusion of other settings from such an overlay regime does not deem
them insignificant. Rather, these areas are identified as being of local
landscape significance and managed under both general and specific
characterobjectivesandstrategiesidentifiedintheMSSatClause21.04163.
TheSouthGippslandAmendmentC45Panelconcluded:
WestronglysupporttheapplicationofSLOoversettingsofStateandRegional
significance. While these areas are typically outside declared settlements,
SouthGippslandC45PanelReport,June2009,p17
Page27of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
SignificantLandscapeOverlaySchedule3BigHill
TheboundaryofthisCharacterAreahasbeendefinedby:thetopographyof
theBigHillRidgelinetothenorthandwest;theedgeoftheGreaterBendigo
NationalParktothenorth;thechangeintopographytomoreelevatedlandof
theBigHillGraniticUplandsinthesouthwest;andtheviewingcorridorsofthe
Calder Alternate Highway and the Calder Freeway on the southern/western
boundary.
CharacterArea2BigHillGraniticUplands
TheboundaryofthisCharacterAreahasbeendefinedby:thetopographyof
theBigHillRidgelineandtheedgeoftheGreaterBendigoNationalParktothe
north/east;thechangeintopographyinthewest/north;andtheboundaryof
theRuralConservationZoneandlocalroadstotheeast.
Council submitted that the Study recommended that the Significant Landscape Overlay be
appliedto:
AllofCharacterArea1,onthebasisthatthe:
- areashowsahighlevelofvisuallandscapevaluesandotherlandscapevalues
- areaissensitivetochange,particularlytheareasofhigherelevationandtheBig
Hillridgeline,andisexperiencingpressureforchange
- underlyingFarmingZonedoesnotprovideadequateprotection.
PartsofCharacterArea2whicharewithintheFarmingZone,onthebasisthatthearea:
- shows a high level of visual landscape values and other landscape values, with
areasofahigherelevationandvisibility
- issensitivetochange,particularlytheareasofhigherelevationandtheBigHill
ridgeline,andisexperiencingadegreeofpressureforchange
- isnotaffordedadequatestatutoryprotectionthroughtheFarmingZone.
TheStudyincludedarecommendationtoapplytheSignificantLandscapeOverlaytoBigHill
(p.132):
Character Area 1 to maintain the open rural character of the area, protect outlook
from ridgeline and to prevent development of the visible southern slopes and ridgeline
aboveanominatedelevation
Character Area 2 to maintain the open rural character of the area, and to prevent
developmentofthevisiblesouthernslopesandridgelineabovexx(sic)contourlevel.
SouthGippslandC45PanelReport,June2009,p.25
Page28of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
CouncilsubmittedthattheproposedSignificantLandscapeOverlaySchedule3,wasjustified
astheareaissignificantaspartoftheCalderFreewaylandscapecorridorexperience.The
corridor:
offers a varied, interesting and attractive corridor compared with other
corridors,suchastoBallaratorGeelong
is punctuated with a number of major landmarks, including Mt Macedon
andMtAlexander,withBigHillasignificant,albeitlessdramatic,feature
offersimportantlandscapemarkersandtransitionalspacesasonetravels
through the Box Ironbark Forests and the Big Hill ridgeline as one leaves
Bendigo.
Council submitted that the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay should include the
foregroundareaas:
it forms an essential setting and context for the ridge and because of its
landscape values derived from the gently undulating topography, creek
corridors,redgumsandgraniticoutcrops
visually,theridge,lowerslopesandforegroundoftherespectiveCharacter
Areaswereconsideredbythestudyteamtoformanintegratedlandscape
unit.
Councilsubmittedthatastheforegroundmergesalmostimperceptiblywithitshillsidesand
ridgelinethatthesefeaturesshouldbeincludedintheSignificantLandscapeOverlay,not
necessarilytostopdevelopmentintheforeground,butcertainlytoprovideeffectivecontrol
overthesitinganddesignofdevelopment.
Council submitted that while much of Character Area 2 is not readily accessible, elevated
areasarevisiblefromtheviewingcorridorsoftheCalderFreeway,therailwaylineandother
recreational routes. Council submitted that the hilly topography can potentially absorb
buildingssensitivelysitedbehindandbelowthehigherfeatures.
Council submitted that areas within the Rural Conservation Zone are not included, as the
provisionsofthezone,inconjunctionwithapplicationofalocalpolicy,areconsideredtobe
adequate in protecting the significance of this area. The Amendment does not propose
inclusionofaLocalPolicyintheplanningscheme.
Councilsubmittedthat:
ThearearecommendedtobeincludedintheSignificantLandscapeOverlayis
broader than that recommended in the recent Central Victoria Regional
Landscape Assessment Study, commissioned by the State Government and
undertakenbyGHD.
ItisacknowledgedthattheSignificantLandscapeOverlaycoversalargepart
of the study area. However, within the context of Greater Bendigo, the
proposedSignificantLandscapeOverlaycanbeseenclearlytofocusupontwo
areasBigHillandthesoutherngatewaytothecity,andtheforestedenclave
ofMandurangValley.
CouncilsubmittedthatsevensubmissionswerereceivedinrelationtotheBigHillcharacter
area.
Page29of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Page30of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Page31of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Council submitted justification for the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay boundaries,
statingthattheCalderFreewayandtheCalderAlternateHighwayarelogicalboundariesto
thesouth,astheseroadwaysapproximatethearcoftheridgelineanddefineaforeground
area of an approximately equidistant depth, therefore creating a logical boundary for the
CharacterArea/SignificantLandscapeOverlay.Theyarealsonotedasviewingcorridors.
RavenswoodwasselectedasthesouthernmostpointoftheproposedSignificantLandscape
Overlay area as views to the southern extremity of the ridgeline from the Calder Freeway
andrailwaylineappearinthislocation.
MrConnorobjectedonthebasisthatlargeportionsofthelandcannotbeseen:
The Directors of Ravenswood Run cannot understand why a Significant
Landscape Overlay is proposed over large tracts of their land which simply
cannot be seen from any public vantage points, and most importantly from
thehighwayandrailwayline.
Mr Connor submitted that the rationale for the Significant Landscape Overlay curtilage or
boundary is not compelling, nor is it rigorous. It was submitted that large tracts of land
cannotbeseenfromtheidentifiedviewingpoints,andthatgiventhelandscapecharacter
identified,thepositioningoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlayappearstobearbitrary.
MrConnorsubmittedthatforalandscapetobeincludedinaSignificantLandscapeOverlay
thatitmustbeabletobeseen:
Tobesignificant,alandscapemustbecapableofbeingseen,itmustbevisible
frompublicvantagepoints.
MrConnorreferredtoCouncilssubmissionthatdetailed:
The direct visibility of a landscape from a public viewing location is one of
manyconsiderationsaboutlandscapemanagement,includingdeterminingthe
extentofaSignificantLandscapeOverlayasproposedbytheamendment.
Inresponse,Councilsubmitted:
the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay is ultimately
recommendedonthegroundsofvisualsignificance.Agreaterunderstanding
of visual significance is derived through a comprehensive analysis of all
landscape values .While other landscape values such as geological or
environmentalvaluesarenotedasbeingofsignificance,theyarevalueswhich
ultimatelyformsupportingevidencefortheprotectionofthevisualvaluesof
thestudyarea.
InconsideringthefindingsofotherplanningpanelsrelatingtoapplicationoftheSignificant
LandscapeOverlay,MrConnorsubmittedthatinthecaseofEastGippslandC68,thatwhile
theamendmentwasultimatelygazetted,thePanelcommentedonthelargeareaofoneof
the proposed Significant Landscape Overlays and clearly considered that the issue of
visibilityisparamount.MrConnorcitedanexamplefromtheEastGippslandPanelwhere
landscapesthatwerefoundtobeworthyofprotectionandwerehighlyvisible,butwhereno
SignificantLandscapeOverlaywasproposed.
MrConnorsubmittedthathavingregardtotheexportevidenceofMrHaack,itisclearthat:
Page32of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
(a) there are (substantive) areas which have been included in the proposed
SignificantLandscapeOverlay,Schedule3whichdonotwarrantinclusion
(b) thereareareaswhichhavenotbeenincludedwhichwarrantinclusion.
There are significant tracts of land that are proposed to be included within
SignificantLandscapeOverlay,Schedule3whichcannotbeseenfromtheonly
viewing points/viewing corridors identified in the statement of significance,
namely travellers approaching Bendigo along the Calder Highway and the
MelbourneBendigorailwayline.
Mr Haack recommended an alternative alignment of the Significant Landscape Overlay,
Schedule 3 boundary, (highlighted in orange) which included a smaller portion of the
proposedoverlayarea,andanareanotincludedintheAmendment(seeFigure5),stating:
I consider the longcrested ridgeline that forms a significant landscape
setting for the southern gateway to Bendigo to begin approximately 500m
east of the railway tunnel traversing the northeastern boundary of Area B
extending to the southeast outside of the proposed Significant Landscape
Overlay,Schedule3boundary,titledtheBigHillRidgeline.ThesectionofBig
Hill Ridgeline that extends southeasterly outside of the proposed Significant
Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 boundary that contains the Granitic Hills
Woodland(EVC72)isauniqueEVCtothemunicipalityandislocalisedtothis
southeasterly corner of the municipal boundary. I consider this area of the
landscapetoholdhighlandscapevalue.5
Accordingly,itismyopiniontheBigHillRidgelineincludingthesoutheasterly
landscapeoutsideoftheproposedSignificantLandscapeOverlay,Schedule3
boundary achieves the intended objective set out in Schedule 3 to the
Significant Landscape Overlay under the Statement of nature and key
elementsoflandscapeandIconsidertheseareaswarrantaproposedcontrol
such as a Significant Landscape Overlay as illustrated in Figure 12: Proposed
RevisedSLO3Curtilage.
Mr Haacks evidence statement incorrectly referred to southwest instead of southeast. This was raised during
evidenceandthePanelhasadoptedthecorrectedlocationreferencesinthisquote.
Page33of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Figure5
ProposedRevisedSignificantLandscapeOverlay,Schedule3curtilage
Source:LandscapeArchitecturalExpertWitnessStatement,AppendixB,Figure12
GreaterGeelongC177PanelReport,June2010,p.51
Page34of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Inclosing,Councilprovidedthefollowingresponsestosubmissionsandevidencerelatingto
BigHillandRavenswood:
ThelandscapeoftheBigHillforegroundisvisuallycomplex.Thenumerous
rises,smallerridgesandgulliescreateanintricatetopographywhichdistort
view lines and the perception of distance and scale. The Significant
Landscape Overlay boundary has been proposed across a wide area from
the Calder to accommodate the numerous viewing experiences of this
landscapefromthekeyviewingcorridors.
While the Big Hill crest appears to be a subtle landscape feature when
viewed from the Calder, from within the Ravenswood site, the scale and
definitionofthislandformcanbefullyappreciated.Fromthebaseorfrom
atop its crest, the Big Hill formation at the trig point location is quite
evidentlyadramaticlandform.
The panoramic view from the Big Hill trig point (east of the Calder) is
outstanding. Long range views are afforded to distant peaks and ridges
across the broader landscape, including Mt Alexander and Mt Macedon.
From this vantage point the landscape system of the broader region, of
which Big Hill is clearly a part, is evident. This view is of regional
significance.
TheSignificantLandscapeOverlayreferencesthesignificanceofBigHillin
thearrivaljourneyintoBendigo.ReferencetothesignificanceofBigHillin
the outward journey from Bendigo should also be reflected in the
Significant Landscape Overlay. This would also relate to the viewing
opportunityfromthecrestandthecutting,wherebylongrangeviewsare
affordedovertheruralwoodlandslandscape.
7
8
EastGippslandC68PanelReport,April2009,p.121
SouthGippslandC45PanelReport,June2009,p.19
Page35of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
CouncilsubmittedthatitdidnotsupportthealternativeboundaryproposedbyMrHaack,
statingthattheevidence:
should be treated as a visual impact assessment not an assessment of
landscapevalues
relied almost solely on visual aspects of the Big Hill area and did not
consider other issues that holistically contribute to landscape significance
suchgeology,historicvalues,socialandculturalvalues
hadlimitationsinrelationtoalloftheviewpointsselected,suchasroadside
vegetation
selectively captured elements of a mapping exercise without any
relationshiptothevisualaspectsofthelandscape
failed to capture the significant elements of the lowlands of Ravenswood
Run,orthesignificantviewshedfromthetrigpointoftheridgeline.
Council submitted that issues identified in East Gippsland Amendment C68 Panel in
determiningappropriateSignificantLandscapeOverlayboundariesillustrated:
Thecomplexityinvolvedindeterminingboundaries.ThefindingsofthisPanel
demonstratetheneedtobecarefullydiscriminatingindeterminingboundaries
and to provide a clear rationale for the location of each boundary, which
PlanisphereandCouncilhaveaimedtodointhisStudy.
(iii)
SignificantLandscapeOverlaySchedule4MandurangValley
CouncilsubmittedthattheStudydeterminedthattherewerethreedistinctcharacterareas
intheMandurangValleyarea(seeFigure3):
CharacterArea3MandurangValleySouth
TheboundaryofthisCharacterAreahasbeendefinedbycadastraland
zone boundaries to include the southern sections of the Mandurang
Valley which display an open, pastoral and largely undeveloped
character and are located between the areas of designated
National/RegionalPark.
CharacterArea4MandurangValleyNorth
TheboundaryofthisCharacterAreahasbeendefinedbycadastraland
zone boundaries to include the northern sections of the Mandurang
Valley which display an open and more developed character and are
locatedbetweentheareasofdesignatedNational/RegionalPark.
CharacterArea5MandurangValleyForestInterface
TheboundaryofthisCharacterAreahasbeendefinedbycadastraland
zone boundaries to include the parts the Mandurang Valley which
adjoin the areas of designated National/Regional Park and display a
forestedcharacter.
Council submitted that the Study recommended that the Significant Landscape Overlay be
appliedto:
AllofCharacterArea3,onthebasisthatthe:
Page36of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Page37of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Council provided a summary of the eleven submissions received that objected to the
proposedSignificantLandscapeOverlayongroundswhichrelatespecificallytothefindings
oftheStudy:
Submissions20,21,25,28,35,38&45
Why were some parts of the Mandurang Valley included in the
SignificantLandscapeOverlayandnotothers?Theareassubjecttothe
overlayappearselectiveandnotadequatelyjustified.
Submissions20,21&38
WhywerepartsofNankervisRoadandMandurangRoadnotincludedin
theoverlay?
Submissions12&14
All of Tannery Lane should be included in the Significant Landscape
Overlay. In particular, the north side provides the setting for views to
One Tree Hill. Roadside vegetationalong Tannery Lane should also be
protected.
Submissions20,21,25,28,38,45
Why is the Mandurang Valley Forest Interface Character Area in the
proposedSignificantLandscapeOverlayareaandnototherpartsofthe
MandurangValley?
Submissions35
Why is the Mandurang Valley South Character Area in the proposed
Significant Landscape Overlay area and not other parts of the
MandurangValley?
Submissions20,21,25,28,35,38,45
Theoverlaywillundulyrestrictdevelopment.
Submission23
The boundaries of the overlays do not appear to be defined or well
thought out. The boundary of the overlay runs directly through our
houseandgardens(258TanneryLane).
Submission44
TheMandurangValleyisnotproductiveagriculturallandasdescribed
intheStudyReport.Thetermsrelativelyproductiveorarablewould
bemoreaccurate.
A number of submitters objected to Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4, suggesting
thatexistingcontrolswereadequatetoprotectlandscapevaluesintheMandurangValley:
the aims of the proposed overlay are already covered to a great extent by existing
legislation,particularlyintheMandurangValley(GeoffandBethHosking,submitter23)
thecurrentplanningregulationsandoverlaysaresoundenoughtomaintainthevisual
aestheticvaluesoftheregion(MandurangValley)(DrParratandDrTogno,submitter25
andMsMonro,submitter38).
DrParratandDrTogno(submitter25)objecttotheselectiveapplicationoftheoverlayon
thegroundsthatifthevisualaestheticoftheMandurangValleyiscritical,thentheoverlay
should be applied across the whole community. The logic for selective application of the
Page38of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
overlay is not clear it is difficult to interpret from the documentation supplied the
justificationfortherecommendationsthathavebeenputforwardforapproval.
Inresponsetosubmissions,Councilsubmittedthat:
AreasexcludedfromtheSignificantLandscapeOverlay,Schedule4werein
theMandurangValleyNorthCharacterAreaandhadalreadyexperienceda
highlevelofchange
the identified significant values of Tannery Lane are sufficiently protected
through the existing heritage overlay and environmental significance
overlay.Onbalance,giventhelevelofchangeexperiencedwithinTannery
Lane and the current statutory management of notable elements, it was
consideredtonegatetheneedforanSignificantLandscapeOverlay
the Mandurang Valley Forest Interface Character Area is included in the
SignificantLandscapeOverlaytoprotectthehighlyforestedsettingofthe
properties located at the edge of the Bendigo Box Ironbark Forest and
becausetheareaisconsideredtobesensitivetofuturechange
the Mandurang Valley South Character Area is included in the Significant
Landscape Overlay as it is considered to be sensitive to future change in
terms of further vegetation removal and new development that would
impactonthepreferredcharacterofthearea
the Significant Landscape Overlay is not intended to prevent or unduly
restrict development, but to ensurethat development sits respectfully in
thelandscapeandthatvegetationcoverismaintainedandstrengthened.
The proposed Significant Landscape Overlay Schedules allow flexibility in
designresponsesandincludepermitexemptionsforminorproposals
therewasamappinganomalyaffecting258TanneryLaneand44Coolabah
Drive, and the intention was to include the entire area of both properties
withintheSignificantLandscapeOverlay
theuseofthetermproductivereferredtoagriculturalactivitywithinthe
landscape rather than large scale agricultural activity, and this could be
rewordedtoclarifyshouldthePanelseefit.
In closing, Council submitted that while several submitters sought inclusion of the entire
MandurangValleyintheSignificantLandscapeOverlay,itwasconsideredthattheexisting
planning controls applied to Mandurang Valley North landscape were adequate for
protectingsignificantelements,inparticularheritageandenvironmentalvalues.
(iv)
BoxIronbarkForest
Council submitted that the Study identified one character area of public land, namely
CharacterArea6BoxIronbarkForest.Thisareaisboundedby:
cadastral and zone boundaries to include the parts the Mandurang Valley
which are located within, or immediately adjoin, the areas of designated
National/RegionalPark.
TheCharacterArea6exhibitsamoderatelevelofvisuallandscapevalues,andhigherlevels
ofotherlandscapevalues.
Page39of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Council submitted the area is not proposed to be included in the Significant Landscape
Overlay as the area is mostly within the Public Conservation and Resource Zone (or other
publicland)andsubjecttoalandmanagementstrategy.
Councilsubmittedthat:
The National and Regional Parks were not recommended for an Significant
LandscapeOverlayasitwasconsideredthemanagementplansfortheseareas
and relevant legislation (Crown Land Reserves Act and National Parks Act)
wouldadequatelyprotecttheirlandscapevalues.Theywerealsonotseento
beunderpressurefordevelopment.
(v)
IstheSignificantLandscapeOverlayonerous?
AnumberofsubmissionscontendthattheproposedSignificantLandscapeOverlayandits
Scheduleswereonerousandwouldresultinanincreasednumberofplanningapplications
andanincreasedcostformakingimprovementstoproperties.
MrandMsHosking(submitter23)submittedthatshouldtheseamendmentsbeaccepted,
theresultwouldbemoretimeandmoneyspentonadministration.
Mr Connor submitted that the proposed control is onerous, citing an example that on
unsighted land from the railway line or highway, a farmer will need discrete planning
permissiontoconstructorcarryoutworks.
MrConnorsubmitted,bywayofexample,thattoconstructahayshedthatisgreaterthan
100 square meters in floor area, a landowner would be required to submit a planning
applicationaccompaniedby:
detailedsiteevaluation
landscapeplan
visualimpactassessment.
MrConnorreferencedEastGippslandAmendmentC68,whichstatesinrecommendingthat
thestrategicworkbeconsidered,thePanelreferredtotheonerousnatureoftheSignificant
LandscapeOverlaysandstated:
We consider that given the quite extensive permit requirements and
decisionguidelinessetoutintheeachoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlay
schedules,theareascoveredbytheSignificantLandscapeOverlaysshould
be more carefully and logically defined, so that land is not unnecessarily
included. The extent of the areas covered by Significant Landscape
Overlaysneedtobereviewedinlightofthetopographyofthecoastalland
inparticular.
Council submitted that a large portion of the study area, particularly properties in the
MandurangValley,arealreadysubjecttoavarietyofplanningcontrolsandwouldrequirea
planning permit for buildings and works anyway. These existing controls include the
Bushfire Management Overlay, Environmental Significance Overlay, Development Plan
Overlay and Vegetation Protection Overlay, or zone controls for properties on less than
minimumsizedlots,forexampletheRuralLivingZone.
Page40of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
CouncilsubmittedthattheSignificantLandscapeOverlay(Clause42.03)containedcontrols
suitedtoprotectionofsignificantlandscapesinthestudyarea,including:
a buildings and works permit requirement with some exemptions for agricultural
activities, fencing and vegetation removal. The vegetation exemptions include those
required for fire protection and road safety that were of concern to a number of
submitters.
provisionwithinthescheduletoincludeauniquestatementofnatureandkeyelements
oflandscapeandlandscapecharacterobjectivesthatareuniquetoeachlocation
provision for a list of further exemptions from the buildings and works requirement in
Clause42.03.Proposedexemptedworksincluded:
Alterationsandadditionstoexistingdwellingsoragriculturalbuildingsless
than5metresinheightor50m2inarea.
Newagriculturalbuildingslessthan5metersinheightand100m2inarea.
Buildingsancillarytoadwelling(suchasdomesticsheds)lessthan5metres
inheightor50m2inarea.
provisionforalistoffurtherexemptionsrelatingtovegetationremoval.
Council submitted that the proposed exemptions were reasonable and would allow
landowners to undertake a variety of works without additional planning requirements.
Theschedulealsoallowsforplanningapplicationinformationrequirementstobespecified,
and decision guidelines which relate to the character objectives. The proposed guidelines
requireconsiderationofmatterssuchasvisualimpactofbuildings,siting,design,scaleand
character,andtheimpactofthelossofvegetation.
On this basis the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay will add another, but essential,
layer of consideration to the existing planning requirements. That layer will require the
proponentandtheCitytohaveregardtoimportantlandscapevalues.
(vi)
TheCFA(submitter51),submittedthat:
TheareaidentifiedforapplicationoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlay(SLO)is
affectedbytheBushfireManagementOverlay(BMO),withtheBMOcovering
largeareasof land surrounding the Big Hill and Mandurang. The CFA notes
that there is vegetation not currently covered by the BMO that meets the
criteria for BMO mapping as outlined in the DELWP Planning Advisory Note
46:BushfireManagementOverlayMappingMethodologyandCriteria.
The CFA outlined that the bushfire risk identified is primarily associated with the Box
IronbarkForestandfromvegetationonprivatelandontheoutskirtsofexistingsettlements.
The Bendigo and District Environment Council (submitter 9) submitted that the Study and
the Amendment failed to deal with the severity of the wildfire problem. The Big Hill
Ravenswood area is a disaster waiting to happen as far as grass fire is concerned. The
submissionstatesthattheactualfireriskforBigHillRavenswoodisgrassandisextreme
andtheBendigoLandscapeAssessmentFinalReport2013andtheAmendmentfailtodeal
withtheseverityoftheproblem.
Page41of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Mr Fraser submitted that fire risk in the area is a major issue, particularly risk from grass
fires,andthatsubstantialbuffersarerequiredbetweenhighriskareasandproperty.This
willbecomemorepronouncedwithclimatechangeasfiresbecomemoreintense,frequent
andlesspredictable.
Mr Fraser submitted that the Significant Landscape Overlay should contain direction
concerning fire mitigation in the grasslands especially concerning the Big Hill Ravenswood
area.
Anumberofsubmitters(20,21,25,26,28,38and45)identifiedarangeofconcernsrelating
tobushfireriskresultingfromapplicationoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlay:
increasebushfireriskasaresultofrestrictionstovegetationmanagementthatmaylimit
landholdersclearingland
impactonthelandholderspermission/guaranteetorebuildifafirediddestroydwellings
intheoverlayarea.
Anumberofsubmitters(7,25,26,27and45)raisedconcernsthattheproposedSignificant
Landscape Overlay would result in excessive regrowth on roadsides and on properties
subjecttotheoverlay,whichmayresultinincreasedfirerisk.
DELWP (submitter 7) submitted that consideration should be given to ecological thinning,
regrowthmanagementandspeciesselectionalongroadsides.
Submitters9,18and30suggestedthatawildfireassessmentshouldbeundertakenacross
thestudyarea,consideringthepotentialforbothgrassfireandbushfire.Itwassuggested
thataBushfireManagementOverlaymayneedtobeappliedfollowingthisassessment.
Anumberofsubmittersrequestedthatfurtherinvestigationandmappingbeundertakenin
relationto:
Biodiversity(submitters2,6,8,9,10,30,31,39,42and49)
Soils(submitters5,6,8,9,17,18and49)
Wildfire(submitters9,18and30).
MrLottkowitz(submitter44)presentedtothePanelthatthereportdealtinadequatelywith
issuesofclimatechange.
Council submitted that there are areas affected by the proposed Significant Landscape
OverlaythatareaffectedbytheBushfireManagementOverlayinMandurang.Itsubmitted
that the CFA issues were addressed by a number of changes to the Significant Landscape
Overlay.
The CFA proposed changes to the Amendment to increase the consideration of bushfire
hazard.
Insummary,theproposedchangesagreedtobyCouncilinclude:
Under the heading Landscape in Clause 21.08, the sentence now reads It is
important that development within, or immediately adjoining, these areas is
sited and designed to respect their identified significant landscape character
and values, and have regard to the hazard, in particular, bushfire. Clause
21.084 Implementation under the heading of Zone and Overlays has also
Page42of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
PublicTransportVictoria
4.3
Discussion
ThePanelconsidersthatitisappropriatetoapplytheSignificantLandscapeOverlaywhen
protecting multiple values that collectively contribute to significant landscape character of
anarea,andwhenexistingoralternativecontrolsdonotadequatelyprotectvalues.
WhilstallofthepanelreportsconsiderapplicationofaSignificantLandscapeOverlay,they
all consider amendments to implement findings of statewide or regional landscape
assessmentstudies,includingtheCoastalSpacesLandscapeAssessmentStudy2006andthe
GreatOceanRoadRegionLandscapeAssessmentStudy2003.
Consequently, the cited planning panel reports recommend that the Significant Landscape
Overlay be applied to regional and state significant landscapes, not locally significant
landscapes, stating that landscape of local significance could be adequately managed by
generalandspecificcharacterobjectivesandstrategiesidentifiedintheMSS9.
AsdiscussedinChapter3ofthisreport,thePanelhasfoundtheStudydoesnotdetermine
the comparative significance of the landscapes it proposes to protect using the Significant
Landscape Overlay. It does, however, rank the character areas within the study area as
beingofhigherorlowersignificancerelativetoeachother.Thisrankingdoesnotassist
with understanding the suitability of applying the Significant Landscape Overlay to the
particularlandscapecharacterareas.
The Panel notes that there are no clear guidelines from State Government about the
appropriateapplicationoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlaytolandscapesoflocal,regional
orStatesignificance.
(i)
SignificantLandscapeOverlaySchedule3
The Panel is not convinced that the area proposed for application of the Significant
LandscapeOverlay,Schedule3isappropriate,onthebasisthat:
largeareasoftheStudyareaarenotvisiblefromanypublicallyaccessibleviewpoints
proposed curtilage has primarily been determined by cadastral and management
boundaries,ratherthanlandscapefeaturesandvisibility
SouthGippslandC45PanelReport,p.1718
Page43of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
areasareexcludedfromtheproposedSignificantLandscapeOverlay,Schedule3onthe
basisofprotectionbyotherplanningcontrols,inparticularzonecontrols.
ThePanelidentifiedduringsiteinspections,fromtravelingalongthemainroadwaysaround
andwithinthestudyarea,andfromasiteinspectiononRavenswoodRun,that:
thevisualimpactofBigHillasyoutraveltowardsBendigoalongtheCalderHighwayis
subtle,andasdescribedbyPlanisphere,theBigHilllandscapemergesvisuallywiththe
broaderlandscapesystem
views to the Big Hill ridgeline are not expansive, but provide for glimpses of the
escarpment and ridgeline at various locations along the Highway and other roads
throughoutthestudyarea
thebulkoftheforegroundisnotvisibleduetotheundulatingtopographyandroadside
vegetation
viewsasyoutravelsouthfromBendigoareimpactfulandtheBigHilltrigpoint(which
hasextremelylimitedpublicaccess)providesimpressivedistantviewstoMtAlexander
andMtMacedon
views to the south eastern ridgeline and escarpment are prominent from various
locationsasyoutravelsouthalongtheOldCalderandnewCalderFreeways(thisareais
notcurrentlyincludedintheSignificantLandscapeOverlay)
themostvisuallyprominentlandscapevaluesincludetheBoxIronbarkForest,theBigHill
ridgelineandothernativevegetation,suchasoldscatteredRiverRedGums
there is evidence of a negative visual impact on the Box Ironbark forest as a result of
infrastructureworks.
The Panel found merit in the evidence presented by Mr Haack that the study process and
conclusionsdidnotadequatelyjustifyapplicationoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlay.The
evidence also raised questions about the visual assessment of the landscape, and
subsequentconclusionsaboutlandscapecharacterandsignificanceofidentifiedvalues.
The Panel notes that the original strategic driver for the Study identified the need for
assessmentoftheBigHillescarpment.ThePanelalsonotesthatCouncilsubmittedthatthe
draftCentralVictoriaLandscapeAssessmentStudy(2015)recommendedasmallerareafor
applicationofaSignificantLandscapeOverlayinthestudyarea.
ThePanelacceptsthatthereissomecomplexityinundertakingalandscapeassessmentand
determining landscape significance, however the Panel considers it reasonable that the
landscape unit must predominantly be visible, and that the controls are warranted on the
basisthatdevelopmentinthesubjectlandmaychangeorimpactonthedesiredlandscape
character.
ThePanelagreeswiththefindingsofthepanelreportforSouthGippslandAmendment45,
andsuggeststhatthetermvisibleistakentocoverestablishedpatternsofpublicviewing
fromroads,townshipsandrecreationallocationsacrossthestudyarea10.
10
SouthGippslandC45PanelReport,June2009,p.19
Page44of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
The Panel concludes that for a landscape to be deemed suitable for application of the
Significant Landscape Overlay, that it first must be determined as a significant landscape,
andthatsecondly,itmustpredominantlybeabletobeseen.
ThePanelacknowledgesthatothercitedpanelreportsidentifythattherearesomeissues
with translation of the landscape assessment study findings into Significant Landscape
Overlays,inparticulardeterminationofappropriateboundaries.
ThePanelnotesthattheStudyrecommendstheSignificantLandscapeOverlayboundaries
be determined by roads and zone controls / cadastral data, essentially for ease of
administration.Whenconsideringthesuitabilityofboundarylocations,thePanelrefersto
the planning panel report recommendation in East Gippsland C68 (2009), that the inland
boundariesrelatemorecloselytothetopography.
ThePanelfoundthattheStudyconclusionsdidreferencevisibility,contoursandelevation
(p. 132) in relation to application of the overlay, but this was not translated into
recommendationsforthecurtilageboundary.Giventhatalandscapeunitisdeterminedby
geographic or natural features rather than constructed features or mapping logistics, it
seems reasonable to the Panel that natural features be used as the basis of determining
logicalboundariesforaSignificantLandscapeOverlay.
Whilst convenient to determine overlay curtilage based on governance boundaries, the
Panel considers it more appropriate to determine boundaries based on the site area and
featuresoflandscapesignificanceandvisibility.
With regard to the submission of DEDJTR, the Panel agrees with Councils submission that
the Amendment is not prohibiting any extractive industry, and any such activity would be
subjecttoaplanningpermitandwhichwouldconsiderationofarangeofplanningmatters,
includingvisualimpact.
(ii)
SignificantLandscapeOverlaySchedule4
CouncilsubmittedthatthelandscapecharactervaluesoftheMandurangValleywerelower
thanforBigHill,butthatapplicationoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlay,Schedule4was
stillwarrantedinareaswherethereissignificantdevelopmentpressurewhichmayresultin
changetothelandscapecharacter.
Whilst application of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 has been determined
basedontheassessmentofthesignificanceoflandscapecharacterareas,theredoesappear
tobesomeinconsistencyinitsapplication.Inparticular,someareashavebeenexcludedas
they are already protected by existing controls, such as Heritage Overlay and the
EnvironmentalSignificanceOverlayinTanneryLane.However,inotherpartsoftheValley
theSignificantLandscapeOverlayisproposedbecausetheexistingcontrols,suchasHeritage
OverlayandEnvironmentalSignificanceOverlay,donotadequatelyprotectvalues.
There does not appear to be strong community support for the application of Significant
Landscape Overlay, Schedule 4, with twenty of the thirty three submissions relating to
MandurangValleyobjectingtotheAmendment.
The majority of submissions supporting application of the Significant Landscape Overlay,
Schedule4relatetoecologicalandnaturallandscapevalues,asopposedtovisualamenity.
Page45of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
The most evident visual landscape values in the Mandurang Valley relate to the forest
interface properties. To protect landscape values by managing vegetation removal and
ensuring that development is integrated with the landscape, it is suggested that the
SignificantLandscapeOverlaySchedule4isappropriateattheforestinterface.
Given that many questions have been raised about the consistency of application of the
SignificantLandscapeOverlay,andthePanelsuggeststhatapplicationtotheforestinterface
areasbereviewedtoensureconsistency.
ThePanelidentifiedduringsiteinspections,fromtravelingalongthemainroadwaysaround
andwithinthestudyarea,thatthevisualvaluesoftheMandurangValleyareinconsistent
and the most visually prominent landscape values includethe Box Ironbark Forest. It was
thePanelsviewAreasontheforestinterfacewhereremnantvegetationhasbeenprotected
anddevelopmenthasbeenwellintegratedwiththelandscape.
(iii)
ApplicationoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlayoverPublicLand
TheBoxIronbarkForestCharacterAreawasrankedintheStudyashigherandmoderatefor
all landscape values, which was one of the highest rankings of all character areas in the
Study. The Study did not, however, recommend application of the Significant Landscape
Overlay on the basis that the underlying zone control adequately protected landscape
values.
ThePanelnotesPlanningPracticeNote2,PublicLandZonesguidanceonwhethertoapply
anoverlaytolandzonedforpublicpurposes:
Indecidingwhethertoapplyanoverlaytoland,thepubliclandzonesshould
betreatedinthesamemannerasotherzonesLiketheapplicationofany
overlay, there must be specific justification for the additional requirement.
Appropriateprovisionsmustbemadefortheroutineoperationsofthepublic
use,suchasexemptionforregularmaintenance11.
In reviewing other planning panels referenced by Council in support of the Planisphere
landscapeassessmentstudymethodology,thePanelnotesthatotherpanelreportsregularly
referencetheappropriatenessofapplyingtheSignificantLandscapeOverlaytopublicland.
ThefollowingGlenelgC52Panelcommentsarerelevant:
PlanningpanelreportsfromthecoastallandscapeamendmentsintheEast
Gippsland,SouthGippsland,BassCoastandGreaterGeelongmunicipalities
have consistently recommended that, contrary to the intention of CSLAS
studydesign,itwasnotgoodplanningpolicytoentirelyexcludeCrownland
from the operation of the SLOs. The reasons have been well argued by
successivepanelsanddonotneedtobereiteratedatlengthinthisReport.
ThefollowingEastGippslandC68Panelcommentsarepertinent:
The degree to which objectives of Crown land management coincide
with objectives to protect the visual qualities of significant landscapes
varies and there are examples of development on coastal public land
11
PlanningPracticeNote2,PublicLandZones,June2015
Page46of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
withadverseimpactsonlandscapevalues,suchastoiletblocks,visitor
centres,campsites,kiosks,spas,surflifesavingfacilities,etc.
The exclusion of Crown land from the overlays may give an
inappropriate public message that in an inequitable fashion the
Government is not prepared to subject itself to the same level of
planning scrutiny as that to which private land owners are subjected.
The exclusion of Crown land results in overlay maps that look
unconvincingsofarascomprehensiverecognitionoflandscapevalueis
concerned.12.
The Panel observed during their site inspection that the public land, including Bendigo
NationalPark,formedanintegralcomponentofthelandscapesignificanceofthearea,and
that the visual integrity of the landscape was being impacted negatively by infrastructure
workssuchaspowerlineextension.
ThePanelconcurswithotherpanelfindingsthatanyrevisionofapplicationoftheSignificant
Landscape Overlay should consider public land, to ensure that approaches to land
management align with the objectives to protect visual qualities of a landscape. Relevant
permitexemptionsforpubliclandmanagersshouldbeincludedinanyrevisedschedule.
(iv)
Bushfire
There is a need to balance amenity with risk management in all areas that are fire prone.
The inclusion of the changes proposed by the CFA aim to achieve this balance for this
Amendment . Community education is essential in achieving this balance of amenity and
safety.ThePanelacknowledgesthatbushfire,andgrassfireisamajorissueintheBendigo
region.
The changes to the schedules go in some part to addressing the broader fire risk in
Mandurang,howeverfurtherworkisneededinBigHill.TheCFA,DELWPandCouncilneed
to continue working on an appropriate response to the fire threat and how any overlay
applied can mitigate some of the risk. As discussed in Chapter 4 of this report, the CFA
proposed to change the Amendment to increase the consideration of bushfire hazard and
Councilagreedtotheproposedchanges.Arevisedscheduleshouldincludethisapproach.
The community concerns about the ongoing risk of fire are noted. The Amendment was
particularly related to the significance of landscape and it is the Panels view that the
community was too narrow in its criticisms regarding the Amendment and its ability to
addressissuesrelatingtofire.SinceBlackSaturdayadditionstotheplanningschemeand
ongoingpolicyaddressestheissueofprioritisinghumanlifefrombushfire.Theproposed
SignificantLandscapeOverlaysdonotexistinisolationandallpartsoftheplanningscheme
must also be considered when a responsible authority is deciding whether to issue a
planningpermit.
12
GlenelgC52PanelReport,March2011,p.2930
Page47of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
(v)
ExhibitedSchedules
ThePanelhasnotgoneintodetailorprovidedmarkedupSchedulesforreasonsoutlinedin
thisreport.Inparticular,theStatementsofnatureandkeyelementsoflandscapesections
need redrafting to link more appropriately with a revised Study and curtilage. The
exemptionsandwordingprovidedbyboththeCFAandPublicTransportVictoriashouldbe
carriedoverintoanyrevisedSchedulethatarisesoutoftheworkrequiredtocompletethe
Amendment.
(vi)
Theneedtoreexhibit
The Panel does not endorse the Amendment in its current form and recommends a
deferment rather than abandonment. It does so acknowledging the time, effort and
ultimate cost in undertaking this type of Amendment. The need to reexhibit the
AmendmentwillbeajudgementcallbasedonthecourseofactionthattheCounciltakes.
ThePaneldoesnotconsiderthatareductionintheSignificantLandscapeOverlayonexisting
notified properties and Study refinements as proposed would not be considered a
transformation.
TheexhibitedschedulesasexplainedabovewouldlikelyonlyrequirerefinementtoSection
1.0ofSignificantLandscapeOverlaySchedule3and4dependingonthelevelofrefinement
that occurs. However if Council extends the Overlay in its redrafting then it would be
considered that the purpose of the exhibited Amendment has changed and either re
exhibition or a new Amendment process would be required, allowing those additional
propertyownerstobenotified.WhisttheredraftedScheduleswouldrefinethedetailofthe
Schedules,thepurposeoftheAmendmentwouldnotbechanged.
4.4
Conclusions
Page48of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
4.5
3.
Recommendations
The Significant Landscape Overlay Schedules as exhibited are not supported.
Council should reexamine the areas covered by the Significant Landscape
Overlay.Theareasshouldbemorecarefullyandlogicallydefinedsothatlandis
notunnecessarilyincluded.Thisreviewshould:
a)
include significant landscape areas zoned Rural Conservation Zone and
PublicConservationandResourceZone
b)
includetheridgelineandescarpmentatBigHillandsubstantiallyreducethe
applicationtotheremainderofthesiteatRavenswoodRun
c)
uselandscapefeaturestodeterminetheoverlaycurtilage
d)
provide a logical boundary around the Box Ironbark forest and interface
properties.
Page49of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Othermatters
5.1
Protectionofenvironmentalvaluesinthestudyarea
(i)
TheIssue
Evidenceandsubmissions
A number of submitters (4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 24, 29, 30, 50, 36 and 42) supported the
Amendment on the basis that it would result in improved protection of natural assets, in
particularbiodiversityandhabitatforwildlife.
Some submissions raised concerns that the Significant Landscape Overlay would not
adequatelyprotectnaturalvalues,forexample:
major problems with salinity in the Ravenswood area have long been recognised
(submitter8)
BallaratandDistrictEnvironmentCouncil(submitter9)supportedtheAmendment,but
believed that the attention given to wildfire, salinity and erosion is inadequate they
wouldliketoseeimportantfloraandfaunaareasmapped
G and M Rosier (submitter 42) requested that the recommendations of the Dyson and
Associates reports be incorporated into the management plans for the Significant
Landscape Overlay, in particular actions relating to biodiversity, ecological mapping,
salinity,erosion,groundwaterandbushfire.
A large number of submitters requested that additional research be undertaken to fully
understandenvironmentalvaluesandrisksinthestudyarea.
Submitters2,6,8,9,10,30,31,39,42and49requestedthattheCityofGreaterBendigo
undertakebiodiversitymappingforthestudyarea,toensurethatkeyassetsareidentified
andadequatelyprotectedandmanaged.TheBendigoFieldNaturalistsClubInc.(submitter
29)statedtheareacontainsregionallysignificantecologicalvegetationclassesandhabitat
forfauna,someofwhicharedecliningorendangered.
Submitters5, 6, 8, 9, 17, 18 and 49 identified concerns about the fragility of the soils and
manyrequestedthattheCityofGreaterBendigoundertakefurtherresearchtounderstand
the soils in the area, with an aim to better understanding and managing threats such as
salinityanderosion.
Council responded that the proposed studies are outside the scope of the landscape
assessment, and that these types of studies are relevant only to the application of other
planningoverlays.
Page50of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
Anumberofsubmitters(7,9and19)suggestedthattherewasaneedforgreaterprotection
ofsignificantvegetation,includingroadsidevegetationandoldRiverRedGums,whichare
foundacrossthestudyarea.
Submitters (7, 25, 26, 27 and 45) raised concerns that the Amendment would result in a
rangeofissuesthatwouldimpactnegativelyonroadsidemanagement,includingincreased
vegetationresultinginincreasedriskofwildfire,increasedwildlifedeaths,restrictedviews
andrestrictedareasforwalkersandcyclists.
Pestplantsandanimalswereidentifiedasanissuethatwasnotadequatelyaddressedinthe
Amendment, stating that the aims of the amendment do not acknowledge the rampant
invasionofnoxiousandenvironmentalweeds,ortheenvironmentalandeconomicproblems
causedbyintroducedpestanimals(GandBHosking,submitter23).
S Pelczynski and B Pelczynska (submitter 10) submitted that dead vegetation may provide
important habitat for native fauna, and request that the removal of dead vegetation be
includedasapermitisrequiredintheschedulestotheSignificantLandscapeOverlay.
Dr Bardsley and Ms Radford (submitter 49) recommended that Significant Landscape
OverlaySchedule4beextendedtocarefullyconsiderthephysicalpropertiesoftheterrain
which militate against development and require very careful management, i.e. salinity and
erosion.
Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30) submitted that further proposals should be
addedtothemanagementplanstoaddressenvironmentalproblemspresentattheBigHill
/ Ravenswood Valley. These recommendations related to further investigation and
management of hydrogeology, geology, biodiversity, bushfire, salinity and erosion, and
implementation of Salinity Management and Erosion Management Overlays as part of the
Amendment.
MsGlaisher(submitter8)submittedthatwhilstshewasinfavouroftheAmendmentthatit
would be useful to undertake further independent studies to better understand the local
geomorphology, erosion and salinity, aboriginal heritage values and biodiversity to help
clarify the implications for any proposed changes to land management in the area. Ms
Glaisher suggested that this would help people to understand the importance of the
proposed Significant Landscape Overlay which would increase acceptance of possible
constraints.
MsGlaisheralsosubmittedthataspartoftheStudy,preliminarystudieshadidentifiedten
aboriginalarchaeologicalsitesandthatthesedemandedfurtherinvestigation.
(iii)
Discussion
Itisevidentthattherearelargenumberofenvironmentalvaluesandassetsacrossthestudy
area. There are varying levels of knowledge about the significance and appropriate
managementactionsrequiredtoprotectthesevalues.Someofthesevaluesareprotected
byexistingplanningcontrols.
DuringthePanelssitevisittothestudyarea,itwasobservedthattherewerelargeareasof
significant vegetation on public and private land, there was other significant vegetation
includingscatteredoldRiverRedGumsacrosstheBigHillstudyarea,andtherewerelarge
Page51of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
areassignificantlyimpactedbysalinityanderosion.Therewasalargeareaofrevegetation
plantingontheRavenswoodRunproperty,thatwasundertakenbylocalLandcaregroups,to
assistwithmanagingsalinityacrosstheregion.
Thereisstronginterestfromthecommunityinunderstandingtheenvironmentalvaluesand
risks of the study area, and ensuring that these are adequately protected and managed
throughplanningcontrols.
ItisclearthattheBendigoLandscapeAssessmentidentifiedsomeofthesevaluesatavery
highlevel,butthoroughinvestigationwasbeyondtheStudybrief.Anumberofidentified
values, such as biodiversity, whilst somewhat protected by vegetation controls under the
proposedSignificantLandscapeOverlay,maybebetterprotectedbyamorespecificcontrol,
suchastheEnvironmentalSignificanceOverlay.
AnumberofstudieswereidentifiedbysubmittersthatwerenotconsideredbytheBendigo
Landscape Assessment. There may be a need to review these studies, and to undertake
further investigation into environmental values and risks across the study area, and to
ensurethatplanningcontrolsadequatelyprotectandmanagethese.
The Panel notes that the Study did not include any recommendations in the Landscape
Management Framework relating to additional research or other planning controls to
protectidentifiedvalues.ThePanelconsidersthisanoversight.
(iv)
Conclusions
ThePanelconcludes:
communityinterestandconcernfortheenvironmentisevident
manyoftheissuesraisedbythecommunityarebeyondthescopeofthisAmendment
andthepurposeoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlay
AnumberofsubmittersrecommendedadditionalcontrolsbeincludedintheSignificant
LandscapeOverlay,includingcontrolsrelatingtosalinityanderosion.ThePanelagrees
withCouncilandconsidersthatthesematterswouldbedealtwithmoreappropriately
through other planning controls, such as the Salinity Management Overlay and the
ErosionManagementOverlay.
5.2
Protectionofthestudyareafromdevelopment
(i)
Theissue
Many submitters believed that the intention of the Study and the Amendment was to
preventfurtherdevelopment.
(ii)
Evidenceandsubmissions
A number of submissions (4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 17, 18, 24, 29, 30, 35, 36, 41 and 50) indicated
support for the Amendment because it would deter or restrict future development of the
studyarea.
Council submitted that in the areas subject to the Significant Landscape Overlay do not
envisagenorplanforfurtherresidentialgrowthotherthanthatenabledbythesubdivision
controls in the respective zones. The City of Greater Bendigos strategic direction is to
Page52of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
provide a nonurban break around the city, with residential development to be supported
onlyinareaszonedforrurallivingandinsmalltowns.Thiswasstronglysupportedbythe
AmendmentC215PanelReport.
Councilsubmitted:
The proposed Significant Landscape Overlays are intended to protect the
identifiedlandscapevaluesofthestudyareaandtomanagetheimpactthat
futureurbandevelopmentmayhaveuponthesevalues.Itisbeyondthescope
ofanSignificantLandscapeOverlaycontroltostopurbandevelopment.
The Design and Development Guidelines (Final Report, Appendix D) detail
ways in which development can be accommodated in the landscape. This
includessitinganddesignguidelinesforsubdivisionlayout,newbuildingsand
structures,signageandinfrastructure.TheStudyacknowledgesthatchangeis
a part of the heritage of every landscape and that change will continue into
thefuture.TheaimoftheStudyistomanagehowthischangeoccurs.
It was evident from several submissions that support for the Amendment included a
perceptionthatoverlaywasatooltolimitormanagedevelopmentinthestudyarea:
Thiswillhelpreducethechanceoftheseareasbeingdespoiledbyhousing
developments.Landscapesignificanceformemeansprotectingtheareas
fromdevelopments.Itdoesntmeanallowingdevelopmentsbecausethey
meetsomecriteriaonbuildingdesign(MrMorison,submitter4).
If a development project was proposed again at Big Hill Ravenswood
having an Significant Landscape Overlay would go a long way towards
stoping the destructionof a landscape the people of Bendigo find of such
greatvalue(BendigoandDistrictEnvironmentCouncil,submitter9).
Our expectation is that Planning Scheme Amendment C217, with its
proposed Significance Overlays, will be sufficient to deter any such
inappropriate development proposal in the future (Big Hill Acton Group,
submitter17).
To ensure that areas are protected from development that changes the
landscape or degrades the value of the area the geomorphology and
hydrologyoftheBigHillareaaresuchthattherewouldbemajorproblems
on site and downstream if residential development were permitted
(BendigoFieldNaturalistsClub,submitter29).
Itisvitalthatanyproposedincreaseinresidentiallandisbalancedwiththe
preservation of the natural landscape and the wildlife that reside
there.We believe that the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay
Amendment C217 will satisfy this important consideration (Bendigo
SustainabilityGroup,submitter30).
InresponsetoMrHarpers(submitter35)questiontoCouncilaboutwhethertheStudywas
beingundertakentopreventalargedevelopmentintheBigHillarea,Councilresponded
thattheprocesswaspartlyinresponsetodevelopmentpressureinthegeneralsense.
CouncilsubmittedthattheintentoftheSignificantLandscapeOverlayovertheBigHillridge
wastokeepitclearofdevelopmenttoretaintheridgeasadistinctivelandscapefeature.
Page53of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
(iii)
Discussionandconclusion
It was clear from submissions that there was a perception by some members of the
communitythatthepurposeoftheAmendmentwastopreventresidentialdevelopmentin
theStudyarea.InsomecasesthisledtosupportfortheAmendmentonthisbasis.
CouncildidclarifythattheintentionoftheAmendmentwasnottoprevent,buttomanage
development,inlinewithexistingstrategicdirectionsandzonecontrols.
The Panels agrees with Councils submission that the Significant Landscape Overlay is
intended to protect the identified landscape values of the study area and to manage the
impactthatanyfutureurbandevelopmentmayhaveuponthesevalues.
ThePanelconcludes:
That any review of the Study and the Amendment documentation clearly state the
purpose of the proposed changes to the planning scheme,in particular the purpose of
theSignificantLandscapeOverlay,andclearlyexplainthatItisbeyondthescopeofan
theoverlaycontroltostopurbandevelopment.
5.3
FeeSimple
(i)
Submissions
Anumberofsubmissions(12)raisedthematterofFeeSimple.Inclosing,Councilprovided
thefollowinginformation:
Anumberofthesubmissionstotheamendmentobjectedonthebasisthatthe
Significant Landscape Overlay would restrict their Fee Simple property
rights.
TheVictorianLawReformCommissiondescribesFeeSimpleasaformofland
ownershipunconditionalfreeholdestateinlandforanunlimitedduration.
Thereisarangeoflegislationthatlimitsapersonsuseoftheirfreeholdtitle.
Fee Simple does not create a free for all property owners. This legislation
covers a variety of issues including the environment, mining, fencing and
planning.
All land within Victoria (other than land owned by the Commonwealth
Government) is subject to planning controls. The Planning and Environment
Act (1987) places obligations on Councils acting as a planning authority to
furthertheobjectivesofplanningassetoutinSection4(1)oftheAct.Included
withintheseobjectivesisarequirementto:
toconserveandenhancethosebuildings,areasorotherplaceswhichareof
scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of
specialculturalvalue;
In the case of the current amendment, the application of the Significant
LandscapeOverlayisseekingtoachievethisparticularobjective.
(ii)
Conclusion
ThePanelmakesnofurthercommentonthematterandagreeswithCouncilsresponse.
Page54of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
AppendixA SubmitterstotheAmendment
No.
Submitter
No.
Submitter
DonaldandRosemaryMonro
28
MichaelandHeatherCampbell
LucasHodgens
29
BendigoFieldNaturalistsClub
RodricandHeatherMacLeod
30
BendigoSustainabilityPolicyGroup
PeterMorison
31
ShaneRohde
ChristineHooper
32
ChayanieandJaredMarwood
ChrisanneandGrantBlennerhassett
33
PamandIanNicholas
DepartmentofEnvironment,Land,
WaterandPlanning
34
DrJenniferAlden
RosemaryGlaisher
35
TomHarper
BendigoandDistrictEnvironment
Council
36
CraigMildwaters
10
StanislawPelczynskiandBarbara
Pelczynska
37
PaulVoltaandVirginiaBell
11
RosemaryPorter,GrahamMcDonald
andfamily
38
KimandJimMonro
12
KarenThomas
39
DianneLawlessandSamuelNielson
13
AnneBridley
40
TheNationalTrust
14
AndrewPrice
41
BrianandJulieEvans
15
LeonardHandley
42
GillandMickRosier
16
SpiireonbehalfofRavenswoodRun
43
TractonbehalfofRavenswoodRun
17
BigHillActionGroup
44
SteveLottkowitz
18
DrJoelandNilumiZiffer
45
JarrodTaylor
19
PeterMillar
46
TractonbehalfofSIARAPtyLtd
20
DMonro
47
PublicTransportVictoria
21
SMonro
48
RobbieandSueSutton
22
NoreenBoord
49
DrJohnBardsleyandWendyRadford
23
GeoffandBethHosking
50
TimothyBardsley
24
RobinandGleniseMoors
51
CFA
25
DrJennyParratandDrJohnTogno
52
DepartmentofEnvironment,Land,Waterand
Planning
26
PamFloreani
53
PeterMitchell
27
MaxFloreani
Page55of56
GreaterBendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217PanelReport1April2016
AppendixB Documentlist
No.
Date
Description
Presentedby
27/1/2016 PartBsubmissionoftheCityofGreaterBendigo
CityofGreaterBendigo
27/1/2016 GeologicalSurveyofVictoriaTechnicalRecord
1998/6BendigoSupplyAreaExtractive
IndustryInterestArea
DEDJTR
27/1/2016 RavenswoodSalinityProvince
BigHillActionGroup
27/1/2016 BigHillActionGrouppresentationandadditional
materials
BigHillActionGroup
27/1/2016 USBofsubmission
JillRosier/BigHill
ActionGroup
28/1/2016 IntroductorysubmissiononbehalfofRavenswood
RunPtyLtd
RavenswoodRun
28/1/2016 A3MapRavenswoodRunandproposed
SignificantLandscapeOverlay
RavenswoodRun
28/1/2016 A1Map/aerialphotoRavenswoodRunand
proposedSignificantLandscapeOverlay
RavenswoodRun
28/1/2016 ScheduletotheFarmingZone
RavenswoodRun
10
28/1/2016 A. EnvironmentalSignificanceOverlay
B. RestructureOverlay
RavenswoodRun
11
28/1/2016 PanelReportEastGippslandC68Coastal
LandscapesandUrbanSettlementPlans,April
2009
RavenswoodRun
12
28/1/2016 SubmissiontoPlanningPanelsVictoriaonGreater
BendigoPlanningSchemeAmendmentC217
WendyRadfordandDr
JohnBardsley
13
28/1/2016 A3MapSignificantLandscapeOverlay,Schedule4
WendyRadfordandDr
JohnBardsley
14
15
29/1/2016 Submission
SPelczynskiandB
Pelczynska
16
29/1/2016 FurthercommentsonSignificantLandscape
Overlay
BendigoandDistrict
EnvironmentCouncil
17
29/1/2016 USBofsubmission
BendigoandDistrict
EnvironmentCouncil
18
29/1/2016 Closingcomments
CityofGreaterBendigo
19
29/1/2016 ProposedamendmentstoSLOScheduleswith
trackchangesshowing
CityofGreaterBendigo
Page56of56