Planning Panels Evidence Statement

Glossop Town Planning Level 1, 182 Capel St, North Melbourne, VIC 3051

p.(03) 9329 2288 f.(03) 9329 2287 glossopco.com.au

Planning Panels Evidence Statement

Amendment C81 to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme

Statement prepared by John Glossop, Director

Glossop Town Planning Pty Ltd

January 2016

p.1

Glossop Town Planning Level 1, 182 Capel St, North Melbourne, VIC 3051 p.(03) 9329 2288 I glossopco.com.au

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 2

My Evidence .......................................................................................................... 2

Summary of Opinion .............................................................................................. 3

2. LOCATIONAL AND POLICY CONTEXT ...................................................... 5

The Nillumbik Green Wedge .................................................................................. 5

Policy Context ........................................................................................................ 6

3. THE AMENDMENT .................................................................................... 12

Process................................................................................................................ 14

4. PREPARATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE OVERLAY

SCHEDULES ............................................................................................. 17

Engagement ........................................................................................................ 17

Drafting Methodology ........................................................................................... 18

5. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS................................................................ 21

Overview .............................................................................................................. 21

Is the Amendment strategically justified? ............................................................. 21

The use of the Significant Landscape Overlay ..................................................... 27

Does the Amendment support State planning policy, including Plan Melbourne? 30

Does the Amendment address bushfire risk? ....................................................... 32

6. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 36

7. REQUIREMENTS UNDER PPV’S GUIDE TO EXPERT EVIDENCE ........ 37

p.2


1. INTRODUCTION

1. I received instructions from the Nillumbik Shire Council to prepare a statement of

planning evidence in relation to Amendment C81 to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme.

2. The amendment seeks to implement the Shire of Nillumbik Landscape Character

Assessments, 2009 by applying schedules to the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO)

to all land within the Shire’s green wedge area (excluding Kinglake National Park).

3. I was involved in the preparation of the amendment. My office assisted with the

drafting of the Significant Landscape Overlay schedules, through a peer review of the

controls, under instruction from Nillumbik Shire Council’s Strategic Planning

Department.

My Evidence

4. I have been instructed to provide a commentary on the methodology that guided the

preparation and drafting of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedules. My evidence

will also provide a strategic assessment of the amendment.

5. I have not been asked to consider the character elements of each Schedule, such as

the appropriateness of each ‘Statement of nature and key elements of landscape’ or

the ‘Landscape character objectives to be achieved’, nor the extent of mapping of

each Schedule.

6. In preparing this statement, I have:

Read the Shire of Nillumbik Landscape Character Assessment (Planisphere, 2009)

and the Character Precinct Design Guidelines (Nillumbik Shire Council, 2015) for

each precinct;

Reviewed the exhibited amendment, including the proposed Schedules to the

Significant Landscape Overlay, overlay mapping and the explanatory report;

p.3


Reviewed the post-exhibition version of the Schedules to the Significant

Landscape Overlay, which have been circulated to parties as part of this Panel

proceeding;

Considered the relevant aspects of the Nillumbik Planning Scheme, including the

State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks;

Reviewed Plan Melbourne;

Read the Nillumbik Green Wedge Management Plan 2010-2025;

Considered relevant Practice Notes (including PPN46: Strategic Assessment

Guidelines, PPN02: Public Land Zones, PPN07: Vegetation Protection in Urban

Areas, PPN10: Writing Schedules and PPN13: Incorporated and Reference

Documents); and

Read the agendas and minutes to the relevant Council meetings that considered

this amendment, namely the 26 June 2012 and 13 August 2015 meetings.

7. My evidence is based on the revised version of the Schedules to the Significant

Landscape Overlay that have been circulated as part of these proceedings, in

accordance with the Panel’s direction.

Summary of Opinion

8. It is my opinion that the Amendment is strategically justified and should be supported.

The Significant Landscape Overlay provides an appropriate mechanism to protect the

landscape character of the Nillumbik Green Wedge, which is significant in a

metropolitan-regional context. The Amendment makes appropriate use of the Victoria

Planning Provisions and the controls have been effectively drafted to implement the

Shire of Nillumbik Landscape Character Assessment (2009) and Nillumbik Green

Wedge Management Plan 2010-2025.

p.4


9. My conclusions and recommendations are set out at Section 6 of this Statement.

p.5


2. LOCATIONAL AND POLICY CONTEXT

The Nillumbik Green Wedge

10. The Nillumbik Green Wedge (the ‘Green Wedge’) is predominantly located within the

Shire of Nillumbik and accounts for 91% of its municipal area and all land outside the

Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). It is one of 12 designated green wedges at the fringe

of the Melbourne Metropolitan area.

Nillumbik Green Wedge. Source: Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

p.6


11. The Green Wedge is predominantly rural land, with private land zoned a mixture of

Rural Conservation Zone and Green Wedge Zone. A number of urban townships and

rural settlements (including St Andrews, Panton Hill, St Andrews and Yarrambat) are

also within the Green Wedge and are primarily zoned Township, Low Density

Residential and Rural Living.

12. Numerous productive agricultural activities, such as orcharding and viticulture are

located within the Green Wedge and the area has high tourism value for the region.

13. In landscape terms, the green wedge comprises a diverse range of landscapes, such

as open, rolling agricultural pastures and dense bushland.

Policy Context

The Shire of Nillumbik Landscape Character Assessment

14. The Shire of Nillumbik Landscape Character Assessment (2009) was adopted by

Council in December 2009. The report provides a detailed assessment of the

landscape character of the Shire’s Green Wedge areas and sets out detailed guidance

for site responsive design and style of development within these areas.

15. The report divides the Shire’s Green Wedge areas into seven distinct landscape

character areas, as follows:

Character Area 1 – Open Pastures;

Character Area 2 – Rolling Valleys;

Character Area 3 – Undulating Agricultural;

Character Area 4 – Bushy Slopes;

Character Area 5 – Agricultural Uplands;

p.7


Character Area 6 – River Interface; and

Character Area 7 – Suburban Rural.

16. The Study identifies that all parts of the Nillumbik Green Wedge have a high degree of

landscape significance within the municipality and the broader region. The unique

character of each area is described within individual precinct assessments.

17. The Study also notes:

The integrity of landscapes in the Nillumbik Green Wedge is often threatened by

new uses and developments which do not respond to the local characteristics of

areas. Design and development within the Shire of Nillumbik should continue to

contribute positively to the surrounding landscape. Good site planning and building

design are essential if new developments are to respect and reinforce the existing

character of the surrounding environment. The area denoted as ‘Green Wedge

Land’ covers many of the valued and sensitive landscapes within the Shire and,

therefore, is the focus of this Study.

Key design issues within Nillumbik’s Green Wedge landscapes include the design,

size and scale of buildings, the siting of dwellings on hilltops and along ridgelines,

the presence of multiple out-buildings and other structures, use of reflective

materials, clearing of vegetation, private landscaping, and other elements such as

signage, fencing and lighting that all potentially compromise the valued landscape

qualities of Nillumbik’s Green Wedge.

Nillumbik Green Wedge Management Plan

18. The Nillumbik Green Wedge Management Plan is a Council adopted strategy that

identifies the vision, objectives and actions for the sustainable management of each

green wedge. It is intended to inform the Municipal Strategic Statement within each

planning scheme, as well as other important Council plans and strategies, including

the Council Plan.

p.8


19. The Nillumbik Green Wedge Management Plan was adopted in 2010 and is in 2 parts.

Part 1 contains the background and context for the Nillumbik Green Wedge, while Part

2 sets out the vision, key strategies and actions for implementation.

20. Part 1 says that the Nillumbik Green Wedge contains significant native vegetation of

high conservation value. It is also an important part of the Yarra River’s catchment and

is home to significant natural wetland systems.

21. It also identifies that there is serious bushfire risk within the Nillumbik Green Wedge,

which has been subject to major bushfire events in 1939, 1962, 169, 1981, 1991, 2006

and 2009.

22. The Green Wedge area is confronted by a number of challenges that must be

addressed by the Green Wedge Management Plan. These challenges include the

need to protect against inappropriate land use and development and provide for

environmental protection.

23. Part 2 of the Green Wedge Management Plan ‘Delivering the Vision’ sets out the

vision and key guiding principles, as well as the actions to achieve the vision and

principles.

24. The vision for the Green Wedge is:

In 2030, management of the Nillumbik Green Wedge will lead the way in

economic, environmental and social sustainability.

The Green Wedge will be secure and will be valued by the local and wider

Melbourne community for its natural and cultural values.

The future of the Nillumbik Green Wedge is one in which:

- natural and cultural values are conserved and enhanced.

- bush and rural landscapes are conserved and enhanced.

p.9


- the economic future is sound.

- communities are strong, connected and supported and are knowledgeable

about the Nillumbik Green Wedge.

- local identity and diversity is respected and nurtured.

25. The actions are set around the four key themes of:

Environment;

Economy;

People and Community; and

Governance.

26. A relevant high priority action under the ‘Environment’ theme is to:

Complete an assessment of the Green Wedge Landscape Character and

implement planning controls and other recommendations arising from this study.

27. The Shire of Nillumbik Landscape Character Assessment and Amendment C81

effectively fulfil this action.

The Nillumbik Planning Scheme

State Planning Policy Framework

28. Within the State Planning Policy Framework (the “SPPF”), the following policies are

considered particularly relevant to this matter:

Clause 9 ‘Plan Melbourne’;

Clause 10 ‘Operation of the State Planning Policy Framework’;

Clause 11 ‘Settlement’;

p.10


Clause 12 ‘Environmental and Landscape Values’;

Clause 13 ‘Environmental Risks’;

Clause 14 ‘Natural Resource Management’;

Clause 15 ‘Built Environment and Heritage’;

Clause 16 ‘Housing’; and

Clause 17 ‘Economic Development’.

29. I have considered each of these clauses in the preparation of my evidence. My

assessment of the relevant parts of these clauses is provided at Section 5 of this

statement.

Local Planning Policy Framework

30. The following clauses within the Local Planning Policy Framework (the “LPPF”) are

particularly relevant to this matter:

Clause 21.02 ‘Municipal Overview & Regional Context’;

Clause 21.03 ‘Municipal Profile & Key Influences’

Clause 21.04 ‘Vision – Strategic Framework’;

Clause 21.05 ‘Objectives – Strategies – Implementation’;

Clause 21.06 ‘Future Strategic Work & Education’;

Clause 21.08 ‘References’; and

Clause 22.04 ‘Siting and Design Policy for Buildings and Works in Non-Urban

Areas’.

p.11


31. I have considered each of these clauses in the preparation of my evidence. My

assessment of the relevant parts of these clauses is provided at Section 5 of this

statement.

Plan Melbourne

32. Plan Melbourne is a reference document within the SPPF and was adopted by the

State Government in May 2014 to guide land use and development within Metropolitan

Melbourne towards the year 2050.

33. The Shire of Nillumbik is located within the Northern Subregion. Relevantly, the

strategy does not promote growth within the Shire’s green wedge areas within the

Northern Subregion.

34. Relevant directions under Plan Melbourne include:

Direction 4.5 – Make our city greener.

Direction 5.1 Use the city structure to drive sustainable outcomes in managing

growth.

Direction 5.3 Enhance the food production capability of Melbourne and its non-

urban areas.

Direction 6.1 – Deliver a permanent boundary around Melbourne.

35. I have considered these directions in the preparation of my evidence.

p.12


3. THE AMENDMENT

36. Amendment C81 to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme seeks to implement the findings of

the Shire of Nillumbik Landscape Character Assessment, 2009 and the Nillumbik

Green Wedge Management Plan 2010-2025.

37. The Amendment applies to all land outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) within

the Shire of Nillumbik (with the exception of Kinglake National Park) and introduces 7

Schedules to the Significant Landscape Overlay, based on the character areas

identified in the 2009 Character Assessment as follows:

Schedule 8 – Open Pastures Landscape Character Area (Character Area 1);

Schedule 9 – Rolling Valleys Landscape Character Area (Character Area 2);

Schedule 10 – Undulating Agricultural Character Area (Character Area 3);

Schedule 11 – Bushy Slopes Landscape Character Area (Character Area 4);

Schedule 12 – Agricultural Uplands Landscape Character Area (Character Area 5);

Schedule 13 – River Interface Landscape Character Area (Character Area 6); and

Schedule 14 – Suburban Rural Landscape Character Area (Character Area 7).

38. The Amendment also makes minor changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement at

Clause 21.05-2 ‘Rural Land Use’, introduces the Shire of Nillumbik Landscape

Character Assessment, 2009 as a reference document at Clause 21.08 and corrects a

minor mapping anomaly for Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2 ‘Bush and

Semi-Bush Residential Areas’.

p.13


Proposed Mapping of Significant Landscape Overlay Schedules. Nillumbik Shire Council, 2015.

p.14


Process

39. At its ordinary meeting on 26 June 2012, Council resolved to request authorisation

from the Minister for Planning to commence a planning scheme amendment to

implement the findings of the Character Assessment study under Section 9 of the

Planning and Environment Act 1987.

40. The (then) Department of Planning and Community Development granted conditional

authorisation (Authorisation No. A02318) for Council to prepare Amendment C81 on

16 July 2012.

41. The Council did not immediately proceed with the preparation and exhibition of the

Amendment following authorisation, due to ongoing rural zone reform and the need for

it to consider the effect of these changes on the proposed schedules.

42. Re-authorisation for the Amendment was sought from the Minister for Planning to

commence Amendment C81 and was granted on 4 February 2015.

43. The Amendment was exhibited for a seven week period from 10 April 2015 to 29 May

2015, with direct notices to 9,160 properties and post office boxes and local

newspaper advertisements. Local community information sessions were held by

Council within the exhibition period.

44. A total of 172 submissions were received (including late submissions). Some

submissions supported the amendment, others sought changes to particular

provisions within the Schedules and another group of submissions objected to the

introduction of the controls. The key planning issues1 raised in submissions were

generally related to:

The need to protect rural landscapes from inappropriate development;

1 I am aware that submitters have also raised concerns about the effect of the amendment on property values, the consultation

process, the infringement of human rights and personal freedoms and Council rates. I do not consider that these issues are

planning considerations. In any event, I am not qualified to form an opinion on the legal question of human rights and personal freedoms or property devaluation.

p.15


The lack of an identified need for the overlay controls, given the protection

provided by existing planning zone and overlay controls in effect;

The strategic justification for the Amendment;

Landscape character descriptions;

Mapping and definition or location of precinct boundaries;

Vegetation and landscaping;

Design and siting requirements for buildings;

The relationship between the proposed controls and the Bushfire Management

Overlay (and other bushfire provisions in the Nillumbik Planning Scheme); and

Subdivision.

45. At its Policy and Services Committee meeting of 13 August 2015, Council resolved to

request the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel to consider the submissions to the

Amendment. It also resolved to ‘explore variations to the Amendment documentation’

to achieve the following:

That the Character Statements are inclusive of atypical properties and the

transition to urban areas.

Refinements to the mapping of the SLO boundaries.

Develop a more effective way to protect views and vistas.

Revision to the Lighting section of the design guidelines to make them consistent

with exemptions elsewhere in the planning scheme, and provide guidance on

reasonable levels of external lighting.

p.16


Revision of the seven SLO schedules to ensure they more effectively respond to

the identified statements of landscape significance.

Where concerns have been raised about specific images, these images will be

replaced by examples from outside Nillumbik.

Review of the fencing permit triggers to ensure that they do not unnecessarily

require a planning permit for typical agricultural fencing.

Review the SLOs to strengthen support for agricultural land uses in the agricultural

areas of the Green Wedge.

To ensure consistency with the CFA Guidelines for Meeting Victoria’s Bushfire

Planning Requirements, and other suggestions from the CFA.

p.17


4. PREPARATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE OVERLAY

SCHEDULES

Engagement

46. My office was engaged by Nillumbik Shire Council to assist it to translate the Shire of

Nillumbik Landscape Character Assessment, 2009 and the relevant Character Area

Assessment brochures study into statutory controls.

47. At the time of my initial engagement in November 2014, the Council and other

consultants had prepared a draft of the proposed controls. My instructions were to

undertake a peer review of the draft schedules and provide advice to Council on the

strategic merit of the Amendment. Under a subsequent engagement, my office was

engaged to rewrite the schedules based on the findings of the peer review. It was this

version of the controls that were exhibited.

48. Following exhibition of the Amendment, I was asked by the Council to review the

controls in response to submissions received by the planning authority and to look for

opportunities to incorporate the requirements of the Council resolution of 13 August

2015, discussed in the previous section of this statement.

49. I was not instructed to provide any analysis on the reasonableness or otherwise of the

character assessments within the study, nor to review the extent of mapping of the

proposed controls. The view of the Council was that the study itself had already been

subject to public consultation, which had assisted in determining key, valued character

attributes.

50. I note that some schedules include some changes to character descriptions and future

character statements to respond to matters raised by submitters.

p.18


Drafting Methodology

51. The preparation of the Schedules was conducted in a partnership between Council

and my firm.

52. The controls were prepared under the principle of dividing and mapping each

character area into a separate Significant Landscape Overlay schedule. In this regard,

each of the seven schedules and their titles correlate with the character areas in the

Character Assessment Study.

53. The strategic intent of this approach is to delineate each individual precinct by its

character description.

54. In terms of some specific matters in relation to the content and structure of the

schedules, the following commentary is provided:

Statement of nature and key elements of landscape

55. Each Statement of nature and key elements of landscape (Clause 1.0 of the

schedules) has been drafted to reflect the varying landscape character attributes and

future character statement for each area. The descriptions and future character

statements are derived directly from the Landscape Character Assessment study.

Landscape character objective to be achieved

56. The Landscape character objectives to be achieved contain numerous objectives that

apply broadly across all rural areas and some which are specific to each precinct.

57. The first three objectives from Clause 22.04 have been translated into objectives

under the control, while other objectives are derived directly from the Landscape

Character Assessment study.

p.19


Permit requirements and exemptions

58. The permit requirements derive from the Landscape Character Assessment, which

notes that:

Key design issues within Nillumbik’s Green Wedge landscapes include the design,

size and scale of buildings, the siting of dwellings on hilltops and along ridgelines,

the presence of multiple out-buildings and other structures, use of reflective

materials, clearing of vegetation, private landscaping and other elements such as

signage, fencing and lighting that all potentially compromise the valued landscape

qualities of Nillumbik’s Green Wedge.2

59. The Landscape Character Assessment recommended adopting a scaled approach to

permit triggers and exemptions, whereby the higher level of control was applied to

Schedules 10, 11, 12 and 13, a moderate degree of control to Schedules 8 and 9 and

the lowest degree of control to the urban area of Yarrambat (Schedule 14).

60. In areas with the highest degree of control, the Study recommended only exempting

minor extensions to buildings. This was expanded in moderate control areas to include

minor structures relating to rural or agricultural land use.

61. Ultimately, the Council decided to adopt an approach to apply the moderate restriction

across all schedules (with the exception of Schedule 13)3. I was instructed that the

reason for this approach was to ensure that the permit requirements were not

unreasonably restrictive or onerous on small scale agricultural sheds and structures

within rural areas. The lack of a permit exemption for new agricultural buildings in

Schedule 13 is to provide appropriate protection for the river interfaces.

62. The permit triggers and exemptions respond to the threats to character identified in the

Landscape Character Assessment, by only exempting minor buildings and works

where the proposal is sited away from ridgelines and hilltops, clad in muted, low-

reflective materials, is of a low scale and designed to meet setback requirements.

2 Shire of Nillumbik Landscape Character Assessment (2009), page 16.

3 Schedule 13 to the Significant Landscape Overlay also requires a permit for new buildings used for agriculture.

p.20


63. Where possible, the setback requirements for permit exemptions have been drafted to

be consistent with other provisions that affect land, such that permits are not triggered

unnecessarily under one provision and not another. For instance, the requirement that

buildings and works be located at least 100 metres from a Road in a Road Zone,

Category 1 or 20 metres from any other road creates an alignment between the Rural

Conservation Zone, the Green Wedge Zone and the proposed schedules.

64. Following exhibition, the permit exemptions for minor buildings and works were

collapsed into one statement to reduce repetition and improve clarity. Permit

exemptions for vegetation removal were also rationalised to improve clarity.

65. In relation to permit requirements for fencing, permit requirements were reworded to

provide consistency with proposed controls to be introduced through Amendment

C101 to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme.

Decision Guidelines

66. While permit requirements at Clause 3.0 are generally the same across each

schedule, the Decision Guidelines at Clause 5.0 include general decision guidelines

relevant across all schedules, along with some locally specific decision guidelines that

are borne out of the Study and Character Area brochures.

67. Relevantly, the Landscape Character Assessment study and Design Guidelines for

each precinct are reference documents within each schedule. Having regard to the

Practice Note on Reference and Incorporated Documents, I formed the view that the

decision guidelines needed to distil the specific requirements of these documents

within the schedule themselves, to enable the decision-maker to confine their

assessment to the matters listed in the schedule and other parts of the Scheme.

68. These decision guidelines should also be read in conjunction with the decision

guidelines within the header provision of the SLO.

p.21


5. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Overview

69. Having regard to the strategic planning context for the Shire’s rural landscape

character areas identified in the Landscape Character Assessment, I consider that the

following matters need to be addressed in terms of a planning consideration of

Amendment C81:

Is the Amendment strategically justified?

Is the Significant Landscape Overlay the most appropriate tool to implement the

Landscape Character Assessment study?

Have the controls been drafted and structured effectively?

Does the Amendment support State planning policy, including Plan Melbourne?

And

Does the Amendment address bushfire risk?

70. These matters are addressed within this section of my statement.

Is the Amendment strategically justified?

71. I have reviewed the strategic justification for the Amendment in accordance with

Planning Practice Note 46: Strategic Assessment Guidelines. The salient points of my

consideration of these issues are as follows:

Why is the Amendment required?

72. The Amendment is required to protect the landscape character of the Shire’s rural

landscapes within the Nillumbik Green Wedge. The Nillumbik Green Wedge

Management Plan 2010-2025 identified that the aesthetic qualities of the rural

p.22


landscapes were a defining feature of the Green Wedge area and valued by the local

community.

73. Council commissioned the Shire of Nillumbik Landscape Character Assessment, 2009

to undertake a study of the qualities of these areas and review the performance of

existing controls. The report found that the existing controls and policy within the

Nillumbik Planning Scheme did not provide an appropriate level of protection for the

Shire’s rural landscapes. There is currently limited guidance for built form in these

areas, with the exception of an existing local policy at Clause 22.04 ‘Siting and Design

Policy for Buildings and Works in Non-Urban Areas’ and some decision guidelines

within the rural zones.

74. The Landscape Character Assessment study recommended that Council apply the

Significant Landscape Overlay to each character area.

75. The Amendment implements the recommendation of this report by applying a

Significant Landscape Overlay to each of the seven character areas to provide a

statutory control to consider the appropriateness of vegetation removal and

development within these areas.

Objectives of Planning in Victoria

76. Section 4(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 sets out the objectives of

planning in Victoria. Relevantly, the Amendment implements and advances the

following objectives:

To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of

land.

To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the

maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity.

p.23


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

environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria.

To facilitate development in accordance with the objectives [outlined above].

To balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

77. The Amendment will provide clear direction for the future development of land within

the Shire’s Green Wedge areas consistent with the protection of the area’s significant

landscape character.

78. The Amendment provides the statutory mechanism to facilitate sustainable and orderly

development within the Green Wedge in a manner that balances the present and

future interests of Victorians. It will also secure a pleasant living and recreational

environment within the Shire’s rural areas, by virtue of the protection of its significant

landscapes.

79. It is my view that the Amendment is consistent with the objectives of planning in

Victoria.

Environmental, Social and Economic Effects

80. The Amendment seeks to provide for the protection of significant landscapes for the

aesthetic and environmental qualities. It provides a framework for appropriate

development within the rural areas of the Shire.

81. In this regard, I would envisage that the protection of these landscapes is likely to have

positive social and environmental effects, such that the landscape is protected for the

enjoyment of residents and the community.4

4 The Panel for Amendment C36 to the Corangamite Planning Scheme made comments about what the need for planning

authorities to consider significant social effects in preparing planning scheme amendments, in light of changes to Section 12 of

the Planning and Environment Act 1987. I am not qualified to make an assessment on the extent of social impacts in relation to the volume of submissions received by the planning authority.

p.24


82. In terms of economic effects, the protection of the landscape is a key facilitator in

Council’s economic strategies, such as Destination Nillumbik to promote tourism as an

economic activity. Further, the permit exemptions have been crafted to allow a level of

agricultural activity to occur without the need for a planning permit under the

Significant Landscape Overlay. In this regard, I consider that the Amendment would

have either positive or benign economic effects.

Compliance with Ministerial Directions

83. The Schedules to the Significant Landscape Overlay are consistent with the Ministerial

Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes. The Amendment was

exhibited with an explanatory report that met the requirements of Ministerial Direction

No. 11 – Strategic Assessment of Amendments.

84. The Amendment has also had regard to Ministerial Direction No. 9 – Metropolitan

Planning Strategy and has considered the relevant metropolitan planning strategy –

Plan Melbourne. I discuss the amendment’s consistency with Plan Melbourne later in

this statement.

85. In my opinion, the Amendment and the proposed provisions comply with all relevant

Ministerial Directions.

The State Planning Policy Framework

86. The Amendment supports and implements a number of relevant objectives in the State

Planning Policy Framework.

87. In particular, it advances the objectives and strategies of Clause 9 (Plan Melbourne),

Clause 10 (Operation of the State Planning Policy Framework), Clause 11

(Settlement), Clause 12 (Environmental and Landscape Values), Clause 13

(Environmental Risks), Clause 14 (Natural Resource Management), Clause 15 (Built

p.25


Environment and Heritage), Clause 16 (Housing) and Clause 17 (Economic

Development).

88. I discuss its consistency with State policy in detail later in this statement.

Local Planning Policy Framework

89. The Municipal Strategic Statement within the Nillumbik Planning Scheme

acknowledges the significant landscape qualities of the Nillumbik Green Wedge and

their importance at a municipal and metropolitan-regional level.

90. At Clause 21.03-3 ‘Environment, Conservation & Landscape’, there is a recognition of

the high landscape value of the Shire’s rural areas and the views and vistas to these

important landscapes. It recognises that the integrity of natural landscapes within the

Shire is threatened by some inappropriate development that fails to respond to the

area’s landscape character. In particular, dwellings on hilltops and ridgelines, the use

of reflective materials and the cumulative effects of prominent development are

acknowledged as compromising the natural landscape qualities of rural areas.

91. A key objective at Clause 21.05-2 ‘Rural Land Use’ is ‘to protect and enhance rural

landscape character’.

92. The ‘Siting and Design Policy for Buildings and Works in Non-Urban Areas’ at Clause

22.04 has several objectives which seek to encourage appropriate design and siting of

built form and works in rural areas to ensure that landscape impacts are minimised. It

seeks to avoid locating built form on ridgelines or other locations where it will be

prominent within the landscape setting.

93. The Amendment will advance a stronger statutory setting for the protection of

landscape character that reinforces and responds to the objectives and strategies set

out within the Local Planning Policy Framework. In this regard, I conclude that the

p.26


Amendment is consistent with and implements the Local Planning Policy Framework

within the Nillumbik Planning Scheme.

Use of the Victoria Planning Provisions

94. The Amendment applies varying Schedules to the Significant Landscape Overlay to all

land within the Shire outside the Urban Growth Boundary (excluding Kinglake National

Park).

95. I discuss the appropriateness of this overlay and the varying schedules as an

implementation tool later in my evidence.

Views of Relevant Agencies

96. The views of relevant agencies including the Department of Environment, Land, Water

and Planning, Parks Victoria and the Country Fire Authority were sought as part of the

exhibition of the Amendment.

97. These agencies have made a submission to the planning authority and I have had

regard to these submissions.

Bushfire Risk

98. The amendment addresses bushfire risk. Relevantly, the Country Fire Authority did not

object to the Amendment, subject to some minor revisions.

99. I discuss bushfire risk later in more detail later in this statement.

Resourcing and Administrative Costs

100. I have not been presented with any evidence relating to the resource and

administrative costs of the Amendment by the Council.

p.27


101. The Shire’s rural areas, by virtue of their zoning, are likely to already generate a

significant number of planning permit applications for many activities. The objectives,

statements and decision guidelines within the SLO schedules will provide an

appropriate reference for the assessment of applications.

Summary of Assessment

102. It is my view that the Amendment is strategically justified. The implementation of the

Shire of Nillumbik Landscape Character Assessment and Nillumbik Green Wedge

Management Plan 2010-2025 will provide appropriate guidance for development and

vegetation removal within the Shire’s rural areas.

The use of the Significant Landscape Overlay

103. There are two strategic questions that arise from the implementation of the Landscape

Character Assessment study through the Significant Landscape Overlay. They are:

Is the Significant Landscape Overlay an appropriate tool to implement the

Landscape Character Assessment study? And

Have the controls been drafted and structured effectively?

104. I consider both of these questions in this section of my statement.

105. The Landscape Character Assessment study found that all parts of the Nillumbik

Green Wedge exhibit a high degree of landscape significance in the context of the

municipality and the broader region.5 It also identified that the character of these areas

was threatened by vegetation removal and by the inappropriate design and siting of

buildings and works, when viewed from the public realm. As a result, there is a need to

introduce planning controls to protect the significant landscapes within the Shire’s

green wedge areas.

5 Page 30.

p.28


106. It is these primary findings that have guided the preparation of this Amendment.

107. The requirement for protection essentially results in a need to control the siting and

design of buildings and works and the removal of vegetation, through the requirement

to obtain planning approval.

108. Within the Victoria Planning Provisions, there is a range of provisions and tools that

can be used in the protection of character. Some of them provide protection for ‘urban’

character, such as the Neighbourhood Character Overlay, while others can apply more

broadly, such as the Design and Development Overlay.

109. These two controls (i.e. the Neighbourhood Character Overlay and Design and

Development Overlay) control buildings and works and subdivision, but only the

Neighbourhood Character Overlay can control vegetation removal. Even then, the

purpose of the Neighbourhood Character Overlay does not include consideration of

landscapes and the overlay itself exempts trees under 5 metres from requiring

planning permission for removal. The decision guidelines also do not allow for a

consideration of landscape qualities, nor of the effect of development on views and

vistas.

110. Another suite of overlays within the Victoria Planning Provisions include the

Environmental Significance Overlay, the Vegetation Protection Overlay and the

Significant Landscape Overlay.

111. The Vegetation Protection Overlay controls vegetation removal, but cannot trigger a

planning permit for buildings and works. The Environmental Significance Overlay can

control buildings and works and vegetation removal, but its purpose relates more to

environmental constraints, rather than landscape significance. Further, its decision

guidelines do not allow for a consideration of typical landscape character elements

such as views and vistas.

p.29


112. The Significant Landscape Overlay, like the Environmental Significance Overlay, can

control both buildings and works and vegetation removal. It has been a part of the

Victoria Planning Provisions since the introduction of New Format Planning Schemes

in the late 1990s. The Overlay includes three key purposes, which include:

To identify significant landscapes.

To conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes.

113. I note that the Department’s authorisation letter requested Council to draft the

Amendment in a manner that was consistent with Planning Practice Note 07:

Vegetation Protection in Urban Areas. The Planning Practice Note makes the following

comment about the application of the SLO:

The SLO also has a broader applicability than the VPO. Its function is to identify

and conserve the character of a significant landscape. The SLO is appropriate

when vegetation is primarily of aesthetic or visual importance in the broader

landscape and should be used where vegetation is identified as an important

contributor to the character of an area.

The SLO also includes permit requirements for buildings and works which can be

applied where appropriate to assist in vegetation protection.

114. On balance, I consider that the Significant Landscape Overlay is the most appropriate

control to protect the Shire’s rural landscape character for the following reasons:

The Overlay has twin purposes which relate specifically to the identification,

conservation and enhancement of the character of significant landscapes.

It can require a permit for buildings and works. This addresses one of the key

matters of siting and design of built form within a landscape setting raised within

the study.

It can require a permit for vegetation removal. This addresses the second key

matter raised within the study.

p.30


The decision guidelines provide an explicit and clear consideration of the

conservation and enhancement of landscape values, the impact of buildings and

works on the landscape and significant views and the extent to which development

is designed to enhance the landscape character objectives of the area.

115. It follows that I am of the view that the Significant Landscape Overlay is the most

effective and appropriate mechanism to protect the landscape character of the Shire’s

rural areas.

116. In relation to the content, structure and mapping of the overlay schedules themselves,

I consider that they have been structured effectively.

117. In particular, while there are some ‘shared’ aspects of each schedule, such as

standard permit triggers and exemptions, each Schedule has a unique Statement of

nature and key elements of landscape, some individual Landscape character

objectives to be achieved and Decision guidelines. From an administrative

perspective, it is also logical for each character area to be in a separate schedule, so

that the boundaries of each area and the necessary requirements can be easily

discerned relative to each individual property.

118. This is also an approach that has been adopted by many other councils in the

application of the Significant Landscape Overlay.

119. In my opinion, the use of separate schedules and the structure and content of the

schedules is appropriate.

Does the Amendment support State planning policy, including Plan Melbourne?

120. The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and the metropolitan planning strategy,

Plan Melbourne, are relevant to the consideration of this Amendment. I have had

regard to these documents in preparing my evidence and in the preparation of the

proposed schedules.

p.31


121. In terms of the SPPF, the relevant directions and guidance for the Shire’s rural areas

are:

Clause 9.01, which requires planning authorities to consider and apply Plan

Melbourne in decision-making.

Clause 10.04, which seeks to ensure that planning authorities endeavor to balance

conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable

development for current and future generations.

Clause 11.04-7, which seeks to protect the green wedges of Metropolitan

Melbourne from inappropriate development. Key strategies at this clause include

the protection of areas of environmental, landscape and scenic value.

Clause 12.04-2, which has an objective to protect landscapes and significant open

spaces that contribute to character, identity and sustainable environments.

Clause 12.05-1, which has an objective to protect and enhance the significant river

corridors of Melbourne.

Clause 12.05-2, which has strategies to protect the landscape character of the

Yarra River environs.

Clause 15.01-1, which requires that development respond to its context, in terms of

character and landscape.

Clause 15.01-2, which seeks to achieve urban design outcomes that contribute

positively to local character and enhance the public realm.

Clause 15.01-5, which seeks to ensure that development responds to its context

and reinforces the underlying natural landscape character.

Clause 16.02-1, which seeks to ensure that rural residential development protects

existing landscape values.

p.32


Clause 17.03-1, which seeks to ensure that tourism facilities are compatible with

the assets and qualities of surrounding activities and natural attractions.

122. Plan Melbourne provides strategic guidance for the growth and development of

Metropolitan Melbourne towards 2050. It underpins the strategic guidance provided by

Clauses 9 and 11 of the State Planning Policy Framework. In Section 2 of this

statement, I identified the relevant objectives and strategies for the Shire’s rural areas

and its landscape character.

123. This policy context (the SPPF and Plan Melbourne) supports an integrated approach

to policy development and decision-making.

124. In my view, the Amendment supports State policy (including Plan Melbourne) by

protecting the Shire’s significant landscapes, which are important in a metropolitan-

regional context. The Amendment also advances other State objectives which seek to

ensure that residential and commercial activities are conducted in a manner that

appropriately responds to its context and protects significant assets.

125. I conclude that the Amendment is consistent with, and effectively implements, State

planning policy.

Does the Amendment address bushfire risk?

126. Many submissions to the Amendment raised concerns that the proposed controls did

not adequately address bushfire risk.

127. Some land that is proposed to be affected by Schedules 9, 11, 12 and 13 to the

Significant Landscape Overlay is also within the Bushfire Management Overlay

128. Typically, some submitters in these areas objected to the Amendment on the basis

that the Amendment did not address bushfire risk. These submitters were generally

concerned that the need for planning permission to remove vegetation would lead to

p.33


increased bushfire risk, or the risk of approving more dwellings in bushfire prone

areas.

129. Relevantly, there are other provisions within the Nillumbik Planning Scheme that serve

to exempt the need for a permit under the Significant Landscape Overlay to address

bushfire risk. Clause 52.48 ‘Bushfire Protection: Exemptions’ exempts the need for a

permit under the SLO to remove vegetation where:

The removal of vegetation is to create defendable space6 around an existing

building used for accommodation, where the building was:

- Constructed before 10 September 2009; or

- Approved by a permit issued under the Nillumbik Planning Scheme before 10

September 2009; or

- Approved by a building permit issued under the Building Act 1993 before 10

September 2009; or

- Constructed to replace a dwelling or dependent persons unit that was

damaged or destroyed by a bushfire that occurred between 1 January 2009

and 31 March 2009.

The removal of vegetation within 4 metres of a fenceline;

The removal of vegetation to create defendable space for a dwelling approved

under the Bushfire Management Overlay, where the land is also within (among

other zones) the Township Zone, Farming Zone, Low Density Residential Zone or

Rural Living Zone.

6 Within 10 metres of the dwelling for all vegetation and with within 30 metres of the dwelling for all vegetation except for trees,

or 50 metres if the land is within the Bushfire Management Overlay.

p.34


130. Notably (and relevantly), this last exemption (for vegetation removal for a new

dwelling) does not apply to land within the Green Wedge Zone or Rural Conservation

Zone.

131. However, in addition to these exemptions at Clause 52.48, the decision guidelines

within the Significant Landscape Overlay include:

The need to remove, destroy or lop vegetation to create defendable space to

reduce the risk of bushfire to life and property.

132. Moreover, each of the schedules to the SLO where the BMO also applies include the

following objective:

To ensure that the siting of buildings has regard to the nature of bushfire hazard of

the site and the surrounding area and the necessity to provide defendable space.

133. There are also two decision guidelines in both schedules, which include:

The extent to which the proposal has addressed bushfire risk.

The extent to which the siting of the proposed buildings and works has minimized

the need for the removal of native vegetation, including meeting defendable space

requirements.

134. The objective and decision guidelines were included in the post-exhibition version of

the controls to respond to the Country Fire Authority’s submission. It is relevant that

the authority supports the Amendment, subject to the inclusion of these provisions.

135. While this will still result in vegetation removal requiring a permit in some

circumstances (for new dwellings in particular in the Rural Conservation Zone and the

Green Wedge Zone) under the Significant Landscape Overlay, it is relevant that the

majority of the existing dwellings will benefit from other exemptions in Clause 52.48.

136. Where planning permission is required, the objectives and decision guidelines outlined

above (along with the Bushfire Management Overlay that applies to these properties)

p.35


will allow for the Council to undertake an appropriate assessment of bushfire risk.

Some applications will also be referred to the Country Fire Authority under the Bushfire

Management Overlay for its views.

137. It is my opinion that these provisions and mechanisms will provide a balance between

exempting certain activities from planning approval and an opportunity to consider

bushfire risk prior to the approval of any permit.

138. In this regard, I also conclude that the Amendment appropriately addresses bushfire

risk.

p.36


6. CONCLUSION

139. My conclusions are summarised below:

Amendment C81 seeks to implement the findings of the Shire of Nillumbik

Landscape Character Assessment (2009) and the Nillumbik Green Wedge

Management Plan 2010-2025 through the introduction of seven schedules to the

Significant Landscape Overlay.

The Amendment is strategically justified.

The Significant Landscape Overlay is an appropriate way to implement the findings

of the Landscape Character Assessment and to advance State and local policy.

The proposed controls have been drafted appropriately, having regard to relevant

practice notes.

140. In my view, the Amendment should be supported.

141. I have made all inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no

matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld

from the Panel.

John Glossop (B.A Hons.) MPIA Director Glossop Town Planning Pty Ltd January 2016

p.37


7. REQUIREMENTS UNDER PPV’S GUIDE TO EXPERT EVIDENCE

142. This statement is prepared by John Glossop, Glossop Town Planning Pty Ltd, 1/182

Capel Street, North Melbourne. I am a Director of the firm. The firm has been in

business since 1997.

143. I have a Bachelor of Arts (Urban Studies) Hons. I have been engaged in the following

positions and roles in my career as a planner including:

Former planner with the Shire of Newham and Woodend (prior to its amalgamation

with the Macedon Ranges Shire).

Strategic and Social Planning Manager, Shire of Melton until 1997.

Sessional member, Planning Panels Victoria between 1997-2012.

I have sat as a Chairman or member on a number of planning scheme

amendments, dealing with a broad range of issues from high-rise housing in

Williamstown, the redevelopment of Pentridge Prison and the application of

flooding overlays in the Mornington Peninsula Shire.

Sessional lecturer and tutor in strategic, statutory planning and urban studies at

Victoria University of Technology (1996-99) and lecturer in statutory planning

Latrobe University Bendigo (2000- 02).

Member of the ResCode Advisory Committee 2000.

I have considerable experience in statutory and strategic planning and new format

planning schemes.

144. My expertise to make this statement is based on a combination of my experience

working in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria, an understanding of the Shire

of Nillumbik and my experience as a planner in both the private and public sectors. I

p.38


have been instructed by Nillumbik Shire Council to provide an opinion on the planning

merits of this Amendment and to provide town planning evidence at the Planning

Panel. I have no private or business relationship with Nillumbik Shire Council.

145. My office was involved (in a peer review role) in the preparation of the amendment

documentation.

146. I have relied on the documents referred to in the introduction section of my statement.

147. There were no tests undertaken in the preparation of this statement.

148. I was assisted in this statement by Matthew Gilbertson, Senior Planner, of my office.