//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
austlii:vic/PPV/2004/34
respondent. The Panel recommended that Amendment C8 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme be adopted subject to: (1) alterations to the areas covered by the overlays as suggested by the Catchment Authority and...
This is a Panel Report regarding Amendment C8 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme, which sought to update flood and wildfire hazard mapping. The Panel recommended adopting the amendment with changes, but distinguished between minor mapping corrections (which could be included) and major new overlay areas (which required a separate amendment). The Panel also identified a conflict in planning guidance documents about whether flood overlay schedules could include extra provisions, recommending this be fixed. The Panel accepted the expert evidence of the Catchment Authority and Country Fire Authority on technical mapping matters, finding their proposed boundaries reflected the best available information.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
Amendment C8 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme proposes to update areas of application of the following overlays:
The updated areas of the flood overlays reflect updated flood mapping provided by the Catchment Authority.
The updated area of wildfire management overlay reflect updated mapping prepared by the Country Fire Authority in conjunction with the Council and they provide an approach consistent with requirements contained in the Building Regulations.
The amendment also updates the schedules to the flood overlays to include:
Minor consequential amendments are also proposed to the Municipal Strategic Statement.
Finally the amendment also proposes to incorporate the Local Floodplain Development Plan. This will remove the need for a Flood Risk Report for all applications in the Floodway Overlay area and it will also provide assistance and guidance for assessment of applications in areas covered by either flood overlay.
During and after exhibition anomalies in both flooding and fire hazard became apparent. As a result several changes to the areas of application of the overlays were proposed by the both the Catchment Authority and the Country Fire Authority.
In some cases these changes were relatively minor and were in response to a particular property feature. In other cases they were quite major and would involve the application of an overlay to a section of land that currently has no such overlay either in the existing scheme or in the exhibited amendment.
The Council proposed that minor alterations and reversal to overlay control provided by the existing scheme should be dealt with by alterations to the exhibited amendment. Other more major changes should be the subject of a new amendment. The Panel agreed with this approach.
The Panel remarks upon the care and effort put in by the Catchment Authority and the Country Fire Authority to ensure that their respective mapping is as accurate as possible and responds to all submissions.
The Panel recommends that Amendment C8 be adopted with alterations to the areas covered by the overlays suggested by the respective authorities.
The Panel has also recommended minor alterations to the additions proposed in the MSS.
Finally the Panel has identified an apparent anomaly between the provisions of the Practice Notes entitled Writing Schedules and Applying The Flood Provisions in Planning Schemes.
The Panel has made a recommendation that the Department of Sustainability and Environment address this issue.
This Panel was appointed under delegation on the 24 October 2003 pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions in respect of Amendment C8 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme. This amendment proposes the following:
The planning authority is the Murrindindi Shire Council.
Directions Hearings were held on 3 December 2003 and on 22 December 2003 at Murrindindi Shire Council Offices Yea. A number of directions were made, which addressed alterations to the Amendment C8 and additional notifications. In summary the Panel directed that major changes should be subject to a new amendment. Minor alterations would be considered by the Panel on a case by case basis.
The Panel Hearing was held on 10 February 2004 at Murrindindi Shire Offices Perkins Street Alexandra.
Panel members made unaccompanied site inspections of relevant areas of Yea township and the Molesworth area on 22 December 2003. A further unaccompanied inspection was made on 12 February 2004 of the Taggerty township and the Long Gully Road area in Flowerdale.
A list of all written submissions to Amendment C8 is included in Appendix A.
The Panel has considered all written and oral submissions and all material presented to it in connection with this matter.
Ms J Jones of Jennifer Jones Planning Consultants Pty Ltd
The amendment applies to the parts of the municipality that are subject to flooding and are fire prone.
Amendment C8 proposes to update the current flood controls based on new flood mapping provided by the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority. In addition the amendment proposes to alter the areas of application of the Wildfire Management Overlay to reflect bush fire prone areas identified by the Country Fire Authority in conjunction with the Municipal Fire Prevention Committee.
The amendment was exhibited for three months from 18 July to 18 October 2002. In addition to the usual statutory notifications, notice of the amendment was sent to all affected landowners some 1700 on 4 September 2002. Public workshops were held at Yea, Buxton and Alexandra and the amendment received extensive coverage in the local press in the form of Council press releases and articles.
In addition to changes in the areas of application of the Floodway, Land Subject to Inundation and Wildfire Management the amendment also proposes:
The key issues raised by submittors were as follows
The Panel has identified key issues and these are set out below.
This Section identifies the strategic context within which issues associated with Amendment C8 must be considered.
The relevant documents that provide the strategic context for considering Amendment C8 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme are as follows:
5.3 MURRINDINDI PLANNING SCHEME LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (LPPF)
There are various elements of the LPPF which are relevant to Amendment C8 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme. Many of the issues and objectives of the LPPF directly overlap with those of the SPPF. The following clauses are of particular relevance.
In the mid 1990s the then Department of Natural Resources and Environment (now Department of Sustainability and Environment) undertook a Flood Data Transfer Project on a state wide basis. This material was then provided to the various Catchment Authorities and Councils. In 1997 the Catchment Authorities including the Goulburn Broken Catchment Authority became responsible for floodplain management. Subsequently the Goulburn Broken Catchment Authority produced an updated flood map report to accompany Shire of Murrindindi flood maps. This material was prepared from the original data provided by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment updated where appropriate and when updated information was available.
This updated flood mapping and report form the basis of the application of Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway Overlays as exhibited in Amendment C8 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme.
The Building Regulations 1994 require Councils to designate bushfire prone areas. Construction in these areas must meet specified performance criteria. The Country Fire Authority is currently preparing fire hazard maps on a state wide basis which will eventually result in the application of the Wildfire Management Overlay aligned with bush fire prone areas so designated under the Building Regulations. This exercise has been carried out in Murrindindi Shire and the application of the Wildfire Management Overlay as proposed in the exhibited version of Amendment C8 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme is the result.
During and after completion of the exhibition process there were significant alterations proposed to the area of application of the Floodway, Land Subject to Inundation and Wildfire Management Overlays.
These further alterations were proposed as a result of the workshops, discussions with affected landowners and further investigation work by the Catchment Management Authority and the Country Fire Authority.
These proposed alterations were in some cases significant changes and in others only minor. Changes were still being proposed and put before the Panel right up to and during the Panel Hearing. The issue of major changes and how these should be considered was the subject of an additional Directions Hearing.
The Council expressed a concern that changes to the exhibited version of Amendment C8 should not be contemplated, and would not be supported, where the changes would result in the application of an overlay control to land that did not currently have such an overlay or where an overlay was not proposed in the exhibition version of the overlay.
The Council explained that in so far as the flood overlays were concerned it was committed to preparing a further amendment, in the immediate future to take account of additional flood information including the Yea Floodplain Management Study. During the course of the Panel Hearing it also became apparent that a further amendment to modify the areas of application of the Wildfire Management Overlay would be necessary.
At the first Directions Hearing held on 3 December 2003, the Council, the Catchment Management Authority and the Country Fire Authority all indicated that changes were proposed since exhibition and all parties agreed that these were relatively minor. The Panel indicated that mapping should be prepared to reflect these changes and that any person affected by the changes should be informed and invited to make a submission to the Panel.
During the preparation of the mapping to reflect the proposed changes it became apparent that these changes were significant and involved major changes from the exhibited amendment. The Council subsequently requested a further Directions Hearing. This was held on 22 December 2003. At that Hearing the Catchment Management Authority and the Council both agreed that major alterations to the exhibition amendment should be the subject of a new and separate amendment. The Country Fire Authority did not attend the second Directions Hearing.
At the hearing the Panel requested the Council to have new maps prepared in planning scheme format to accurately show the final Council position on application of the overlays proposed by Amendment C8. These maps to accurately reflect all the changes proposed and agreed by the CMA and the CFA up to and including those proposed at the public hearing. These maps are included in Appendices B and C.
Subsequent to this hearing the Panel issued new directions relating to updated mapping. These directions also indicated that the Panel would only consider changes to the exhibited amendment that were minor and did not include the application of overlays to land not currently affected or included in the exhibited version.
In spite of this agreed position there was clearly a need to reflect changes to the exhibited mapping to take account of situations where the Catchment Management Authority and the Country Fire Authority agreed that as a result of further investigations the application of new overlays to some land was inappropriate.
Situations also arose where it became apparent, as a result of further investigation, that deletion of an existing overlay proposed in the exhibited amendment was not appropriate. In these circumstances it is proposed that the existing overlay remain in spite of the exhibited intent to have it removed.
These proposed changes to the exhibited amendment were important because they reflect a more accurate application of the appropriate overlay. The significance of the changes should, however, be seen in the light of the changes viewed as a proportion of the overall application of the various overlays. In this context the changes proposed are quite minor for all the proposed overlays.
The Panel agrees with the Council that it is more appropriate to prepare a new amendment to address major changes to Amendment C8 that would involve the application of overlays to new areas not currently subject to the overlays or areas not included in the exhibited version of Amendment C8.
Amendment C8 proposes to alter section 21.10 of the Municipal Strategic Statement by identification of flooding and wildfire issues and drawing attention to the importance of:
The amended clauses identify strategies and objectives leading to the application of Wildfire Management, Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway Overlays based on up to date information.
At the Panel Hearing the Council in consultation with the Catchment Management Authority tabled a new version of clause 21.01-1 which describes the flooding issues in the Municipality.
The alteration contains no new material but is simply a redrafting and shortening of the exhibited version. The alterations were proposed in order to improve clarity.
The additions to the Municipal Strategic Statement are appropriate. They add to existing provisions in the Municipal Strategic Statement and the State Planning Policy Framework relating to flooding and fire.
Both the exhibited and revised version of the new provisions in the MSS indicate in clause 21.01-1 that the required level of Management of floodplains in the Municipality is provided by a "Local Floodplain Development Plan - Precinct of the Goulburn River".
The local floodplain development plan only applies to the Goulburn River precinct. There are many additional areas in the Municipality identified by the application of flood overlays as being subject to flooding.
The wording of the MSS would more accurately reflect the flood management measures proposed in the Planning Scheme if suitable recognition was also given to the application of the Land Subject to Inundation and the Floodway Overlays.
Conclusion on Municipal Strategic statement Alterations
The additions to the Municipal Strategic Statement as set out in the revised documents tabled at the Panel Hearing are soundly based. The revisions proposed improve clarity when compared to the exhibited version and they do not contain any substantial new material.
The version submitted at the Panel Hearing should be further altered to give recognition to the level of management embodied in the application of the Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway Overlays.
The draft clause 21.10 included in Appendix D be further altered by the addition of reference to application of Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway Overlays as methods of flood management.
At the Panel Hearing the Catchment Management Authority produced a detailed report addressing each area of land which had attracted a submission. In each instance the land had been inspected and discussed with the landowners. In some cases several site visits and multiple discussions were involved.
It was clear to the Panel that Mr Tierney the Catchment Authority Floodplain Manager is fully conversant with the individual properties and their flood characteristics and that he has made significant and commendable effort to resolve all issues. As a result of these investigations in most cases the Catchment Authority agreed that an alteration to the proposed area of application of one of the flood overlays was appropriate.
The Catchment Authority provided new maps at the Panel Hearing which indicated the new areas of application of particular overlays.
In every case where a change was proposed, Mr Guy Tierney of the Catchment Management Authority, assured the Panel that the changes had been discussed with the landowner and the proposed changes indicated to the owners.
In the Panel's view, of the 50 submissions received relating to flood issues:
In the case of the first group of 42 submittors the Panel accepts the changes proposed by Mr Tierney as satisfying the concerns raised.
It is notable that no submittors appeared before the Panel in support of their original submission or to inform the Panel of their reasons for not accepting the changes proposed by the Catchment Authority.
The only person appearing before the Panel concerning flood matters (other than Mr Tierney) was Mr Gunnersen. He was concerned that an area in Yea between the Yea River and Craigie Street was proposed to have the Floodway Overlay removed and replaced with the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay. Mr Tierney agreed that this was inappropriate and that the Floodway Overlay should remain.
There are 8 submissions that are, in the Panel's view, either not satisfied or satisfied in part by alterations proposed by Mr Tierney. These are addressed in the next section.
Conclusion on flood submissions satisfied by alterations
The Panel considers that alterations proposed by the Catchment Authority, in regard to the submissions listed below, satisfies the various issues raised in the submissions.
No changes are recommended as part of this amendment.
No changes are recommended as part of this amendment.)
Except as recommended to the contrary in subsequent recommendations the Floodway Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay be altered as proposed by the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority and shown on the Plans in Appendix B.
9. FLOOD SUBMISSIONS NOT SATISFIED BY ALTERATIONS
Of the 50 submissions received concerning flood issues eight were not satisfied either because the alterations proposed by the Catchment Authority were inadequate in the submittor's opinion, or because there were no alterations proposed. In one case the submittor did not argue with the flooding characteristics of his land but was instead concerned about the restraints imposed on development as a result of the proposed overlay.
This report now addresses each of the eight submissions that, in the Panel's view, were not satisfied by changes proposed after exhibition.
This submission is concerned about the application of flood overlays in areas that do not flood. The Catchment Authority has proposed that:
These changes were made as a result of a site inspection and checking of the proposal against the partially completed Yea Flood Study.
The Panel is satisfied on the basis of the information provided that the amended overlay proposals are correct.
This submission relates to the land adjoining Mr and Mrs Bruere's land and the issues are the same.
The Panel is satisfied based on the information provided that the changes proposed by the Catchment Authority are correct.
This submission expresses concern regarding a decrease in value of land as a result of the proposed Flood Overlay. The Catchment Authority advised the Panel that in its view the exhibited overlay is correct. The Panel observes that the application of the overlay reflects the flood prone nature of the land. Any adverse effect on the value of the land will be as a result of the flood prone nature of the land.
The Panel is satisfied that the overlay as exhibited is correct.
This submission is concerned that the Floodway Overlay is extended. Perusal of the exhibited and existing mapping shows that the area of the Flood Overlay is slightly reduced by Amendment C8 in the area of concern.
The Catchment Authority has visited the site and explained the situation to the owner's representative. The Panel is satisfied that the Amendment as exhibited in this area is correct.
This submission is concerned that the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay should only apply to the rear 2 metres of their property in Aroona Drive Buxton.
This land was inspected by the Catchment Authority and as a result together with the availability of new survey information regarding the 1996 and 1998 floods the area subject to inundation has been substantially reduced. The changes, however, do not meet the request that only the rear 2 metres of the property be shown as flood prone.
The Panel is satisfied that on the basis of the information provided, the area now proposed in the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, is correct.
Submission No. 30 Hansen Partnership on behalf of Peter & L Dickson
This submission relates to land on the banks of the Stevenson River in Marysville. The Catchment Authority has inspected the area with the landowners and as a result has substantially reduced the area of application of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay. The submission indicates that there should be no area subject to the overlay and accordingly the alterations proposed do not satisfy the submission.
On the basis of the information provided the Panel is satisfied that the area of land now proposed to be in the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay is correct. This is a narrow strip of land on both sides of the river.
This submission relates to land in Taggerty and in spite of the land owned by Ms Bunn being removed from the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay the owner still has a remaining objection. The reason for this is unclear.
On the basis of the information provided the Panel is satisfied that the maps as altered after exhibition are correct with reference to the Bunn land.
The land owned by N & B Stevenson was placed in the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay by the exhibited version of Amendment C8. After exhibition the Catchment Authority reassessed this land and concluded that 90% of this land should not be covered by any flood overlay. The plans have been amended accordingly.
The owners still have concerns regarding the small corner of their land now proposed to be in the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.
The Panel is satisfied, on the basis of the information provided, that the boundaries of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay are correct.
Conclusion on Flood Submissions not satisfied by Alterations
The Panel is satisfied that the Catchment Authority has amended the flood plans to reflect the best and most up to date information available and accordingly supports the application of the Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway Overlays as now proposed by the Council and the Catchment Management Authority.
That the Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway Overlays be altered as proposed by the Goulburn Broken Catchment Authority and shown on the Plans in Appendix B.
At the Public Hearing the Catchment Authority provided amended schedules to the Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway Overlays.
These alterations do not change the intent of the schedule but improve their clarity. They propose:
The schedules to both overlays address three issues viz:
The provisions for the amended schedules tabled at the Public Hearing are clear and achieve worthwhile results. The Panel has a concern relating to the format of the schedules. The format of the schedules set out in the Minister's Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes provide for "Permit Requirement" provisions to be included in the schedules. This provision links back to the parent overlay provision where it is stated that a schedule to the overlay may specifically state that a permit is not required. The Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions states on page 16:
"There are two kinds of schedules used in schemes
The Manual then lists all the available schedules and identifies those that are fully specified and those that are partially specified. On page 19 the Manual identifies the schedules for both the Floodway Overlay and the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay as "Fully specified".
On this basis the extra material included in the schedules relating to Decision Guidelines with associated maps and the Referral of Applications should not be included. This view is reinforced by the Practice Note entitled "Writing Schedules".
On page 4 of this Practice Note the provisions of the "Manual for Victoria Planning Provisions" referred to above are called up.
"The Minister's Direction provides that schedules take two forms:
No local changes are possible to the form of the schedule, but local content can be inserted.
The schedule must contain the specified content but other content can be inserted.
A perusal of the Minister's Direction reveals that the Direction does not make the distinction between fully and partially specified schedules. This distinction is only to be found in the Manual for Victoria Planning Provisions.
The issue is further confused by reference to the Practice Note entitled "Applying the Flood Provisions in Planning Schemes".
This Practice Note includes an example of a schedule to the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay. In this example the schedule deals with Referral of Applications and Decision Guidelines. This appears to be in conflict with the part of the Manual of the Victoria Planning Provisions set out above and by implication the Practice Note on Writing Schedules.
The Panel was informed that the schedules to the Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway Overlays were guided by the schedule example contained in the Practice Note on "Applying the Flood Provisions in Planning Schemes".
The Panel was also informed by the Council and the Catchment Authority that schedules to the Floodway and Land Subject to Inundation Overlays for the Campaspe Planning Scheme contained identical provisions to those proposed by Amendment C8 to the Murrindindi Scheme. These identical schedules were included in the Campaspe Planning Scheme as a result of Amendment C14 to that Scheme. They were inserted in the Scheme on 6 March 2003.
The Panel considers that the schedules to the Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway Overlays, as finally drafted by the Catchment Authority and agreed to by Council, are well drafted and achieve the desired outcomes relating to Referral Authorities and Decision Guidelines.
The Panel also considers that there is conflict as to the status of schedules to the Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway Overlays as either 'Fully Specified' or 'Partially Specified'.
The Manual for the Victoria Planning Provisions and the Practice Note on Writing Schedules indicate that the schedules are 'Fully Specified'.
The Practice Note on Applying the Flood Provisions in a Planning Scheme and the recently approved Amendment C14 to the Campaspe Planning Scheme indicate that the schedules are not 'Fully Specified'.
This conflict should be addressed by amendment to the Manual for Victoria Planning Provisions so that the schedules to the Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway Overlays on page 19 of the Manual are defined as 'Partially Specified'.
The Panel forms this conclusion because, in the Panel's view, it is appropriate and beneficial to include in the schedules additional provisions in some circumstances.
At the Public Hearing the Catchment Authority provided an amended Local Floodplain Development Plan. The changes proposed were:
The Panel is satisfied that the new version does not include any significant additional provisions to the exhibited version.
The Local Floodplain Development Plan sets out minimum standards for development in flood prone areas associated with the Goulburn River precinct.
Its preparation and incorporation in the scheme is designed to assist persons lodging applications for permits in land identified as being flood prone.
In the case of land within the Floodway Overlay it absolves permit applicants from the need to prepare a Flood Risk Report.
The Practice Note entitled 'Applying the Flood Provisions in Planning Schemes' provides guidance in the preparation of Local Floodplain Development Plan and the proposed plan generally follows these provisions.
It is of interest to note that the Local Floodplain Development Plan applies only to the Goulburn River precinct. Other areas subject to flooding outside the Goulburn River precinct do not have the benefit of a Local Floodplain Development Plan.
The Panel concludes that the redrafted Local Floodplain Development Plan provides worth while guidance in the preparation and assessment of planning applications in the Goulburn River precinct and that it should be incorporated in the Planning Scheme.
The redrafting proposed improves the clarity and intent of the document.
The redrafted Murrindindi Local Floodplain Development Plan Precinct of the Goulburn River December 2003 be incorporated in the Murrindindi Planning Scheme.
12. WILDFIRE OVERLAY SUBMISSIONS SATISFIED BY ALTERATIONS
At the Panel Hearing the Country Fire Authority (CFA), represented by Jenny Jones of Jennifer Jones Planning Consultants Pty Ltd (contracted to the CFA) and Jim Birch (Community Safety Officer for the North East) produced a detailed report addressing each area of land which had attracted a submission. In each instance the land had been inspected by officers from the CFA and the Murrindindi Shire Council and issues discussed with the landowners. In some cases more than one site visit was involved.
It was clear to the Panel that the CFA has made significant commendable effort to resolve all issues. As a result of these investigations in most cases the CFA agreed that an alteration to the proposed area of application of the Wildfire Management Overlay was appropriate.
Where this was the case the CFA provided new maps to the Panel which indicated the changes to the area of overlay.
In the Panel's view, of the ten submissions received relating to wildfire management issues:
It is notable that only ten submissions overall were received in relation to wildfire management issues and of these just two submitters appeared in person before the Panel in support of their original submission or to inform the Panel of their reasons for questioning the changes proposed by the CFA.
Two objectors appeared before the Panel concerning wildfire management matters. The concerns of one of these were met as follows:
Mr Essex expressed his unhappiness with the process and raised a number of concerns ranging from distances from treed land, the fact his land is grazing and cleared, insurance issues and a nearby pine plantation not being included in the overlay.
Following a second site inspection from the air, the CFA judged the land to be more than 100m from high fuel load areas within the State Park and recommended the removal of a number of lots from the WMO including that owned by Mr Essex and another owned by another submitter, Mr Osborne. In the Panel's opinion this recommendation satisfies the concerns of Mr Essex.
DSE recommended that Long Gully Road Flowerdale and part of Castella already covered by fire overlays be included in this amendment though not exhibited. The Panel was persuaded by the argument that it is important for these areas to remain in a WMO and considers this satisfies the DSE concerns.
The three submissions that are, in the Panel's view either not satisfied or satisfied only in part by alterations proposed by the CFA, are addressed in the next section.
Conclusion on wildfire overlay submissions satisfied by alterations
The Panel consider that alterations proposed by the CFA in regard to the submissions listed below satisfy the various issues raised in the following submissions.
Suggested two areas at Flowerdale and Castella not covered by the WM0 be included.
Flowerdale and part of Castella already covered by fire overlays be included in this amendment though not exhibited. Those areas of Flowerdale & Castella not currently under overlays to be included in a later amendment,
Except as recommended to the contrary in subsequent recommendations the Wildfire Management Overlay be altered as proposed by the Country Fire Authority and shown on the Plans in Appendix C.
13. WILDFIRE OVERLAY SUBMISSIONS NOT SATISFIED BY ALTERATIONS
Three submissions were considered by the Panel either to not be satisfied by proposed alterations or because none were put forward.
One submitter in this category made a personal submission to the Panel at the Hearing.
Mr Chandler presented his view that an error in mapping had occurred and that letters and maps had been sent to the wrong people. In addition he argued there was an inconsistency in mapping given his lot abutting a block of high fuel load area was included in the WMO but others abutting the same lot and nearby high fuel load areas were not. He also raised the issue of why his entire block (mostly grazed and cleared) was subject to the overlay rather than just the first 100m, the result of which he contended would have had monetary and infrastructure implications for any future buildings or development.
The CFA considers the land should be retained in the WMO due to it being within 100m of a high fuel load area (National Park) and because of the policy to include whole lots in the overlay. However the CFA accepted that an error in mapping had occurred and proposed lots to the south away from the high fuel load area should be removed. In addition it accepted that a review of the surrounding lots abutting the high fuel load areas of the Kinglake National Park and currently covered by an overlay should be made to ensure consistency of approach. If any further lots are to be included they could be included in a further amendment (see later).
The Panel agrees with this recommendation although it did not meet Mr Chandler's concerns.
A written submission received from Mr John Van Graas of the Blue Dandenong's Bulb Farm raised a number of issues including the fact his land is cleared for agriculture. Following discussions at the Hearing the CFA agreed that the WMO could be lifted from those titles located more than 100m from high fuel load areas. The Panel considered this a satisfactory resolution which partly meets the objections raised.
Mr George Weda of Smith's Road Toolangi also requested the WMO be removed as his land was cleared for agriculture. However the land adjoins areas of high fuel load State Park land and the CFA recommended it be retained in the WMO. The Panel agreed with this argument.
Conclusion on wildfire overlay submissions not satisfied by alterations
The Panel is satisfied that the Country Fire Authority has amended the fire plans to reflect the best and most up to date information available and accordingly supports the application of the Wildfire Management Overlay as now proposed by the Council and the Country Fire Authority.
The Wildfire Management Overlay be altered as proposed by the Country Fire Authority and shown on the Plans in Appendix C.
As part of its assessment of Amendment C8 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme the Panel is required to assess the amendment against the Strategic Assessment Guidelines contained in the General Practice Note on Strategic Assessment Guidelines for Planning Scheme Amendments. A copy of the General Practice Note is included in Appendix F.
The matters to be considered and the Panel's response are as follows:
Yes an amendment is required to implement updated flood and fire hazard mapping.
The amendment builds on and adds to the existing provisions in the current scheme.
The strategic basis for the amendment is outlined in section 5 of this report.
Does the amendment adequately address environmental effects?
The amendment will result in increased protection of floodway storage and assist with protection from wildfire.
Does the amendment adequately address the relevant social and economic effects?
The amendment will better identify land subject to flooding and wildfire with resultant social and economic benefits.
Does the amendment comply with the requirements of the Ministerial Direction on the form and content of Planning Schemes?
Yes. The Panel has addressed issues relating to the use of fully protected schedules in section 10 of this report.
Do any other Minister's Directions apply to the Amendment? If so, have they been complied with? Is the Amendment accompanied by all the information required by a Direction?
STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The amendment responds directly to sections 15.02 (Floodplain Management) and 15.07 (Protection from Wildfire) of the SPPF
How does the Amendment seek to implement and or support the MSS?
The MSS identifies the importance of flooding and wildfire issues in the Shire of Murrindindi.
The amendment includes additional material that further emphasises the importance of flooding issues. It also introduces specific objectives strategies and implementation measures relating to these issues.
What local planning policies will the amendment affect or be affected by?
Does the Amendment use the most appropriate VPP tools?
The amendment introduces new areas into the land Subject to Inundation, Floodway and Wildfire Management Overlays. These are the appropriate ways to recognise updated mapping relating to these issues.
The schedules to the flood overlays and the incorporated Local Floodplain Development generally contain prescriptive measures but these are considered appropriate in the circumstances of this amendment.
The Panel has made comment regarding an apparent inconsistency between these practice notes in section 10 of this report.
Does the Amendment contain new formal or informal referral requirements?
The schedules to the Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway overlays both contain provisions to exempt applications from referral to the Catchment Authority provided the applications meet the requirements set out in the Local Floodplain Development Plan (Incorporated). The Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority supports these provisions.
What is the cumulative effect of this amendment on the strategic directions of the planning scheme?
The amendment will better implement the strategic directions of the existing planning scheme by containing more accurate and up to date flood and fire hazard mapping.
The amendments and desired outcomes are quite clear. The Scheme will be further improved by additional amendments to take account of further changes to mapping in both the flood and fire hazard area. The Council has undertaken to prepare these additional amendments and this report contains a recommendation to that effect.
Material Direction 9 requires the explanatory report for an amendment to address the following matters:
The Metropolitan strategy is not relevant to amendment C8 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme
The Panel has considered all the submissions referred to it and all the material presented at the hearings. The Panel has reached the following conclusions:
Based on the reasons set out in this report, the Panel makes the following recommendations to the planning authority:
Amendment C8 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme should be adopted subject to the following recommendations numbered 1 to 7 below.
The Panel makes the following additional recommendation that:
To reduce the electronic size of this document the Appendices has been excluded in this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria or Murrindindi Shire Council to obtain a copy of these pages."
The Panel recommended that Amendment C8 to the Murrindindi Planning Scheme be adopted subject to: (1) alterations to the areas covered by the overlays as suggested by the Catchment Authority and Country Fire Authority; (2) minor alterations to the Municipal Strategic Statement; (3) adoption of the schedules to the flood overlays as tabled at the hearing; (4) incorporation of the Local Floodplain Development Plan; and (5) high priority exhibition of a new amendment to address major changes to overlay areas not included in the exhibited version.