1. In application P788/2024 the decision of the responsible authority is varied.
2. In planning permit application PA088/2023 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 20-22 Morris Street Maldon VIC 3463 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

Subdivision of land in the General Residential Zone Schedule 1.

Subdivision of land in the Heritage Overlay Schedule HO444.

For Steve Strangward, Albert Wright, Jessica Getty, Kate Stedman, Norman J. Cutbush, Susan Lane, Graham Thomas and William Frederick Berryman

Three lot subdivision comprising Lot 1 with an area of 1,165 square metres with access to Caudry Street, Lot 2 with an area of 1,019 square metres with an existing access to Morris Street and Lot 3 with an area of 1,332 square metres with access to Caudry Street.

Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) - to review the decision to grant a permit.

General Residential Zone Schedule 1 - 'Mount Alexander General Residential Area' ('GRZ1')

Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 - 'Maldon Landscape Area' ('SLO1')

Heritage Overlay - Schedule HO444 - 'Maldon Historic Residential Area' ('HO444')

Clause 52.29-2 to subdivide land adjacent to a road in the Transport Zone 2 (Morris Street)

Clauses 02.02, 02.03, 02.04, 11, 15, 32.08, 43.01, 44.06, 52.29, 53.01, 56, 65 and 71.02

The subject land is on the south-west corner of Morris Street and Caudry Street in Maldon. It is generally rectangular in shape with a frontage of 50.29 metres to Morris Street (north), an eastern boundary frontage to Caudry Street of 76.44 metres, a western boundary length of 60.15 metres and a rear (southern) boundary length of 54.32 metres and with an overall area of 3,566 square metres. It is vacant, with a large native tree close to the western boundary of the land.

The subject land is located on the eastern edge of Maldon and within the settlement boundary with residentially zoned land to the west, low density residentially zoned land to the north on the opposite side of Morris Street, and land to the east on the opposite side of Caudry Street and immediately to the south being outside the settlement boundary and in the Farming Zone ('FZ').

The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of residential lots, rural lifestyle properties and agricultural area, with a varied subdivision pattern, with large and small sized lots, typically with a dwelling and outbuildings set within a treed landscape.

1. Mount Alexander Shire Council ('Council') determined on 24 June 2024 to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit No. PA088/2023 for a three lot subdivision of land at 20-22 Morris Street, Maldon ('site').
2. The site is a large generally rectangular shaped parcel of land, relatively flat and vacant with an overall area of 3,566 square metres (refer to Figure 1). It is on the south-west corner of Morris Street and Caudry Street and within, but on the edge of the Maldon township settlement boundary.

Figure 1: The site and surrounding area, sourced from the respondent's submission.

1. The site is in the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 - 'Mount Alexander General Residential Area' ('GRZ1') and in the Heritage Overlay HO444 which is a heritage precinct relating to the 'Maldon Historic Residential Area ('HO444'). The site is also within the Bushfire Management Overlay ('BMO'). Permit requirements are triggered under each of these controls as well as under Clause 52.29[2] to subdivide land.
2. The site is vacant and has a large canopy tree on the western boundary. No vegetation is proposed to be removed.
3. The area is an eclectic mix of development and zoning. Land immediately to the west and along the south side of Morris Street is in the GRZ1. Land to the north is in the Low Density Residential Zone ('LDRZ'), while land to the south and east of the site is in the Farming Zone ('FZ'). The surrounding area comprises a mix of lots sizes containing dwellings with lots generally varying between around 1,000 square metres and 10,000 square metres.
4. The subdivision proposes residential lots of 1,019 square metres, 1,165 square metres and 1,332 square metres in size.
5. A joint application for review of Council's decision has been lodged with the Tribunal by Steve Strangward and others ('applicants').[3] They are concerned the proposed subdivision will result in adverse impacts on heritage values at the entry to Maldon which is a settlement recognised as a well-preserved 19th century gold mining heritage town. They say the high density of the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the visual harmony of the town's entrance and diminishes the unique historic and rural feel of the area. They consider the proposal fails to comply with policy of the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme ('planning scheme') including heritage policy, the Maldon Design Guidelines and also with regards to bushfire protection.
6. Council supports the proposal and considers the subdivision an acceptable outcome. It says the proposed subdivision is consistent with the planning scheme being a large site within the settlement boundaries of the Maldon township and with access to infrastructure including the provision of reticulated sewerage. Council says the site is in the GRZ1 and the proposed subdivision will allow for an appropriately responsive residential development that will be respectful to heritage values and responsive to neighbourhood character. Future residential development of the proposed lots will require a planning permit (at the least under the Heritage Overlay and Significant Landscape Overlay) and will need to respond to the planning scheme requirements at the time when any proposals for development are lodged.
7. In response to the review application, the permit applicants, Brendan Furlong and Denise Sibenaler ('respondents') consider the proposal an acceptable outcome with respect to the planning scheme. They say the subdivision balances the need for housing opportunities in Maldon whilst considering subsequent development through a proposed subdivision design that sensitively creates generously sized lots which allows scope for future development to be designed to satisfy the Maldon Design Guidelines.

1. The proposal is to subdivide the site into three similarly sized lots with the following features (refer to Figure 2):
   • Lot 1 on the corner of Morris Street and Caudry Street with an area of 1,165 square metres, frontage width to Caudry Street of 51.28 metres and a frontage width to Morris Street of 25 metres. A 3.5 metre wide crossover is proposed for access from Caudry Street. For bushfire mitigation purposes, a building envelope is identified in the Bushfire Management Plan ('BMP') with a setback 9 metres from Morris Street, 4 metres from Caudry Street and 5 metres from the rear southern boundary.
   • Lot 2 on the western portion of the site fronting Morris Street with a frontage width of 43.44 metres and an area of 1,019 square metres. An existing crossover to Morris Street will provide access and a building envelope for bushfire mitigation purposes is identified in the BMP with a 9 metre setback from the street and a 5 metre setback from the adjoining residential boundary to the west and to the south. Both Lots 1 and 2 will have a setback each of 1.5 metres along their shared east/west boundary.
   • Lot 3 located on the rear of the site (south) with an area of 1,332 square metres. It is the largest of the three lots with a frontage width to Caudry Street of 25.16 metres and a depth along its southern boundary of 54.32 metres. A 3.5 metre wide crossover is also proposed to provide access from Caudry Street. The BMP identifies a building envelope with a 4 metre setback to both Caudry Street and to the southern (side) boundary, a 5 metre setback to the rear and a 1.5 metre setback along the common boundary with Lots 1 and 2 to the north.

1. The scope of the Tribunal's considerations in this proceeding are constrained.
2. The proposal triggers permit requirements under the following provisions of the planning scheme:
   • Clause 32.08-3 to subdivide land in the GRZ1.
   • Clause 43.01-1 to subdivide land in the HO444.
   • Clause 44.06-2 to subdivide land in the BMO.
   • Clause 52.29-2 to subdivide land adjacent to a road in the Transport Zone 2 (Morris Street).
3. An application made to the Tribunal under section 82(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) only relates to the permissions that are non-exempt from notice and review provisions.[4] The permit requirements under the BMO[5] and Clause 52.29[6] are exempt from notice and review rights. Council, in determining to issue a notice of decision to grant a permit have determined the matters relating to bushfire and access. These issues are now not before me. The ambit of jurisdiction before me now relates to the permissions required under the GRZ1 and HO444. These relate to residential, neighbourhood and heritage character issues.
4. This position is in accordance with the decision of Quigley J in Myers v Southern Grampians SC [2023] VSC 658,[7] where at paragraph 25, her honour says:

In an application where there are multiple permit triggers for a proposal overall, but the permission under review pursuant to the Planning Act and the VCAT Act is limited by operation of the exemptions applying to the review, the ambit of the Tribunal's review enquiry will be restricted to the non-exempt provisions. This approach is not inconsistent with integrated decision-making on the proposal overall. The respective decisions of Ashley J in Sweetvale, the Court of Appeal in Sweetvale and in 1045 Burke Road are not inconsistent and can be read together as establishing an approach to the proper consideration of multiple permissions, but recognising the Tribunal's jurisdictional limitations on review where there are exempt provisions in play.

1. Hence, my considerations are limited to determining the dispute as it relates to the permit requirements under the GRZ1 and the HO444. However, I may give some consideration to what is not within my jurisdiction when considering the scope of my deliberations as they relate to those permissions that are before me.
2. It is noted that the proposed subdivision plans show building envelopes. It is important to distinguish that these are mainly for bushfire mitigation purposes, although they do attempt to demonstrate compliance with Standard C8 of Clause 56.04 regarding lot areas. Irrespective, they are indicative and show how any future building on each lot can be sited in order to respond to bushfire hazards and risks including provision of defendable space and for achieving a Bushfire Attack Level 'BAL' 29 construction standard.
3. The reference to the building envelope, the BAL-29 construction standard and the BMP all relate to requirements of the BMO which is not within the scope of my jurisdiction. They relate to matters that have already been determined by Council and have been prepared for the purpose of an exemption from requiring a future planning permit for a dwelling under Clause 44.06-2 of the planning scheme.
4. Accordingly, the building envelopes do not 'lock-in' the siting of future development from the perspective of neighbourhood and heritage character. These issues, apart from what I consider at the subdivision stage, are matters that will still be required to be considered and determined at any future buildings and works development stage as part of any future separate permit application process at that time.

1. The issues raised within the context of this review relate to the design responsiveness of the proposed subdivision to the provisions of the planning scheme including neighbourhood and heritage character.
2. Having heard the submissions and inspected the site and surrounds, the key issue arising from this proposal is:
   • Whether the proposal is appropriately responsive to the policy and provisions of the planning scheme?
3. I must decide whether the proposal will produce an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the planning scheme.
4. Net community benefit and sustainable development is central in reaching a conclusion. Clause 71.02-3 - 'Integrated Decision Making' of the planning scheme requires the decision-maker to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.
5. With this proposed subdivision I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.
6. Having considered all submissions presented regarding the applicable policies and provisions of the planning scheme, as relevant to the scope of my considerations, and assisted by my inspection, I find the proposal achieves an acceptable outcome.
7. I have decided to vary the decision of Council and direct that a permit is granted subject to those conditions that are within my ambit of consideration and as outlined in Appendix A. My reasons follow.

WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IS APPROPRIATELY RESPONSIVE TO THE POLICY AND PROVISIONS OF THE PLANNING SCHEME?

1. The proposal to subdivide a large vacant parcel of residentially zoned land on the edge of Maldon into three lots has raised issues around the balance to be struck between facilitating residential growth whilst being responsive to neighbourhood and heritage character (refer to Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3: Land use zoning showing the site on the edge of the residential zoning, sourced from Council's submission.

1. Protection of heritage values of the area which, the applicants say, is reflected in large lots containing dwellings that are generously spaced and well set back from roads and boundaries, is important. The applicants say this importance is further highlighted by the site being at one of the town's gateway locations making it sensitive to inappropriate development.
2. The applicants say the proposed lots are too small and do not reflect the character of this part of town. They say the small size of the lots do not allow for future development to be capable of being designed to respect the heritage character of the area.
3. This viewpoint throws up the juxtaposition that the site finds itself which is land zoned for residential purposes and recognised for heritage value adjacent to land immediately abutting to the south and west on the other side of Caudry Street which is in the FZ, and which has no Heritage Overlay coverage.[8]

Figure 4: Heritage Overlay coverage of the site and surrounds, sourced from Council's submission.

1. The site is in the GRZ1. Apart from seeking to implement the Municipal Planning Strategy ('MPS') and the Planning Policy Framework ('PPF'), it has the purposes of encouraging development that is responsive to the neighbourhood character of the area and that will provide a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.
2. I note that one of the purposes of the zone has changed under Amendment VC267 which was gazetted on 6 March 2025 and became operational on 31 March 2025 replacing 'respect' to 'responsive' in reference to neighbourhood character.[9]
3. The respondents consider the changes from 'respect' to 'responsive' reflects a shift towards relaxing the response to neighbourhood character. Mr Ireland referred to the explanatory report supporting Amendment VC267 submitting that the change to the purpose reflects a move towards facilitating more housing and a relaxation of the purpose of the GRZ1 to consider neighbourhood character whilst allowing greater densities of residential development.
4. I note that Clause 32.08-3 relating to 'Subdivision' requires a permit to subdivide land which, for proposals to subdivide land into 3-15 lots must meet the objectives, and should meet the standards of Clause 56, except for the following:
   • Clause 56.02-1 relating to strategic policy implementation.
   • Clause 56.03-1 relating to compact and walkable neighbourhoods.
   • Clause 56.03-2 relating to activity centres.
   • Clause 56.03-3 relating to planning for community facilities.
   • Clause 56.03-4 relating to creating urban places with identity and character.
   • Clause 56.05-2 relating to public open space provision.
   • Clause 56.06-1 relating to integrated mobility.
   • Clause 56.06-3 relating to public transport network objectives.
   • Clause 56.06-6 relating to public transport detail.
5. Relevantly, I note Clause 56.03-5 includes the objective for subdivisions to be designed to respond to neighbourhood character. It includes a standard ('Standard C6') that also retains a reference that subdivision should respect the existing neighbourhood character or achieve a preferred neighbourhood character. The standard also includes that subdivision should respond to and integrate with the surrounding urban environment.
6. The GRZ1 includes decision guidelines relevant to subdivision that require consideration of the pattern of subdivision and its effect on the spacing of buildings.
7. The site is covered by the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 - 'Maldon Landscape Area' ('SLO1'). However, no permit requirement is triggered for subdivision under this overlay and hence it is not relevant to my assessment.
8. The site is also covered by the HO444. Unlike sites that may be individually identified by the Heritage Overlay, the site is included within a larger heritage precinct that covers Maldon's residential areas.
9. A permit requirement is triggered under the HO444 to subdivide land.
10. The main purpose of the Heritage Overlay is to conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places and ensure that they are not undermined or threatened by inappropriate development.
11. Decision guidelines under the Heritage Overlay relevant to the proposal include:
    • The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the significance of the place.
    • Any statement of significance.
    • Any heritage design guidelines.
    • Whether the subdivision may result in development which will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the place.
12. In this regard, Council referred me to the Maldon Design Guidelines, May 2022 which is an incorporated document under the planning scheme and referenced in policy under Clause 15.03-1L. The Maldon Design Guidelines includes a statement of significance that references the historic gold mining past of Maldon and the influence that has had on the make-up of the town and its layout and configuration.
13. Regarding policy in the MPS, Clause 02.03-1 relating to 'Settlement' includes the following reference to Maldon:

Maldon is the second largest township. The town has been recognised for its heritage significance. The retail centre in High Street, Maldon, is the second largest retail centre in the Shire. It provides local shopping needs for the township and the rural district in the north western part of the Shire and serves an important tourism role.

1. The policy identifies that the Shire has a diverse settlement pattern with small townships that have developed in response to the demands of the gold rush era. The policy states there is at least 15 years' supply of zoned residential land but that in recent years, most of the new residential lots created in the Shire have been from small, infill subdivisions.
2. I consider the proposal in this case to be an infill subdivision because it is utilising an existing large parcel of land located within the GRZ1 for what would be considered a subdivision with a small yield, at three lots.
3. The policy under Clause 02.03-1 also identifies that there is a need to accommodate population growth with a likely shift to larger subdivisions and increased urban densities, but with an emphasis on Castlemaine. Nevertheless, I note the policy does ask Council to encourage balanced development that builds on the Shire's existing settlement pattern with a regional focus on Castlemaine, that does not eliminate towns such as Maldon from accommodating some growth where services are available. In this regard, the policy sets a strategic direction for Council for limiting urban expansion in Maldon.
4. Clause 02.03-5 relating to 'Built environment and heritage' recognises Maldon as one of the most intact 19th century towns in Australia. The policy says:

The residential areas typically have a spacious feel, derived from the generous lot sizes, building setbacks and wide road reserves. Urban areas often lack formal road and footpath treatments, which give these areas an informal character.

1. Relevant strategic directions under the policy include:
   • Maintaining the integrity of places of heritage significance.
   • Conserving and enhancing the existing scale, density, character and appearance of Maldon's earlier residential areas.
   • Encouraging development at highway entrances that respect township character and heritage values.
2. Clause 02.03-9 relating to 'Infrastructure - Development Infrastructure' refers to encouraging residential development in the GRZ1 being connected to reticulated sewerage and requiring contributions for open space for new residential subdivisions. I note the proposed subdivision is intended to be connected to reticulated sewerage and a contribution to open space has been included by way of a condition in Council's approval.
3. Under Clause 02.04, the 'Mount Alexander Strategic Framework Plan' notes the following for Maldon:
   • Ensure future infill development is compatible in form and appearance.
   • Maintain the character and function of the historic commercial and tourist area.
   • Protection and enhancement of surrounding reserves and other natural landscapes.
4. Similarly, the 'Maldon Framework Plan' under Clause 02.04 identifies that the site:
   • is within the settlement boundary;
   • is outside of the view corridor;[10] and
   • is approximately 600 metres to the east of the identified town entry from Bendigo at the existing railway crossing.[11]
5. Regarding policy in the PPF, Clause 11.01-1S relating to 'Settlement', refers to sustainable settlement patterns being promoted by directing growth to areas with access to services, infrastructure and transport with emphasis on maintaining settlement boundaries and directing and promoting growth into settlements.
6. Relevant for subdivision, policy under Clause 15.01-3S relating to 'Subdivision design' seeks to ensure subdivision design achieves attractive, safe, accessible, diverse and sustainable neighbourhoods. Clause 15.01-5S relating to 'Neighbourhood character' seeks to recognise, support and protect neighbourhood character and sense of place.
7. With regards to heritage, Clause 15.03-1S seeks to ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance. More nuanced local policy under Clause 15.03-1L includes the following strategies relevant to subdivision:
   • Support subdivision of heritage places where the subdivision and any resulting development does not adversely affect the heritage significance of the place.
   • Design and layout the subdivision of heritage places so that it retains and extends the existing built form pattern where such pattern contributes to the significance of the heritage place.
   • Encourage subdivision that complements and is consistent with the rhythm and pattern of buildings in heritage precincts.
   • Avoid subdivision where it will adversely affect the important views of, and the interrelationship between, groups of significant or contributory heritage buildings.
   • Ensure that the location of boundaries and building envelopes in new subdivisions do not threaten significant vegetation.
   • Avoid new lot boundaries that would bisect the root or canopy zone of significant vegetation.
   • Retain gardens and established trees that contribute to the setting of a significant or contributory heritage building or precinct in the same allotment as the building.
8. The local policy includes a requirement to consider the Maldon Design Guidelines. Relevant to subdivision, the Maldon Design Guidelines include the following relevant objectives:
   • Ensure that the subdivision complements and supports the significance of Maldon's historic areas.
   • Ensure that development that results from subdivision does not adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.
   • Retain significant and large trees and encourage subdivision that allows for gardens that can accommodate large canopy trees.

1. As outlined earlier, my considerations and findings are limited to those permissions subject to the scope that an application by an objector for a Tribunal review allows. In this respect, the applicants say the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with Maldon's neighbourhood and heritage character. They referred me to Maldon's designation by the National Trust as 'Australia's First Notable Town' recognised for its well-preserved 19th century gold mining heritage and streetscapes. They say the proposal provides no benefit to the community and will leave a long-lasting impact on the immediate neighbourhood and heritage character of the eastern gateway to Maldon. They say the early impression of arriving into Maldon warrants protection.
2. To demonstrate this concern, the applicants say the site is highly visible and located at a major tourism entrance to Maldon when travelling in from the east from the Bendigo direction (refer to Figure 5). The National Trust's sign designating the towns significance is positioned within the Morris Street road reserve directly in front of the site (refer to Figure 6). The applicants say this sign marks the entry to the town's heritage significance.

Figure 5: Oblique aerial view looking west towards the site, sourced from the applicant's submission.

Figure 6: National Trust sign identifying Maldon's heritage located in front of the site, sourced from the applicant's submission.

1. The applicants say the proposal for a residential subdivision of three lots between 1,019 square metres and 1,332 square metres in size creates a lot pattern that introduces an abrupt increase in density at a key intersection, disrupting the harmony of the town's entrance and diminishing Maldon's unique historic and rural feel. They say despite the residential zoning of the site it is not within an area where small lots predominate. They say there is no demand for the size of lots that are proposed on the edge of town. The surrounding properties are a mix of zones with FZ to the south and east, LDRZ to the north and GRZ1 to the west that contains an 1860's miners cottage set on a lot around 4,000 square metres in size at 18 Morris Street. All the immediately adjacent properties to the site are large lots, greater in size to what is proposed with most ranging between around 4,000 square metres to 8,000 square metres.
2. The result is what the applicants say is a subdivision layout that fails to conform with the surrounding subdivision pattern in terms of lot size and the inherent failure to provide space for future built form that can provide generous setbacks and landscaping that responds to the spacious neighbourhood and heritage character of the area.
3. The creation of the proposed lots set, what the applicants say, will be a future outcome where new dwellings will be unable to respond appropriately to the spacious character that contributes to the heritage values of the eastern entry into Maldon. The site is highly visible with the alignment of Morris Street with little screening afforded to the site from the large canopy trees located in front of the site within the Morris Street road reserve. The narrow width of Lots 1 and 2 and the setbacks of 9 metres from Morris Street and 4 metres from Caudry Street for Lot 1, combined with the small side boundary setbacks between building envelopes of Lots 1 and 2 means that the pattern and rhythm of the historic streetscape will be disrupted and unable to be addressed by landscaping due to inadequate space for appropriate planting. This is what, the applicants say, will result in an inconsistent design response to the Maldon Design Guidelines.
4. The applicants say the surrounding properties along Morris Street have an average street setback of around 16 metres. They say a proposal with a 9 metre street setback is an inconsistent design response and limits space for the establishment of gardens that include canopy trees.
5. Along Caudry Street, setbacks are around 13-20 metres and a 4 metre setback for Lot 1 and Lot 3 is also an inappropriate response.
6. The applicants say the setbacks from Morris Street shown in the building envelopes will result in future built form reducing the visibility of the side view of the existing miners cottage on 18 Morris Street. They say, this represents an inappropriate design response with the proposed subdivision and reflects a poor design outcome that arises from lots that are too small with limited setbacks that is set-up to fail to satisfy the Maldon Design Guidelines, the Heritage Overlay and heritage policy. They say the lots will simply result in future built form adversely impacting on the heritage character of the area and on adjoining and nearby heritage properties.
7. In formulating my findings, I note that much emphasis has been placed by the parties on the building envelopes shown on the plan of subdivision regarding siting and layout. The building envelopes are shown on the plan of subdivision as a product of design for the purposes of:
   • demonstrating a response to accommodating sufficient space to satisfy the objective of Clause 56.04-2 which is to provide lots with areas and dimensions that enable the appropriate siting and construction of a dwelling with solar access, private open space, vehicle access and parking, water management, easements and retention of significant vegetation and site features, where relevant. The building envelopes demonstrate that, for lots greater than 500 square metres in size, the requirements of Standard C8 of Clause 56.04-2 to be able to contain a rectangle measuring 10 metres by 15 metres, can be satisfied for the proposal; and
   • to respond to bushfire hazard contained in the BMP and establish an exemption from the need for a permit for a future dwelling under the BMO.
8. The building envelopes shown in the plan of subdivision are indicative and are not intended to be a mandatory requirement or restriction on title. I note that any future dwelling proposed to be constructed on the proposed lots will be subject to a separate permit application process (most notably under the HO444 and the SLO1) and matters of built form siting and design can be considered, assessed and determined at that time and in accordance with the planning scheme at the time.
9. I accept this proposition, because, in my view, the proposed subdivision achieves a balanced response to what the planning scheme seeks. The site is in the settlement boundary of Maldon (refer to Figure 7) and is an infill development with a diversity of lots in a residentially zoned area (refer to Figure 3) with access to services including reticulated sewerage.
10. The lot sizes proposed are relatively large for land in the GRZ1 and are, what I consider, a reasonable response to, and consistent with, the lot size pattern evident in the area. There are similar sized lots in the GRZ1 further to the west of the site at 4, 6, 8 and 14 Morris Street (refer to Figure 3). The site is at the eastern edge of the GRZ1 with land to the north, south and east in either the LDRZ or FZ. These zonings include different siting requirements with greater restrictions for new dwellings compared to land in the GRZ1. I do not find it appropriate to require land in the GRZ1 to be as constrained as land in these other zones.
11. The planning scheme establishes directions through zoning, overlays and policy. The proposal provides lot sizes that are larger than what would be usually found in the GRZ1. In my view, I find the lot sizes proposed are consistent with the low-density character of the area and are a reasonable attempt to provide for lots that are responsive and respectful to the character of the neighbourhood and to the heritage character of the area.

Figure 7: Maldon Framework Plan showing the site within and on the edge of the settlement boundary.

1. The adjoining heritage dwelling to the west at 18 Morris Street is setback around 8.7 metres from the street. Both Lots 1 and 2 have the space available, and demonstrated by the building envelopes, to provide for 9 metre setbacks from Morris Street.
2. Lot 1, as a corner allotment and Lot 3 have been shown with setbacks of 4 metres from Caudry Street. Although these setbacks are small, I consider they both have some capacity for greater setbacks, particularly for Lot 3 to better respond to, but not mimic, the 23 metre setback of 2 Caudry Street to the south, and the 16 metre side boundary setback of the dwelling to the east at 24 Morris Street. This is because both these properties are in the FZ with different development expectations compared to the GRZ1.
3. I am also satisfied the proposed subdivision is compliant and consistent with the relevant standards under Clause 56 of the planning scheme.
4. Regarding the Maldon Design Guidelines, the proposal is for subdivision with no demolition or buildings and works proposed. Hence, the importance with any response with creating new allotments is spacing and arrangement. The objectives under the Maldon Design Guidelines relating to subdivision call for subdivision to complement and support the significance of Maldon's historic areas and to not adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.
5. Supporting these objectives are the following relevant principles:
   • Spacing for trees, gardens and buildings.
   • Retention of the rhythm and pattern of built form in the historic streetscape.
   • Retention of views to significant heritage buildings from the public realm.
   • Avoid subdivision that adversely affect the relationship between groups of heritage buildings and their settings.
   • Retain opportunity for landscaping and tree retention.
6. Relevant guidelines under the Maldon Design Guidelines include minimising visibility of new infill development from the street and ensure it is subservient to the significant elements of the heritage place.
7. The respondents say the lots are generous in size and allow space for landscaping.
8. Council says the surrounding residential properties include varied side boundary setbacks. Land at 12 and 14 Morris Street have a separation of around 2.5 metres, with elements of 14 Morris Street built to the eastern property boundary. The adjoining property at 18 Morris Street includes water tanks and outbuildings between 0.2 metres and 4 metres from the western boundary, and a 7.5 metre setback from the adjoining eastern boundary. Council says the building envelopes demonstrate a reasonable response to the rhythm and spacing of existing buildings within the streetscape which can be achieved with the proposed lots. A 5 metre setback is shown to the heritage listed property at 18 Morris Street, and 1.5 metres between the building envelopes for proposed Lots 1 and 2.
9. Council also submitted that the Heritage Advisor offered no objection to the proposed subdivision.
10. In this regard, Council says the proposed subdivision will have negligible impact to the Maldon Historic Residential Area.
11. I agree with Council and consider the size of the proposed lots offer the opportunity to ensure the siting of any future dwelling can be set back sufficiently (including the indicative 9 metre setback shown on the building envelopes) to respect the streetscape rhythm and minimise the potential for adverse impacts on oblique views of the cottage at 18 Morris Street.
12. The entry to Maldon is not identified in the Maldon Framework Plan, nor in the Maldon Design Guidelines as being in front of the site associated with the National Trust sign. It is identified in these plans around 600 metres further east at the railway crossing into town. When viewed from the west, a short service road is located off Morris Street, in front of the site (as shown in Figures 5 and 6) which contributes an additional setback for any future built form on proposed Lots 1 and 2. This assists with sharing the side-on oblique visibility of the existing miners cottage at 18 Morris Street, a visibility that will only increase as one gets closer to the site.
13. Views in the opposite direction (to the east) when travelling out of town will not be impacted by the proposal. The proposal will also not impact on views of the other nearby individually heritage listed dwellings further east at 17 and 26 Morris Street.
14. Finally, the applicants referred to Maldon being a part of the Central Victorian Goldfields region which has been added in January 2025 to Australia's World Heritage Tentative List, which is a first step towards potential UNESCO World Heritage Status. They expressed concern the proposed subdivision would undermine and not enhance the preservation of the town as a world heritage site.
15. I acknowledge this submission from the applicants. However, it is not relevant to my considerations given it is a reference to Maldon within a broader region on a tentative list which currently has no status, and which is not referenced in the planning scheme.
16. Overall, I am satisfied the proposed subdivision will not result in adverse impacts on the neighbourhood or heritage character of the area.

1. I have had the benefit of a 'without prejudice' discussion of draft permit conditions circulated by Council.
2. I have amended conditions as I consider appropriate for the proposal and the issues regarding the proposed subdivision and within the ambit of my discretion given the permissions within my scope of consideration.

1. The proposed subdivision balances the aspirations of the planning scheme for infill residential development that is responsive to neighbourhood character and complements heritage character.
2. This is not a case where, for heritage reasons, this part of Maldon is to be preserved. The residential zoning of the site prevents this from occurring. Change can and will happen. It is about how such change is responsive and respectful and is managed. I am satisfied the nature of the change arising from the proposal to subdivide the site into three lots is an acceptable outcome. Further, any future dwellings will be subject to separate planning approval which will ensure built form design is assessed against the planning scheme requirements and policy, at the time.
3. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. A permit is granted subject to amended conditions.

Subdivision of land in the General Residential Zone Schedule 1.

Subdivision of land in the Heritage Overlay Schedule HO444.

1. The layout of the subdivision as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

1. The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, and electricity (where it is proposed to be connected) services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authority's requirements and relevant legislation at the time.
2. All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created.
3. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic) must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8 of that act.
4. The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with:
   1. A telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the provider's requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and
   2. A suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the Applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.
5. Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic), the owner of the land must provide written confirmation from:
   1. A telecommunications network or service provider that all lots are connected to, or are ready for connection to telecommunications services in accordance with the provider's requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and
   2. A suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunication facilities have been provided in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.

1. Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic), the permit holder must pay to the Responsible Authority a cash payment equivalent to five (5) percent of the site value of all the land in the subdivision in lieu of the provision of land for Public Open Space, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

The owner must pay the reasonable costs for the preparation of a land valuation at the request of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision, detailed access and drainage construction plans must be submitted to and approved by Council. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of the permit. The engineering plans must accord with the Infrastructure Design Manual (IDM). All works constructed or carried out must be in accordance with those approved plans and completed to a standard satisfactory to Council prior to the issuing of Statement of Compliance.
2. The whole of the subject land, including landscaped and paved areas, must be graded, and drained to the satisfaction of the Council as the responsible drainage authority so as to prevent the discharge of water from the subject land across any road or onto any adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The site stormwater discharge is not to be increased by the proposed development. If it does, then the drainage system shall include provision of storm water detention system to limit flows downstream from the development to pre-development levels in accordance with the current Australian rainfall and runoff - flood analysis and design for a 20 percent annual exceedance probability event (IDM design standards - section 19.3 requirements).
4. Prior to the issue of Statement of Compliance, the applicant/owner must enter into an agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) with Council which affects each lot within the subdivision. Such agreement must covenant that:
   1. The owner will maintain the on-site detention system and not undertake any modifications without prior written approval from the Council.
   2. The owner shall allow duly authorised officers of the Council to inspect the system at mutually agreed times.
   3. The owner will pay for all costs associated with the construction and maintenance of the on-site detention system.

This requirement will not apply in the event that a stormwater detention system does not form part of the approved drainage design.

1. Provide cut off drains or similar to provide ongoing protection to adjoining properties from overland storm water flow. Provision is to be made to divert major rainfall (one in 100 year) storm events away from the building envelopes of lots within this and adjoining subdivisions.
2. The owner must formalise/tidy-up the open drain at property boundaries to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The proposed vehicle crossover is to be constructed to the satisfaction and requirements of Council. No impending or redirection of existing surface flow is allowed to occur as a result of these works. Council's minimum standards are:
   1. 3.5m wide with appropriately sized reinforced concrete pipes (min 375mm) 4.8m long centred on the crossover matching the capacity of the open drain.
   2. 100mm minimum compacted thickness of road base gravel from edge of road to property line.
   3. Crossings must be positioned keeping a minimum of 3m clearance from the Council trees located at the property frontages.
   4. Batters to be re-established either side of culverts to ensure free flow.
4. The owner must restrict sediment discharges from any construction sites within the land in accordance with EPA publication 1834.1 Civil Construction, Building and Demolition Guide (September 2023).
5. Prior to the commencement of any works on the road reserve the owner/applicant must submit a minor works in a road reserve application and be issued a permit to occupy the road for works.
6. Council is to be paid a fee of 0.75 percent of the total construction costs for these works for the approval of said plans plus 2.5 percent for supervision of construction. Said fees to be paid prior to commencement of any road/ drainage works.

1. All construction and ongoing activities must be in accordance with EPA publication 1834.1 Civil Construction, Building and Demolition Guide (September 2023).
2. Any plan of subdivision lodged for certification must be referred to Goulburn-Murray Rural Water Corporation pursuant to Section 8(1)(a) of the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic).
3. Each lot must be provided with connection to the reticulated sewerage system in accordance with the requirements of the relevant urban water authority.
4. Stormwater from the site must be discharged to a legal point as nominated by the Responsible Authority. All infrastructure and works to manage stormwater must be in accordance with the requirements of the Responsible Authority.

1. The owner is required to reach agreement with Coliban Water for the provision of reticulated water and gravity/pressure sewerage services to each of the lots within the subdivision and comply with any requirements arising from any effect of the proposed development on Coliban Water assets.

The required reticulated gravity/pressure sewer main extension must be finalised in accordance with Coliban Water's Developer Installed Works process.

Services are to be provided and where necessary, existing services must be amended in accordance with our specifications.

1. Applications to amend existing services and/or connect to Coliban's water supply and sewerage services will need to be made through our Consent to Connect process. For new water supply services, Coliban Water's approved contractor is required to install the water tappings, meter assemblies and digital data devices (water meters) which will be located in an accessible location within two metres, but no closer than 600mm, inside a title boundary line fronting Morris Street and Caudry Street.

All private works for water supply and sanitary drainage must be constructed in accordance with the National Plumbing and Drainage Code of Australia being AS 3500, the MRWA Water Metering & Servicing Guidelines 2022 and or any relevant requirements of Coliban Water.

1. Evidence to the satisfaction of Coliban Water will be required to verify that the existing metered water supply and service pipes located on Lot 2, have been amended by a registered and licensed plumbing contractor to ensure that the meter assembly and digital data device (water meter), is located in an accessible location within two metres, but no closer than 600mm, inside the title boundary lines of the lot fronted by the water main (Coliban Water asset) located within the road reserve.
2. All Coliban Water proposed assets within the subdivision, are to be protected by an easement created in favour of Coliban Region Water Corporation.
3. If sewer servicing of each of the lots created is to be by pressure sewer rather than provision of traditional gravity sewer then; a New Customer Contributions (NCC) for pressure sewer will apply to each lot being connected to the reticulated infrastructure required. This NCC is to provide developer funding for the supply, installation and ongoing maintenance requirements by Coliban Water for the property assets on each lot including tank, pump and control box. The NCC applied may be higher for larger lots where additional works are required. The supply and installation will be completed by our approved contractors after an application to connect is received.
4. NCC's must be paid before Coliban Water will provide Statement of Compliance for the subdivision or consent to connect, as the case may be. Please refer to our Schedule of Fees & Charges accessed via the Coliban Water website for the NCC's applicable for the current financial year.
5. Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic), the owner of the land must make payment to Coliban Water of New Customer Contributions. These contributions are based upon the number of additional allotments connected (or to be connected) to Coliban Water's water, sewer or recycled water networks. A quote will be supplied to the owner on the referral of the certified plan of subdivision.
6. Please note under Section 165(5) of the Water Act 1989 (Vic), Coliban Water is not required to ensure that the water pressure is adequate for firefighting. It is important to note that Coliban Water does not guarantee fire flows.

1. This permit as it relates to development (subdivision) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The plan of subdivision has not been certified under the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic) within two (2) years of the issued date of this permit.

(b) A statement of compliance is not issued within five (5) years of the date of certification.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

[1] The submissions of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] Clause 52.29 relates to Morris Street which is in the Transport Zone 2.

[3] The joint applicants comprise Steve Strangward, Albert Wright, Jessica Getty, Kate Stedman, Norman J. Cutbush, Susan Lane, Graham Thomas and William Frederick Berryman.

[4] Section 82(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) sets out that the planning scheme may set out classes of permit applications the decisions of which are exempted from section 82(1). Section 82(3) also sets out that an application for review cannot be made under section 82(1) in respect of the decision(s) made with respect to exempted classes of permissions required under the planning scheme.

[7] Noting that this decision is currently subject to a yet to be determined challenge in the Court of Appeal.

[8] Noting, as shown in Figure 4, that this relates to land at 2 Caudry Street and 24 Morris Street and that land further east at 26 and 17 Morris Street are covered by individual Heritage Overlay designations HO249 and HO248 respectively.

[9] Despite many provisions introduced under Amendment VC267 enjoying transitional provisions, the change to the purposes of the zone do not enjoy such benefits, hence, it now forms part of the planning scheme that I am required to consider.

[10] My understanding is that this relates more to the view corridor associated with the steam railway to the north of the site.

[11] This was disputed by the applicants who consider a National Trust heritage sign located within the road reserve in front of the site is more reflective of the town entry from the east for travellers from Bendigo.