Green Wedge Research Report
Municipal Association of Victoria
November 2006
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................1
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................2
Summary of Recommendations ..........................................................................................4
Context ..................................................................................................................................6
Background to Melbourne’s Green Wedge Planning .....................................................6
Conceptual Origins and Comparison .............................................................................6
History of Melbourne’s Green Wedge Policies...............................................................7
Current Situation ...........................................................................................................7
Policy and Planning Controls for Green Wedge Land .....................................................11
Melbourne 2030 ..........................................................................................................11
Victorian Planning Provisions ......................................................................................11
Zones ..........................................................................................................................12
Green Wedge Zone (GWZ) ................................................................................12
Green Wedge A Zone (GWAZ) ..........................................................................12
Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ) .........................................................................12
Survey Analysis..................................................................................................................13
Background and Methodology .....................................................................................13
Survey Findings ..........................................................................................................13
Current Strategic Work, Programs or Projects ....................................................13
Current Threats and Issues Facing Councils ......................................................15
Recent VCAT Decisions .....................................................................................................22
Conclusion..........................................................................................................................24
Recent Green Wedge Announcements and Activities .....................................................25
Attachment 1: Survey.........................................................................................................28
Attachment 2: Survey Responses .....................................................................................33
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
1
Executive Summary
This report identifies and explores issues raised by councils in response to the Municipal
Association of Victoria’s (MAV) green wedge survey of councils in 2005. It also makes
recommendations to address the issues raised. It is a resource for the MAV, local
government and the Department of Sustainability and Environment and a useful platform for
advocacy to State Government and other agencies on key issues facing councils when
dealing with green wedge areas.
Melbourne’s green wedge areas are predominately non-urban areas outside the Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB). These areas have been set aside to assist in the conservation of
rural activities, significant natural landscape features and resources between metropolitan
Melbourne’s growth corridors. They are contained within 16 local government areas.
The councils affected are Brimbank, Cardinia, Casey, Frankston, Greater Dandenong,
Hume, Kingston, Knox, Manningham, Maroondah, Melton, Mornington Peninsula, Nillumbik,
Whittlesea, Wyndham and Yarra Ranges.
Councils responsible for Melbourne’s green wedges face numerous challenges in managing
these areas. Changing land use, development pressure and increasing awareness of
environmental issues and threats place pressure on council’s statutory planning framework
and council programs. Green wedge areas contain a range of uses, or are subject to
applications for use or development, that are often contentious and cause concern to
councils and State Government.
These pressures limit councils’ ability to contribute effectively to the achievement of
metropolitan and State objectives for green wedge areas.
In 2005 the MAV conducted a comprehensive survey to gain a better understanding of the
challenges facing local government when planning and managing green wedge areas and of
green wedge planning controls in action. This report identifies the green wedge areas,
provides a policy context for their planning and management, including reference to recent
VCAT decisions, and provides an analysis of the results of the green wedge survey.
The findings show continuing support and commitment from councils for green wedges
through an extensive range of council programs and policies which contribute to green
wedge objectives. Councils have invested significantly in natural resource and land
management, in community education, management strategies and action plans as well as
on incentive/rate based projects and grants.
However, councils face numerous competing priorities for strategic planning resources and
require additional technical and financial support for the protection of green wedge areas.
The importance of green wedge areas needs to be more clearly articulated to the broader
community, and community concerns with the more restrictive nature of the Green Wedge
Zone (GWZ) need to be addressed. Businesses also require support to become more
environmentally sustainable.
The existing planning policy framework and planning system has limitations in dealing with
pressure from development, urban uses, changing nature of agricultural uses and lifestyle
and tourism demands.
Councils are constrained in their ability to investigate alternate land uses within non-urban
areas within the suite of statutory controls applying across the green wedges.
Green wedge areas vary significantly from west to east. There is a need to improve the
consistency of application of zones and overlays across municipal boundaries within each
2
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
green wedge, and to provide more guidance or clarification of planning practices and the
application of discretion.
There is a lack of clarity regarding the value of Green Wedge Management Plans (GWMP)
and the development process relative to existing programs and policy, and the priority for
completing GWMP varies among councils. There is a high expectation that GWMP will
address and manage conflicting land uses and pressures on Green Wedge Zone land –
including intensive agriculture/horticulture use, wildfire, residential development, native flora
and fauna, tourism, weeds and waterways.
There are concerns about the nature and scale of use and development proposals in green
wedge areas, particularly the introduction of residential uses and where proposed
development is close to urban areas. The operation and ongoing requirements of existing
schools and other uses in green wedges needs to be addressed.
The report makes a number of key recommendations which are summarised in the following
section.
The survey and research report were initiated by the MAV Melbourne 2030 Councillor
Reference Group.
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
3
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 1
Clarify the scope, process, role and status of Green Wedge Management Plans, and
the likely resources required to develop and implement these plans. This clarification
needs to recognise the differences in green wedge areas and between interface and
metropolitan councils, as well as existing policy and programs. (Responsibility:
Councils and DSE)
Recommendation 2
Provide opportunities for councils to share best practice and practical experience in
managing green wedges at an officer and councillor level. (Responsibility: MAV)
Recommendation 3
Develop greater clarity and guidance to:
 assist decision making on discretionary uses
 guide decision making on residential development on existing small lots
 improve siting and design in sensitive areas
 clarify when prohibited uses may become discretionary
 provide for the needs of existing, and now prohibited, uses. (Responsibility: DSE)
Recommendation 4
Review the role, location and management of buffer areas for growth area and green
wedge planning to ensure that buffer areas contribute to the achievement of green
wedge objectives. (Responsibility: Growth Area Authority)
Recommendation 5
Assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the existing Green Wedge Zone provisions
and use definitions to manage residential encroachment into green wedges.
(Responsibility: DSE)
Recommendation 6
Improve data collection – through the Planning Permit Activity Report or through other
appropriate mechanism – on the nature and volume of application types in green
wedge areas to identify streamlining opportunities through statutory changes.
(Responsibility: Councils)
Recommendation 7
Clarify how rural economic and social issues, including the long-term productive use
of land, in green wedge and rural areas will be addressed. (Responsibility: DSE)
Recommendation 8
Clarify the circumstances under which ‘industrial’ uses - such as concrete crushing or
material recycling – will be able to locate in green wedge areas. (Responsibility: DSE)
4
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Recommendation 9
Identify opportunities to encourage improved property management by:
 expanding ongoing education and financial incentives for landholders
 establishing mechanisms for sharing of experience and practice between
landholders
 making links and forming partnerships with relevant government agencies and
independent environmental groups
 including site specific strategies and actions on land management rather than
broad region-wide directions. (Responsibility: Councils)
Recommendation 10
Seek ongoing funding support from state and federal sources for policy development
and implementation of green wedge management plans to protect green wedges.
(Responsibility: MAV)
Recommendation 11
Continue community education and information campaigns to raise awareness and
explain the values and purposes of Melbourne’s green wedges at a local and
metropolitan wide level. (Responsibility: Councils)
Recommendation 12
Support councils by providing ‘high level’ community information to explain the
values and purposes of Melbourne’s green wedges. (Responsibility: DSE)
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
5
Context
Green wedges conserve the natural features of the landscape between Melbourne’s growth
corridors. Melbourne’s green wedges were strategically set aside in 1968 and further
developed by the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW) in the 1971 Planning
Policies for Metropolitan Melbourne Region to assist in conserving rural activities, significant
natural features and resources between metropolitan Melbourne’s growth areas.
Support over time from Victorian State governments for green wedges has been
considerable in theory and variable in practice. Governments have acknowledged the value
of the concept, but until more recently have not followed this support through with legislation
and stringent regulations.
Since their inception, green wedge areas have experienced pressure from rezonings for
urban development, ‘ad hoc’ subdivision and the incursion of urban uses into rural areas.
Incursions into green wedge areas have been permitted over time, particularly where there
has appeared to be a net community benefit.
According to Buxton and Goodman1, between 1996 and 2002 over 4,000 hectares of green
wedge land was made available for residential use through the planning scheme amendment
processes. Taken in isolation, each of these developments may appear to have a minimal
impact on green wedge areas. However, they provided a precedent for further incursions and
progressively weakened overall policy goals. These incursions also led to increased
speculation, through land acquisition, further compounding the situation and causing
uncertainty for landowners and the wider community.
The following summary draws heavily on the Maintaining Melbourne’s Green Wedges Planning policy and the future of Melbourne green belt by Michael Buxton and Robin
Goodman1.
Background to Melbourne’s Green Wedge Planning
Historically, Melbourne’s urban form has radiated outwards from the central city along major
transport routes. Since the 1960s access to rural land in close proximity to Melbourne has
been of high priority for State Government leading to policies being developed to ensure that
some of the land between major transport corridors was preserved for non-urban uses.
These wedges of protected rural land have become a feature of Melbourne’s urban form and
have been given some priority by successive governments in Melbourne’s long-term
strategic plans.
Melbourne’s green wedges not only help manage urban sprawl but assist and ensure the
continuation of our agricultural and horticultural industries in close proximity to the city. They
provide easy access to open non-urbanised land, protect important landscape values and
natural resources, provide recreational opportunities and assist in preserving remanent
indigenous flora and fauna.
Conceptual Origins and Comparison
Buxton et al. suggests that the theoretical background behind the concept of a green belt can
be attributed to ideas from some of the world’s pioneer planning entrepreneurs - Patrick
Geddes, Ebenezer Howard and Lewis Mumford. In 1944 Patrick Abercrombie incorporated
green belt ideas and philosophies into the influential Greater London Plan which proposed a
green belt surrounding the already built up area of London, as well as a series of green
1
Michael Buxton, Robin Goodman. Maintaining Melbourne’s Green Wedges - Planning policy and the future of Melbourne
green belt, School of Social Science and Planning, RMIT. (2002)
6
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
wedges that would extend inward through the city from the green belt. These strategies were
innovative and generally supported by the public. Population growth and development
pressures have encroached upon Britain’s green belts over the last 50 years.
The green belt philosophy and the British regional planning model heavily influenced
Australia’s planning directions in the late 1950s with urban growth management and green
belt schemes being adopted. In the late 1960s Sydney and Adelaide formally implemented a
green belt type framework; yet unlike Adelaide which has managed to maintain its clearly
defined green belt area, Sydney’s has all but disappeared to development.
Buxton et al. suggests that in order to overcome such development pressures and ensure an
outcome such as Adelaide’s is achieved in Melbourne, planning for green belts and growth
areas must occur simultaneously with sufficient land set aside for urban expansion. Without
firm policy directions, incremental loss of green wedge land over time will contribute to a loss
of value and reduced public support and acceptance of green belt strategies.
History of Melbourne’s Green Wedge Policies
In 1966 the Minister for Local Government, R. J. Hamer introduced the concept to protect
non-urban areas of metropolitan Melbourne and the State government formally adopted a
corridor/green wedge strategic policy in 1968, which was further developed by the MMBW in
their 1971 Planning Policies for the Melbourne Metropolitan Region. The green wedge policy
framework evolved over time and was still present in the Kennett Government’s 1995
metropolitan policy Living Suburbs.
However, as the policy has evolved, stringent regulations were modified and in some cases
watered down, leading to severe encroachment upon green wedge land. Giving effect to
metropolitan wide strategic directions takes time and local government varies in its valuing
and commitment to the protection of green wedge areas. Guidelines were inadequate and
firm regulations lacking.
As planning decision makers increasingly relied on the Victorian Planning Provisions to direct
their agenda rather than detailed local or regional strategic policy frameworks, individual
decisions soon became precedent for others, which in turn undermined the original green
wedge objectives that were in place.
Although Melbourne’s green wedge areas have been significantly impacted by urban
encroachment, Buxton et al. argues that the goals and aspirations associated with the policy
are still relevant and achievable. The Melbourne 2030 policy framework has reinforced
traditional green wedge policies and provided clear guidelines and firm management
strategies which should better protect our non-urbanised lands in the future.
Current Situation
As Buxton et al. argues those cities that in the last century have protected their environments
are likely to have the strongest economic future and be best placed to maintain social
harmony. The conservation of natural landscapes and resources contributes to and
influences a city’s liveability in relation to environmental, economic and social factors.
Maintaining Melbourne’s green wedges is integral to overcoming problems associated with
rapid urban growth, urban sprawl and projected population increase.
Buxton et al. suggests that the long-term adherence, enforcement and maintenance of green
wedge and growth area policies is of utmost importance, and of more importance now than
ever before - remnant vegetation becomes more precious, open space more crucial, the
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
7
need to assist agricultural industries more important and the preservation of wildlife corridors
more pressing.
The Bracks government responded to this problem in late 2002 by releasing Melbourne 2030
which provides a strategic framework and implementation plan for green wedge areas and
metropolitan growth. The policies set out in Melbourne 2030 strengthened and extended
green wedge areas, tightened controls for prohibited uses and set fixed green wedge
boundaries through a legislated Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Notably the UGB cannot be
altered by a planning scheme amendment process but requires legislative support for any
change.
The strategy for green wedge areas fulfils a range of roles which include:
 Providing opportunities for agricultural uses and some industries to operate close to
major markets.
 Preserving natural rural landscapes and land formations.
 Preserving conservation areas close to where people live.
 Preserving natural resources.
 Providing and safeguarding sites for future infrastructure that supports urban areas.
 Providing opportunities for tourism and recreation.
Melbourne’s urban growth has been encouraged within growth corridors positioned to take
advantage of major road and rail links. This reinforces Melbourne’s radial pattern of
urbanisation, interspersed by green wedge areas. Melbourne’s 12 green wedges are located
outside the UGB and encircle metropolitan Melbourne’s current urban areas and future
growth areas.
8
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Figure 1 – Green Wedge Areas
Figure 2 – Green Wedge Resources and Constraints
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
9
Figure 3 - Green Wedge Boundaries
Green Wedge
Boundaries
Werribee South
The Port Phillip Bay coastline, western edge of the City of Wyndham and
the Melbourne – Geelong rail line
Overseen by Wyndham.
Western Plains South
The Melbourne–Geelong rail line, western boundary of the City of
Wyndham, the Western Highway west of Melton, southern edge of the
Melton township and the Ballarat rail line
Overseen by Wyndham and Melton.
Western Plains North
The Ballarat rail line, northern edge of the Melton township, the Western
Highway, western and northern boundaries of Melton Shire and the Calder
freeway
Overseen by Melton.
Sunbury
The Calder freeway and northern and eastern boundaries of the City of
Hume
Overseen by Hume.
Whittlesea
The western, northern and eastern boundary of the City of Whittlesea
Overseen by Whittlesea.
Nillumbik
The western, northern and eastern boundaries of the City of Nillumbik and
portions of the City of Manningham near the Yarra River
Overseen by Nillumbik.
Manningham
The Yarra River and eastern boundary of the City of Manningham
Overseen by Manningham.
Yarra Valley and
Yarra and Dandenong
Ranges
The western, northern and eastern boundaries of the Yarra Ranges Shire
and the northern boundary of the Westernport catchment
Overseen by Yarra Ranges, Knox and Cardinia.
Southern Ranges
The northern boundary of the Westernport catchment, eastern boundary of
the Shire of Cardinia and the electrical transmission easement east of
Pakenham
Overseen by Cardinia, Knox, Greater Dandenong, Yarra Ranges and
Casey.
South East
The area between the Bayside and Dandenong/Cranbourne urban areas
and the northern boundary of the Westernport catchment
Overseen by Frankston, Greater Dandenong, Kingston and Casey.
Westernport
The electrical transmission easement east of Pakenham, eastern and
southern boundaries of the Shire of Cardinia, western boundary of the City
of Casey and Westernport
Overseen by Casey.
Mornington Peninsula
The northern boundary of the Shire of Mornington Peninsula and the southeastern boundary of the City of Frankston
Overseen by Mornington Peninsula.
10
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Policy and Planning Controls for Green Wedge Land
Melbourne 2030
Melbourne 2030 makes specific mention of green wedges.
Under Direction 2 - Better management of metropolitan growth, Policy 2.4 is: Protect the
green wedges of metropolitan Melbourne from inappropriate development.
The initiatives to achieve this are:
2.4.1
Implement new planning scheme provisions to secure the protection of metropolitan
green wedges in the planning system
2.4.2
Work with local councils to support the consolidation of new residential development
into existing settlements in the green wedges, where planned services are available
and relevant values can be protected
2.4.3
Amend planning schemes affecting green wedges to ensure that recreation-type
development, such as golf courses with associated housing development, are only
approved where they support Melbourne 2030 and local settlement policies
2.4.4
Legislate to provide protection for areas of high environmental and scenic value in
metropolitan green wedges such as Nillumbik, the Yarra Valley, Westernport and
the Mornington Peninsula.
Victorian Planning Provisions
The Victorian Planning provisions are the standard planning provisions for all planning
schemes in Victoria.
Under Clause 12.02 Better management of metropolitan growth, 12.02-2 Strategies, the
Victorian Planning Provisions (VPPs) state:
Green Wedges
Protect the green wedges of Metropolitan Melbourne from inappropriate development by:
 Ensuring strategic planning and land management of each green wedge area to promote
and encourage its key features and related values
 Supporting development in the green wedge that provides for environmental, economic
and social benefits
 Consolidating new residential development with existing settlements and in locations
where planned services are available and green wedge area values can be protected
 Planning and protecting major transport facilities that serve the wider Victorian
community, such as airports and ports with their associated access corridors
 Protecting important productive agricultural areas such as Werribee South, the
Maribyrnong River flats, the Yarra Valley, Westernport and the Mornington Peninsula
 Protecting areas of environmental, landscape and scenic value
 Protecting significant resources of stone, sand and other mineral resources for extraction
purposes.
Clause 57 of the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPPs) sets out the planning provisions for
metropolitan green wedge land. The purpose of this clause is:
 To protect metropolitan green wedge land from uses and development that would
diminish its agricultural, environmental, conservation, landscape natural resource or
recreation values
 To protect productive agricultural land from incompatible uses and development
 To ensure that the scale of use is compatible with the non-urban character of
metropolitan green wedge land
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
11



To encourage the location of urban activities in urban areas
To provide transitional arrangements for permit applications made to the responsible
authority before 19 May 2004
To provide deeming provisions for metropolitan green wedge land.
Zones
The suite of zones available for green wedge areas are: Green Wedge Zone (Clause 35.04),
Green Wedge A Zone (Clause 35.05) and Rural Conservation Zone (Clause 35.06).
Green Wedge Zone (GWZ)
The Green Wedge Zone (GWZ) is the main zone to be applied to rural land outside the
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This zone aims to recognise and protect land adjacent to
urban areas for its agricultural, environmental, historic, landscape or recreational values, or
mineral and stone resources. The GWZ has initially been applied to rural land (outside of the
UGB) in metropolitan Melbourne, but can also be applied to rural areas adjacent to regional
cities and towns.
The GWZ is less restrictive than the Rural Conservation Zone but more restrictive than other
rural zones, except in relation to agriculture. Although some non-rural uses are permitted,
they are generally limited to uses that either support agriculture or tourism or are essential for
urban development but unable to locate in urban areas for amenity and other reasons (such
as airports, waste treatment plants, landfills and reservoirs). The GWZ prohibits some nonrural uses that were able to establish in the past, such as schools, service stations and
second dwellings, and limits the conditions under which other uses may occur for retail
premises, some accommodation uses, places of assembly and industry. Most small-lot
excisions are also prohibited. The default minimum lot size for subdivision is 40 hectares.
Councils use the Local Planning Policy Framework of their planning scheme to articulate the
qualities and features of different areas, to guide the application of the zones and to guide
the exercise of discretion permit applications for non-rural uses. The minimum lot size can be
varied by schedule to the zone.
Green Wedge A Zone (GWAZ)
The Green Wedge A Zone (GWAZ) has a default minimum lot size of eight hectares and was
initially applied to land previously zoned Rural Living.
Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ)
The Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ) is used across Victoria. The purpose of this zone is to
protect and enhance the natural environment and its historic, archaeological, scientific,
landscape, faunal habitat and cultural values. The RCZ encourages development and use of
land consistent with sustainable land management and land capability practices, taking into
account the conservation values and environmental sensitivity of the area.
The RCZ also aims to conserve and enhance the cultural significance and character of open
rural and scenic non-urban landscapes. Agriculture is allowed in the zone, provided it is
consistent with the environmental and landscape values of the area.
The main differences between the GWZ and the Rural Zone (RZ) is that the RZ allows a
much wider range of non-rural uses and the small-lot excision provisions are less restrictive.
12
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Survey Analysis
Background and Methodology
The MAV Melbourne 2030 Councillor Reference Group determined that the issues faced by
councils in the planning and management of green wedge areas should be further identified
and explored.
A survey was developed which asked councils to:
 identify current relevant strategic work, programs or projects
 identify perceived priorities for future activities
 audit current threats and issues.
The survey was sent to all councils responsible for overseeing Melbourne’s green wedges.
Greater Dandenong, Hume, Kingston, Knox, Manningham, Melton, Mornington Peninsula,
Nillumbik, Whittlesea, Wyndham and Yarra Ranges responded to the survey. This represents
11 of the 16 councils responsible for green wedges, and provides a reasonable coverage of
almost all green wedge areas.
Since the data was collected and analysed, some progress has been made by councils in the
development of strategic work or in program implementation. There has also been
improvement to the support and resources provided by the Department of Sustainability and
Environment and an increasing number of relevant Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
(VCAT) decisions. Some of these VCAT decisions have been outlined in the report to provide
additional context. A later section in this report provides more detail of recent green wedge
announcements and activities.
Survey Findings
Current Strategic Work, Programs or Projects
Strategic work completed or underway
Councils recognise the importance of proactive strategic work and have invested
considerable resources in a number of relevant projects.
The work undertaken by councils can be categorised into two types: operational work and
broad strategic or policy work. The sorts of operational projects councils have undertaken
include direct assistance and incentive based programs, such as sustainable land
management incentive schemes, and local weed and pest animal action plans and
programs. Broad strategic work includes flora and fauna studies, heritage studies and
sustainable land management projects. Most strategic work had cost councils at least
$40,000 and taken upwards of three months.
Interface councils had primarily undertaken strategic projects which dealt with land and
natural resource management.
Councils that only oversee a small area of green wedge zoned land had undertaken strategic
works concerning Environmental Significance Overlays, the review of Municipal Strategic
Statements and broad non-urban area studies.
Only one council had completed a green wedge management strategy at the time the survey
was circulated. It cost $120,000 and took 15 months to complete. The subsequent Municipal
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
13
Strategic Statement review to strengthen their green wedge management strategy is 90%
complete after two years and cost $60,000.
Another council was 35% into its green wedge management planning process after one year,
and estimated the cost at approximately $200,000.
Strategic work proposed / identified
Councils overseeing green wedge areas anticipate the need to invest significantly in future
strategic work. Many intend to start a number of different strategic projects in the near future.
Nearly all councils identified that over $100,000 would be required for this work. Strategic
projects identified by councils include those that target specific issues such as land, pest and
weed management, Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC) mapping analysis and wildfire
programs, as well as other land and natural resource management projects.
Interface councils consistently identified green wedge management plans as important.
However, there is confusion as to how long the project will take, how much it will cost and
how it complements existing strategic work. Many were waiting on decisions or actions by
other councils or State Government to be able to progress that work.
Further guidance and direction on green wedge management plans was identified as being
necessary to resolve uncertainties and discrepancies among councils and to ensure the
efficient use of resources to complete this work.
The Preparing a Green Wedge Management Plan General Practice note released in August
2005 has been helpful and goes some way in guiding the preparation of green wedge
management plans. It sets out general requirements that should be met and covers the
policy context, status and content of the plans. It also acknowledges the variations in green
wedge areas and highlights the need to involve stakeholders.
Yet despite the release of this practice note, the differing resources available to councils,
differing approaches to common green wedge areas, and the uncertainty that still remains on
funding, scope and status, were identified as needing further resolution. How the green
wedge management plans complement existing policy, programs and knowledge, and how
they impact on rural land within the Urban Growth Boundary is also unclear.
Recommendation 1
Clarify the scope, process, role and status of Green Wedge Management Plans, and
the likely resources required to develop and implement these plans. This clarification
needs to recognise the differences in green wedge areas and between interface and
metropolitan councils, as well as existing policy and programs. (Responsibility:
Councils and DSE)
Other relevant projects or programs
The majority of councils are investing significantly in natural resource and land management
through community education, management strategies and action plans. For example, many
councils are involved in property management and planning projects for landholders and
biodiversity community education programs. Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC) mapping
and condition assessments, as well as Sites of Biological Significance reports and reviews
are of high priority within a number of councils. The data also revealed that councils intend to
invest resources in incentive rate based programs and grant projects, such as Manningham’s
BUSH gain scheme, Melton’s Environmental Enhancement Rebate and Mornington
Peninsula’s Local Grants program.
14
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
The relevant projects focussed strongly on Natural Resource Management (NRM) and land
management, whereas projects that clarify buffer design or township structure and issues
associated with urban uses were less common. Often initiatives were subject to funding or
contingent upon other work.
Interface council priorities are strongly policy based. The overwhelming majority of interface
councils believe structure plans, EVC mapping, rural economic needs studies and
implementation of already completed strategies and action plans are vital. The remaining
Green wedge councils generally believe the review and implementation of Sites of Biological
Significance strategies are a priority, as well as community based education and incentives
schemes.
It is clear that councils contribute significantly towards green wedge objectives through a
broad range of established programs as well as new initiatives. There are opportunities to
improve the exchange of knowledge about successful programs between councils and to
investigate collaborative approaches to community information and education.
Recommendation 2
Provide opportunities for councils to share best practice and practical experience in
managing green wedges at an officer and councillor level. (Responsibility: MAV)
Relative priority
Councils have identified land management and policy development as high priorities within
their broader strategic work program. Councils have included a mix of site and area specific
works, as well as broad policy development and land management strategies. Councils
appear to have identified more work than they have the capacity to complete in the short to
medium term. Despite the identification of these priorities as high, resources available to
address these priorities was an issue for many councils. One council expressed caution at
committing further resources without clear indication that variations to existing statutory
controls for non-urban areas, where justified, would be available as well as support and
resources for implementation.
The perceived importance of Green Wedge Management Plans (GWMP) varies from high
priority in some councils to low in others.
Interface councils’ priorities do not differ greatly from those councils whose municipality is
predominately urban, except with regard to GWMP. All interface councils that listed GWMP
as a priority have classified it as a high or urgent priority, while two predominantly urban
municipalities have identified their GWMP as a low priority.
The variation between council perceptions of GWMP and their importance is a recurring
issue throughout the survey. Confusion regarding how much GWMP cost, how long they will
take and how they will be actioned is also evident. These varying perceptions and diverse
resource estimates in part reflect varying values, priorities and capacity between councils, as
well as a lack of clarity and guidance from the Department of Sustainability and Environment.
Current Threats and Issues Facing Councils
Themes evident within councils’ responses were:
 Policy / zone concerns (land use buffers, guidance, discretion, residential
encroachment and impacts)
 Development concerns and community sustainability (land use and urban pressures;
long-term social and economic viability of green wedge communities)
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
15


Natural resource management and environmental concerns (native vegetation loss,
unsustainable and/or inappropriate agricultural and industrial works
Understanding of green wedge objectives.
Pressures associated with demand for and proximity to residential uses and urban areas was
present across all themes. Concerns about the level of State and Federal government
support and the need for improved community awareness and land owner encouragement
were also evident within all themes.
Councils are faced with significant pressures in dealing with a diverse range of issues. Most
issues or potential threats raised by councils were given high or medium importance. Most
councils have already taken action on the issues they raised, many expressed frustration
with progress.
Although councils identified an intention to take action, or continuing action to deal with these
identified threats, additional resources - including skills, finance, guidelines and opportunities
for knowledge sharing - were required.
The issues highlighted were similar for all councils and across all green wedge areas,
despite these areas and councils differing considerably from west to east, and there was no
significant distinction between interface and other green wedge councils.
The data generated by the survey is detailed and a useful resource. This information has
been included in Attachment 2: Survey Responses.
Policy / zone concerns
Policy Guidance
Respondents felt the ‘one size fits all’ suite of statutory controls do not address current
issues and limit opportunities for councils to create a sustainable and ‘owned’ planning
framework. It was suggested that controls should be tailored to each green wedge
(consistent across municipal boundaries) and the suite of land uses adjusted for non-urban
areas. The need for flexibility in applying other non-urban zones, if more appropriate, was
also raised.
Councils pursuing this issue have been frustrated with departmental response to date.
Councils were also concerned at the amount of strategic work required.
Councils were concerned that future subdivision may not contribute to longer term outcomes
in all zones. Guidance on appropriate siting and design to ensure sensitive development was
seen as critical for areas of landscape or cultural significance.
Respondents identified a need for further guidance regarding the exercise of discretion for
uses that rely on terms such as ‘in conjunction with’ or ‘compatible with’ in the VPPs.
The number and scale of non-rural uses in rural areas that link to rural uses was seen as
significant and problems in ensuring a functional nexus between the main and supporting
use, particularly in agriculture, without clear guidance were highlighted. Suggestions included
that agricultural use must be established prior to other use, agriculture must be a viable use
in its own right, discretionary use must offer clear synergies to be an 'associated' use or
agriculture use must comprise 80% (or more) of land area, or of projected gross revenue,
etc.
In some cases councils felt the cap on numbers of seats, rooms or dwellings in the Green
Wedge Zones was too high or not appropriate given the size of property or operation.
Councils identified the need to manage the range of implications for existing uses (such as
16
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
schools, churches and commercial facilities) on land that has been rezoned and may now be
prohibited. In one case a council has prepared an amendment to a Special Use Zone to
better provide for the future of that use.
Recommendation 3
Develop greater clarity and guidance to:
 assist decision making on discretionary uses
 guide decision making on residential development on existing small lots
 improve siting and design in sensitive areas
 clarify when prohibited uses may become discretionary
 provide for the needs of existing, and now prohibited, uses (Responsibility: DSE)
Recommendation 4
Review the role, location and management of buffer areas for growth area and green
wedge planning to ensure that buffer areas contribute to the achievement of green
wedge objectives. (Responsibility: Growth Area Authority)
Residential encroachment
The adequacy of current planning controls to deal with residential encroachment was
questioned. Some councils felt that applicants were exploiting loopholes in the controls to
pursue residential uses inconsistent with Green Wedge Zone objectives. This included the
use of 99-year lease terms to avoid the need for subdivision.
Caravan parks with moveable dwellings and residential golf course proposals were of
concern to a number of councils. Impacts identified include poor access to services and
transport and less efficient use of existing infrastructure. While councils indicated they often
refuse such applications, their decisions were not always upheld at the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal.
The definition of accommodation types and associated provisions are not always a good fit
with contemporary residential use and development. Respondents sought a review of
definitions and for conditions or particular provisions to be introduced for particular forms of
accommodation in the green wedge (eg host farm). A suggestion was made that the Green
Wedge Zone should be amended to prohibit sites for permanent occupancy.
Recommendation 5
Assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the existing Green Wedge Zone provisions
and use definitions to manage residential encroachment into green wedges.
(Responsibility: DSE)
Buffers
The Urban Growth Boundary, in places, follows a road or property boundary. Respondents
felt this could contribute to incompatible adjacent uses and could undermine rural uses, and
indicated that it could result in pressure to vary the Urban Growth Boundary over time.
The need for well defined buffer areas in places where the Urban Growth Boundary is not
readily defined (by say a freeway / natural feature) was seen as critical to the success of
green wedge areas. A suggestion was made that buffers be located in the green wedge, or
that they ‘straddle’ the Urban Growth Boundary, with incentives given to land owners such as
flexibility to expand urban use. It was felt that buffer areas within the Urban Growth Boundary
would continually be subject to urban pressures, although this is less likely when the buffer
requirements are integrated into growth area planning at the outset. More discussion and
guidance on the role and preferred location of buffer areas for compatible abutting future land
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
17
uses and management of the urban rural interface was seen as necessary. Respondents
also suggested the need to alter the acceptable buffer distances in Clause 52.10.
Development concerns and community sustainability
Current uses and development
Respondents reported considerable residential, recreational and commercial use and
development pressures on land in green wedge areas, and indicated there is a reasonable
volume of planning permit applications for most of the permit required ‘use’ fields. Common
applications include dwellings (other than B&Bs), residential buildings and for industrial /
agricultural works. The most significant category of permit applications in the green wedge
areas was identified as residential use developments.
Interface councils Whittlesea and Mornington Peninsula reported a significant number of
residential dwelling type applications within Green Wedge Zone (GWZ) and Green Wedge A
Zone (GWAZ) areas. Mornington Peninsula Shire recorded over 100 residential use
applications in GWZ land. Hume, also an interface council, recorded a large number of
‘building and works’ type applications within GWZ and GWAZ land.
Kingston City Council, a largely urbanised municipality, recorded a significant number of
industrial / agricultural type applications such as recycling centres, extraction works and
nurseries. Manningham, also a metropolitan council, recorded 60 residential development
related applications within the municipality’s Rural Conservation Zone.
The most common application types within the ‘other’ category were for nursery, materials
recycling, animal keeping and subdivision. The applications were predominately for uses that
are necessary to support urban areas and seek to locate in close proximity to urban areas.
The survey did not explore the number of permits issued, issued with conditions, or refused,
on each application type. Nor did the survey attempt to investigate the number of permit
applications that progressed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Further work is
required to clarify if permits are generally issued, and under what conditions, or if there are a
range of permit required uses that are generally refused. It would also be helpful to
understand this across the different green wedge areas. Respondents felt there were
limitations to the production of accurate data about the types of planning permit applications
in the Green Wedge Zone.
This analysis would be necessary to indicate whether a use or development which is
currently permit required may better be considered as of right and not subject to permit, or
perhaps should be prohibited. Councils have expressed concern at the extent of Schedule 2
uses. This could be further explored as part of the Cutting Red Tape in Planning initiative
currently being undertaken by the Department of Sustainability and Environment.
Recommendation 6
Improve data collection – through the Planning Permit Activity Report or through other
appropriate mechanism – on the nature and volume of application types in green
wedge areas to identify streamlining opportunities through statutory changes.
(Responsibility: Councils)
Changing rural land use
The changing economics of rural land use, such as the decline in value of dry-land grazing
and farming; high set up and risk associated with small farms; issues with right to farm; the
sustainability of agricultural production on small allotments and rural ‘lifestyle’ living were
18
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
raised. One council sought to increase minimum lots sizes, and did so through a panel
process to avoid further fragmentation of rural lots.
Intensive agriculture / commercial farming were often seen as being in conflict with the
expectations of residents. Conversely, residential expectations were often seen as
inconsistent with green wedge objectives.
Increasingly, access to water for the rural industry and to agricultural service industries coupled with the shift to ‘lifestyle’ farming and rural living - were seen as placing pressures
on rural land use. There was concern at the lack of resources available to meet rural
township needs. It was felt that the benefits and opportunities on access to recycled water
were not well understood.
Long-term economic and social viability of green wedge communities
Many issues facing rural communities in green wedge areas are similar to those in rural
areas across the state.
One council indicated it had no high value agricultural land and barriers to emerging forms of
agriculture, and called for State government land subsidies to guarantee the economic
sustainability of agriculture. Failing this, it called for the exploration of alternative land uses
beyond those currently permitted in green wedges.
Another council cited a large number of vacant lots in the green wedge with poor access to
services, transport and existing infrastructure. Many of these existing lots are under the
minimum lot size prescribed. While the existing zones are clear on future subdivision
requirements, they are not as clear on the treatment of residential development on existing
small lots (under the Schedule size), even though it is a discretionary use.
Respondents also voiced concern at the lack of state government direction at a policy level
on the future of green wedge land beyond natural resource management and conservation.
Government commitment to the implementation of its sandbelt chain of parks which will
require public land acquisition overlays and sustained State government support was
questioned, as was the reconciling of Towards Zero Waste policy objectives and the desire
of associated industries to locate close to urban areas.
Recommendation 7
Clarify how rural economic and social issues, including the long-term productive use
of land, in green wedge and rural areas will be addressed. (Responsibility: DSE)
Residential Impacts
Pressure from encroaching urban development was a challenge for councils. The very
proximity of urban development was also a challenge, as were the impacts associated with
residential construction itself (erosion, run-off, loss of vegetation, impact on waterways). This
often includes earthworks to provide for swimming pools and tennis courts associated with a
residential use.
In some areas, sections of the community were described as ‘uninterested’ in protecting
biodiversity, agriculture, landscape, heritage and cultural values. Councils felt this was
reinforced by some ‘industrial‘ uses - such as concrete crushing or material recycling - being
able to locate in green wedge areas. This was seen to undermine community understanding
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
19
of green wedge values more broadly. The desire for ‘industrial‘ uses to locate in green wedge
areas near established urban areas concerned some councils.
Recommendation 8
Clarify the circumstances under which ‘industrial’ uses - such as concrete crushing or
material recycling – will be able to locate in green wedge areas. (Responsibility: DSE)
Natural resource management and environmental concerns
Land management
Respondents identified a number of issues contributing to poor land management. They
included: insufficient incentives for land owners to retain and maintain native vegetation and
for biodiversity conservation; a shortage of funding for further flora and fauna research,
management and education; the need for salinity mapping and studies; and a regional
approach to climate change. Weeds were often cited as a major issue. Instances of rubbish
dumping and vandalism were also identified.
The use of land for rural-residential living was perceived as a key threat to biodiversity.
The range of council programs that respond to threats to indigenous flora and fauna is vast.
Councils are undertaking initiatives ranging from research, active bushland management,
sustainability rebates, community partnership grants, support of friends’ groups, field officers,
shire nurseries and community education. Councils also participate in state and federal
initiatives. Area specific problems with locally tailored responses to weeds, pests and
inappropriate/unsustainable agricultural practices were consistently highlighted and repeated
throughout the survey.
Respondents agreed there is a need to identify and protect areas of environmental
significance and to identify unsustainable and/or inappropriate agricultural and industrial
works. More support for businesses to become more environmentally sustainable was
identified as necessary, with solutions including information provision through existing
business networks.
The need for improved coordination, information systems and leadership was identified and
greater guidance from federal, state and regional levels was sought. Some concerns were
expressed about the State’s implementation of action statements and the preparation of
action plans for species in need of protection.
Recommendation 9
Identify opportunities to encourage improved property management by:
 expanding ongoing education and financial incentives for landholders
 establishing mechanisms for sharing of experience and practice between
landholders
 making links and forming partnerships with relevant government agencies and
independent environmental groups
 including site specific strategies and actions on land management rather than
broad region-wide directions. (Responsibility: Councils)
Recommendation 10
Seek ongoing funding support from state and federal sources for policy development
and implementation of green wedge management plans to protect green wedges.
(Responsibility: MAV)
20
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Understanding of Green Wedge objectives
Councils either believe green wedge objectives are clearly defined within their Municipal
Strategic Statements or are defined in part with room for further improvement.
The majority of respondents believe the council’s role in the planning and management of
green wedge areas is clearly articulated and understood by officers. Respondents also
believe that the council’s role in the planning and management of green wedge areas is
understood by councillors, but to a lesser extent. This may indicate a range of views on
council.
Respondents indicated that community perception and understanding of council’s role in the
management and planning of green wedge areas is mixed. Some councils indicated that
their wider community does understand the council’s role, or does in part. Three councils
(one interface) believe the community does not understand the council’s role in this matter.
The majority of respondents indicated there is significant room for improvement in explaining
and assisting community understanding and support for the purposes of green wedge areas.
Improved community ownership and engagement with green wedge policy, strategies and
works programs as well as further explanation and education were seen as necessary.
Respondents recognised the contribution green wedge areas make to the liveability,
sustainability and management of Melbourne as a whole and the audience for
communications and education initiatives was seen to include both a local and broader
metropolitan audience.
The north-western green wedges, Mornington Peninsula, and the south-east green wedge
region overseen by the City of Kingston are under great development pressure and those
councils most strongly stressed the need for improvement.
Recommendation 11
Continue community education and information campaigns to raise awareness and
explain the values and purposes of Melbourne’s green wedges at a local and
metropolitan wide level. (Responsibility: Councils)
Recommendation 12
Support councils by providing ‘high level’ community information to explain the
values and purposes of Melbourne’s green wedges. (Responsibility: DSE)
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
21
Recent VCAT Decisions
The application and interpretation of the green wedge zones by councils is informed by recent
decisions at VCAT. Although VCAT decisions do not provide formal direction to proponents
and council, the decisions are of interest and can flag areas or issues of contention. The
following VCAT decisions provide some useful context.
Adjournment: Main Ridge Development, Keysborough - 02 MARCH 2006
The Minister for Planning called in a planning application for a golf course and
accommodation development in a green wedge zone area in Keysborough. The applicant
seeks a permit to build an 18-hole golf course, function centre and 394 accommodation units.
The Minister for Planning was concerned that the application could be inconsistent with the
strategic directions of Melbourne 2030 and the intent of the Green Wedge Zone. Minister
Hulls called in the matter from VCAT where it was set down for review.
Watson’s Pty Ltd had appealed the decision to VCAT after the City of Greater Dandenong
refused the application on environmental, buffer and landscape grounds. The council said
the proposed development amounted to urban development in a green wedge zone, and as
such was inconsistent with the State Government’s Melbourne 2030 blueprint, and state and
local planning policy.
Dandenong Ranges Steiner School v Cardinia Shire Council - 10 JUNE 2005
VCAT overturned a decision to refuse a permit to construct a Steiner school to accommodate
150 primary school students outside the urban growth boundary.
The council refused the application on the grounds that the educational facility was not ‘in
conjunction with’ agricultural or natural systems and was a prohibited use in green wedge
zoned land.
The applicants took the decision to VCAT and agued that the history, philosophical basis,
curriculum and the means by which the curriculum is developed and passed on relies heavily
on the environment and natural processes. Subsequently, they felt their application for an
educational centre ‘in conjunction with’ agricultural and natural systems was substantiated.
VCAT found this argument to be acceptable and stated that as a general principle Steiner
School curriculum is best taught in a location or environment where there is an opportunity
for students to engage with agricultural pursuits and natural processes.
Planning News identified that although the tribunal may have found a functional nexus
between education as a use and agriculture and natural systems, it may have limited its
decision to the particular circumstance of this proposal and argued that the Dandenong
Ranges Steiner School case may have set an undesirable precedent if VCAT were to
consider future applications for education centres outside the urban growth boundary that
claim they are ‘in conjunction with’ agriculture and natural systems.
This application was later appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it is not the
tribunal’s responsibility to characterise the proposed use as an education centre in
conjunction with agriculture and natural systems and that the uses namely agriculture and
natural systems were no more than ancillary uses in the application. The Supreme Court
dismissed these grounds.
22
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Dromana Tourist Park Holdings Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council - 20 JULY
2005
A permit was recently granted for the construction of buildings and works associated with the
extension of the existing camping and caravan park and the removal of vegetation in
Dromana. The application was for the development of an additional 70 sites and ancillary
facilities at the Dromana Caravan and Tourist Park. The application was reviewed at VCAT
after Mornington Peninsula Shire failed to grant a permit within the prescribed time.
VCAT ruled that they were satisfied that the existing and proposed use of the land clearly
falls within the meaning of a ‘camping and caravan park’ not a ‘residential village’ and that
the park would provide tourist related accommodation. The extension of the existing camping
and caravan park into the narrower, northern section of the site was viewed as a logical
outcome, as the extension of the existing use would not fragment or alienate the rural use of
land surrounding the site. Similarly, VCAT did not think the proposal had any discernible
impact on the landscape values of the locality, which is already strongly influenced by major
arterial roads as well as an existing camping and caravan park and drive-in. Furthermore, the
site is located within reasonable proximity of services and facilities available within the
Dromana Township.
National Lifestyle Villages Pty Ltd v Wyndham City Council - 16 MAY 2006
A decision to refuse a permit for a National Lifestyle Village in a green wedge was recently
upheld by VCAT after the application was found to be more of a ‘residential village’ then a
‘camping and caravan park’.
National Lifestyle Villages Pty Ltd wished to establish a semi-permanent village on land at
Point Cook. The proposal involved the placement of 292 factory-built homes in landscaped
grounds with communal facilities. The homes were typically of 70 to 90 square metres in
area and consisted of a kitchen, a lounge, one or two bedrooms, a bathroom and a carport.
The tribunal found that the proposal was better characterised as a ‘residential village’ than a
‘camping and caravan park’ as the intent of the application was to house permanent
residents. There was no provision for the temporary occupation of accommodation units, the
accommodation units were modest, but were found to be significantly larger and better
equipped than tents, caravans or cabins typically found in caravan parks. Furthermore, the
accommodation units were unlikely to be moved and the communal facilities were generally
directed towards recreation and did not include any significant communal facilities for
ablution or cooking.
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
23
Conclusion
Melbourne’s green wedges are a metropolitan asset and vary significantly from west to east.
Councils have a long standing commitment to green wedge outcomes and have made a
significant investment in strategic policy development, programs and works contributing to
green wedge objectives. The approach and priority varies across the green wedge areas
from west to east and between interface and urban councils.
The planning and management of green wedge areas is complex and needs significant
resourcing. Councils require increased support for land management programs and
community education and at the same time require more flexibility, particularly regarding
uses that require a planning permit, to provide for local circumstances.
Green Wedge areas are predominately located within the interface council areas and many
of these councils are experiencing significant levels of growth.
The history of incremental incursions into green wedge land must not continue. These areas
are of increasing importance for biodiversity, environmental, and lifestyle reasons. Ensuring
viable non-urban uses in these areas in also critical to their long-term success. The long-term
success of these areas will rely on clear policy, strictly and consistently applied and enforced,
and the legislated Urban Growth Boundary is seen as a significant step forward.
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) calls for stronger support and guidance from the
Department of Sustainability and Environment and other relevant agencies for councils with
green wedge areas to achieve the metropolitan objectives and to ensure their long-term
protection of these important metropolitan assets.
The MAV is confident these recommendations will improve understanding of the issues
councils face and the significant contribution they make towards green wedge areas.
At the MAV Melbourne 2030 Councillor Reference Group it was resolved that:
 The information contained in the survey responses be made available to councils and
DSE
 The recommendations contained in the report be supported
 That a summary report be prepared for the MAV Board detailing the key issues and
recommended actions
 The survey be conducted regularly (3 years) to track progress in green wedge
management and to identify support necessary for councils.
24
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Recent Green Wedge Announcements and Activities
In October 2006, The Minister for Planning announced $350,000 in funding to help councils
prepare Green Wedge Management Plans, and strengthened planning requirements to give
landholders, developers and councils more certainty about what is and what is not allowed in
Green Wedge Zones.
Under the new planning provisions:
 A planning permit will be required for long-term leases for accommodation, to prevent
projects being used as de facto residential housing developments
 ‘Urban’ uses such as restaurants, function centres and tourist accommodation must
now show a genuine relationship with agricultural land use - landowners, for example,
cannot plant a vine in the front yard, call themselves a winery and then develop a
restaurant
 Minimum lot sizes will apply for land uses such as function centres, group
accommodation, research and development centres, residential hotels and
restaurants
 Recycling and refuse transfer stations in the Green Wedge Zones must not include
construction or demolition materials, such as concrete crushing
 Existing schools wanting to expand must be in a Special Use Zone, stay within their
existing land holding and have a masterplan showing the school’s ultimate
development.
These provisions, introduced through planning scheme amendment VC043, came into effect
on 31 October 2006.
The Municipal Association of Victoria and local councils have also made some progress in
addressing the concerns raised in this report since the survey was undertaken.
The table on the following pages summarises the extent to which the recommendations have
been addressed by the State government announcement and recent local government
activities.
These recommendations should be revisited with green wedge councils to determine the
ongoing relevance and priority.
The new funding also needs to be allocated to councils in such a way as to assist councils
with the greatest need and to ensure the maximum benefit to the widest range of councils.
Continued advocacy to State Government and other agencies, using this document as a
platform, can then be undertaken.
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
25
Recommendations Addressed To Date
Rec
Details
Responsibility
Yes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
26
Clarify the scope, process, role
and status of Green Wedge
Management Plans, and the
likely resources required to
develop and implement these
plans. This clarification needs to
recognise the differences in
green wedge areas and between
interface and metropolitan
councils, as well as existing
policy and programs.
Provide opportunities for councils
to share best practice and
practical experience in managing
green wedges at an officer and
councillor level.
Develop greater clarity and
guidance to:
 assist decision making on
discretionary uses
 guide decision making on
residential development on
existing small lots
 improve siting and design in
sensitive areas
 clarify when prohibited uses
may become discretionary
 provide for the needs of
existing, and now prohibited,
uses.
Review the role, location and
management of buffer areas for
growth area and green wedge
planning to ensure that buffer
areas contribute to the
achievement of green wedge
objectives.
Assess the adequacy and
effectiveness of the existing
Green Wedge Zone provisions
and use definitions to manage
residential encroachment into
green wedges.
Improve data collection –
through the Planning Permit
Activity Report or through other
appropriate mechanism – on the
nature and volume of application
types in green wedge areas to
identify streamlining
opportunities through statutory
changes.
Clarify how rural economic and
social issues, including the longterm productive use of land, in
green wedge and rural areas will
be addressed.
Councils and
DSE
Addressed
Partly
No
No
MAV
DSE
No
Partly
Comments
Workshop / forum
likely to occur in
2007
Recent Ministerial
announcement
provides some
direction in this
respect
Growth Area
Authority
No
DSE
No
Councils
No
DSE
No
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Rec
8
9
10
11
12
Details
Clarify the circumstances under
which ‘industrial’ uses - such as
concrete crushing or material
recycling – will be able to locate
in green wedge areas.
Identify opportunities to
encourage improved property
management by:
 expanding ongoing education
and financial incentives for
landholders
 establishing mechanisms for
sharing of experience and
practice between landholders
 making links and forming
partnerships with relevant
government agencies and
independent environmental
groups
 including site specific
strategies and actions on land
management rather than
broad region-wide directions.
Seek ongoing funding support
from state and federal sources
for policy development and
implementation of green wedge
management plans to protect
green wedges.
Continue community education
and information campaigns to
raise awareness and explain the
values and purposes of
Melbourne’s green wedges at a
local and metropolitan wide level.
Support councils by providing
‘high level’ community
information to explain the values
and purposes of Melbourne’s
green wedges.
Responsibility
DSE
Yes
Yes
Addressed
Partly
No
Councils
MAV
No
Yes
Councils
DSE
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Comments
Appropriate
distribution of
funds to be
determined
Partly
Ongoing activity
No
27
Attachment 1: Survey
MAV MELBOURNE 2030 GREEN WEDGE AREAS SURVEY
2005
Purpose
This survey seeks to identify and explore issues faced by councils in planning and management of
Green Wedge areas. The survey asks councils to:

identify current relevant strategic work, programs or projects

identify perceived priorities for future activities

audit” of current threats and issues
Who has the Survey been sent to?
The following councils, to a greater or lesser extent, contain Green Wedge areas
Wyndham, Whittlesea, Melton, Nillumbik, Maroondah, Hume, Brimbank, Manningham, Casey,
Cardinia, Mornington Peninsula, Frankston, Yarra Ranges, Knox, Greater Dandenong and Kingston.
Green Wedge areas are defined as those predominately non-urban areas outside of the Urban Growth
Boundary.
Who should complete the survey?

the strategic planning and environmental planning areas of council, and signed by the
relevant Director to better reflect organisational views. Given the political sensitivity
surrounding many aspects of green wedge planning and management, it is suggested
that councillors be consulted in the completion of this survey.
What happens to the survey results?
Responses will be aggregated to develop a clearer understanding of local government green wedge
activities and issues to inform MAV priorities and advocacy in this area. A summary report will be
provided to all survey participants and made available to members of the MAV M2030 Councillor
Reference Group and MAV M2030 Planning Technical Committee, whose membership includes DSE.
How long will it take?
The survey should take about 30 minutes to complete, although you may need to gather some
information from other sections of council. Please fully complete the survey.
Disclaimer and Privacy Notification
Completed survey forms will be retained by the MAV and will not be distributed outside of the MAV.
Personal information requested on this form is being collected by the MAV for the sole purpose of the
Green Wedge Survey.
Questions should be directed to Liz Johnstone, Melbourne 2030 Senior Liaison, on ph. (03) 9667 5585
or email ljohnstone@mav.asn.au
Thank you for your time in completing this survey.
Please return completed survey by Monday 3rd October, 2005 by email (preferred)
or fax to 9667 5550.
28
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
SECTION 1. COUNCIL CONTACT
1.1
Preferred council contact for discussion of issues raised in this survey.
Name:____________________________________________________________________
Name of Council:____________________________________________________________
Position in Council: __________________________________________________________
Postal Address: _____________________________________________________________
Phone: ____________________
Fax: ____________________ Mobile: ______________
Email: ____________________________________________________________________
Relevant Green Wedge Area/s: ________________________________________________
SECTION 2. CURRENT STRATEGIC WORK, PROGRAMS OR PROJECTS
What is the nature and status of current strategic planning work for the Green Wedge Areas
as well as any other relevant programs or projects?
2.1 Strategic work completed or underway.
% complete
Duration
Estimated
Please list relevant strategic planning work
(date started and total cost
completed or currently underway (in priority order)
due to complete)
(incl. staff
time)
Eg Environmental Significance Overlay
100%
May 04 – Jan 05
2.2 Strategic work proposed / identified (subject to budget)
Anticipated
(in priority order
start date
Eg Green Wedge Management plan
Jan 06
Duration
$75,000
Estimated
total cost
12 months
$120,000
2.3 Other relevant projects or programs in priority order
Status
Duration
Est. Cost
Eg EVC mapping ; land capability assessment etc
75%
Aug 04 –
$150,000
Nov 05
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
29
2.4 Relative priority – vis-à-vis other strategic planning priorities
High
Medium
Low
(such as structure plans, neighbourhood character studies etc)
what is the relative priority of the strategic work proposed in 2.2
above? Please comment as required.
SECTION 3. CURRENT THREATS AND ISSUES FACING COUNCILS PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT OF GREEN WEDGE AREAS - Green Wedge areas provide for a range of uses
including agriculture, tourism, recreation and conservation with their individual characteristics across
Melbourne. What is the nature and scale of current critical issues facing councils in the green wedge
areas and what action could be taken?
3.1
Context -
a) Are objectives for Green Wedge areas clearly defined within your councils Municipal Strategic
Statement?
Yes 
No 
In part 
(please tick a box)
b) Is councils’role in the planning and management of Green Wedge areas clearly articulated and
understood?
by councillors
Yes 
No 
In part 
by officers
Yes 
No 
In part 
by the community
Yes 
No 
In part 
(please tick a box)
c) Would you perceive that the dual purpose of Green Wedge areas (to contain urban growth and
protect rural land) is understood and valued by your community? Yes 
No 
In
part  (please tick a box)
d) Range of uses and zones – to better understand the volume and nature of planning applications
being dealt with at your council, please identify the nature and number of planning applications within
the Green Wedge Areas of your municipality (estimate if not known) since their introduction. This is an
incomplete list of section 2 uses – please add others as relevant.
Section 2 – permit required use
Green Wedge
Green Wedge Zone A
Was there an overlay/
Zone (GWZ)
(GWAZ)
other trigger for permit.
Please specify
Camping/Caravan park
Car park
Cattle feedlot
Dependent person’s unit
Dwelling (other than B&B)
30
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Education Centre
Function Centre
Group accommodation
Leisure and recreation
Residential Building
Residential hotel
Restaurant
OTHER eg extractive uses etc
3.2 Identification of Issues / threats to the objectives of the
Importance
Green Wedge areas –Please list the range of issues and threats
High
Action
Medium
Low
Yes
No
that you experience in your council area, their relative
importance and whether your council has been active in trying to
address that issue or threat.
3.3
Exploring the issues – For those issues / threats of high importance (3 or 4) above please
elaborate on the nature of the issue, possible solutions and action, if any, to date. Please list in order
of decreasing importance to your council – ie most important first; Please keep information brief and
attach more detail if required.
Issue description
Why this is an Issue
Suggested solutions
Action to date
Eg Happydaze caravan
Permanent residents in
Change GWZ to prohibit
Letter to Minister 01/08/05
park - extension of site
non-urban areas lead to
or limit the number of
Appearances at VCAT
into adjacent (previously
poor access to services
sites for permanent
pitch and putt ancillary
and transport and less
occupancy.
recreational area) for
efficient use of existing
Change to building
additional sites for
infrastructure.
standards to ensure
permanent occupants.
permanent sites are
subject to the same
building standards as for
residential construction.
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
31
SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Please take this opportunity to make comment about this survey or other matter that you would like to
raise that is relevant to either the green Wedge Areas or Melbourne 2030 more broadly.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
TIME TO COMPLETE__________________________________________
Signed: ______________________________________________________________________________
Position in Council: ____________________________________________________________________
32
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Attachment 2: Survey Responses
Colour Code
 Wyndham = Orange
 Melton = Light Orange
 Hume = Pink/Orange
 Whittlesea = Yellow
 Nillumbik = Light Green
Manningham = Green
Knox = Blue/Green
Greater Dandenong = Blue
Kingston = Light Blue
 Mornington Peninsula = Aqua
 Yarra Ranges = Purple
 Interface councils
Question 2.1
Current relevant strategic planning work completed
or currently underway
 Wyndham Environmental Planning Atlas (including
land capability)
Werribee South Green Wedge Policy and Plan
Wyndham Biodiversity Study
Werribee South Coastal Landscape Assessment
 Shire of Melton Rural Areas Strategic Review
Heritage Study
 Hume Environmental Planning Atlas
Hume Agribusiness Project
Hume Indigenous Vegetation Study
Hume Fauna Study
State of the Environment Project
Hume Sustainable Land Management and Integrated
Weed Control Strategy 2003 – 2006
Hume Environmental Sustainability Framework
Hume Natural Heritage Strategy
Hume Sustainable Land Management Incentive
Scheme
 Rural Review: Draft for Consultation
 Review of Environmental Significance Overlay (Stage
One)
Green Wedge Management Plan
State of Environment Report
Local Weed Action Plan
Heritage Overlay review
Interim Policy for Residential Use in the Green Wedge
Restructure Overlay for small lots
Municipal Strategic Statement Review
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
%
complete
100
Duration
Jun 03 - Apr 04
Estimated total
cost
$110, 000
75
75
50
100
80
100
100
100
100
100
100
Jan 04 - Dec 0
Jan 05 - Nov 05
Jan 03 - Dec 05
2002 – 2003
2003 – Feb 06
2004
2004
2003
2004
2003-2005
2002
$120, 000
$90, 000
$60, 000
$100, 000
$65, 000
$70, 000
100
80
80
2002
Oct. 2005
2005- 2006
$40, 000
$47, 000
100
5
1997 – May 2000
Sept 05 - Jan 06
$80, 000
$70, 000
35
85
50
45
50
75
85
12 months
12 months
12 months
8 months
3 months
3 months
6 months
$200, 000
$60, 000
$40, 000
$40, 000
$40, 000
$20, 000
$15, 000
33
Current relevant strategic planning work completed
or currently underway
Implementation of Domestic Waste Water Strategy
Implementation of Municipal Public Health Plan
Manningham Green Wedge Strategy 2004
Review and revisiting the Manningham Municipal
Strategic Statement to strengthen strategic policy in line
with the Manningham Green Wedge Strategy 2004
Review of the Environmental Significance Overlay
Knox Planning Scheme Amendment C40
Knox Planning Scheme Amendment C50 (MSS)
Environmental Significance Overlay
South East Non Urban Area Study
Heatherton, Dingley and Clayton South Non Urban
Strategic Review
Submission to Melbourne 2030
%
complete
40
40
100
90
Ongoing
Ongoing
Sept 02 - Nov 04
June 03 - June 05
Estimated total
cost
$25, 000 p.a
$50, 000 p.a.
$120, 000
$60, 000
Submission on Proposed New Non Urban Zones
100
Review of Special Use Zone (Schedule 2)
30
 Review of LPPF local policies related to uses in the
rural areas following intro of GW zone. (High importance
- pressure for various non-rural uses in green wedge
could threaten its future)
Strategic Landscape Assessment (pilot). Joint project
with SRP unit of DPI - (Key project for protection of
values of Green Wedge but difficult to link assessment
with effective policy and control mechanisms - hence
pilot project)
Sustainable Rural Strategy (including land capability
assessment) Note not finalised pending incorporation
into Green Wedge Management Plan
Green Wedge Management Plan (incorporating local
implementation plan for Regional Catchment Strategy)
Greenhouse Alliance Project for Westernport
50
Oct 04 - June 06
Jan 03 - Mar 06
May 03- Apr 06
02 - 06
Completed 1997
Completed June
2002
Completed February
2003
Completed February
2004
Commenced March
2005. Complete
Early 2006
During 2005
70
Oct 04 - Dec 05
$20, 000
95
Oct 02 - Dec 03
$150, 000
10
Jul 05 - Jun 06
$20, 000
10
Jun 05 - Jun 06
$25, 000
(total project
cost $140, 000)
Domestic Wastewater Management Strategy
Review of planning controls and operational procedures
for areas subject to landslip risk
Review of Ben Cairn Estate Restructure Plan (as basis
for preparation of planning scheme amendment for
restructure of 270 lot subdivision in high landslip risk
area)
Environment Strategy/Framework
Review of Local Planning Policy Framework (which will
incorporate review of MSS and local policies relating to
urban and green wedge areas)
90
90
Jul 05 – Jun 06
May 04- Dec06
80
Jan 05 – Nov 06
30
10
Jul 05 – Dec 06
Jun 06-Jun 07
34
60
80
70
60
100
100
Duration
100
$40, 000
$120, 000
$70, 000
$80, 000
N/A
$60, 000
$30, 000
$5, 000
$20, 000
$5, 000
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Question 2.2
2.2 Strategic work proposed / identified
 Werribee South Green Wedge PLANNING PANEL
Western Plains Green Wedge Plan
Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO)
 Green Wedge Management Plan
Environmental Atlas
 Green Wedge Management Plan (existing grant with
Wyndham and Melton Councils)
 Green Wedge Management Plan
 Review of the Sustainable Agriculture Rebate
Housing Affordability Study
EcoSystems Services (include Biodiversity as Offsets to
Greenhouse emissions)
Environmental Significance Overlay Review (Stage 3)
Review of Environmental Significance Overlay 2 Yarra
River Environs
Preparing Guidelines for the preparation of Land
Management Plans
Identifying and mapping additional sites of identified
wildfire risk and including in the Wildfire Management
Overlay
Identifying current and potential wildlife corridors for the
enhancement of linking corridors between sites of
significance
Review cat and dog controls in environmental sensitive
areas
Reviewing Clause 22.02 Indigenous Flora and Fauna
Policy to incorporate issues relating to Net Gain
Green Wedge Management Plan
Review of Boral (Lysterfield) Quarry
Rehabilitation Plan
Green Wedge Management Plan
 Sites of fauna significance (key input is potential sites
identified in the survey of remnant vegetation - EVC
mapping)
Analysis of EVC mapping data and policy development
 Green Wedge Management Plan (will be undertaken as
part of wider review of Local Planning Policy Framework)
Rural Strategic Review (Wider review of a range of rural
strategic issues that will be used to inform future revision
of LPPF and matrix of planning controls for Green Wedge
areas. It is expected to include a range of specific
research projects that will address key issues)
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Anticipated start
date
March 06
Jan 2006
Oct 2005
Awaiting Ministerial
Direction on SMART
Growth Committee
recommendations
Jan 06
TBD
Jan 2006
Jan 2006
TBC
TBC
Duration
I week
12 months
6 months
6 months
? Subject to
finalisation
of brief
14 months
12 months
10 months
10 Months
Estimated
total cost
$20, 000
$120, 000
$12, 000
$100, 000
$140, 000
$15, 000
$60, 000
Unknown
2006/2007 Financial
Year
2005/2006 Financial
Year
Jan 2006
$70, 000 +
12 months
$30, 000
18 months
$10, 000
Jan 2007
12 months
$20, 000
Jan 2006
18 months
$7, 000
Jan 2007
12 months
$4, 000
Jan 2006
18 moths
$7, 000
06
6 months
May 06
2006
12 months
12 months
2006-07
2006
Jun 06
2006-07
12 months
Jun 07
24 months
$80, 000
N/A
$5, 000
35
Question 2.3
2.3 Other relevant projects or programs in priority
order
 Green Wedge Buffer Design Provisions and
Guidelines
Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO)
Werribee South Green Wedge Township Structure
Plan
Little River Green Wedge Township Structure Plan
 Environmental enhancement rebate
Implementation of the objectives of the Regional
Catchment Strategy
Kororoit Creek Regional Strategy 2005
Toolern Vale Biodiversity Action Plan
 EVC Mapping
Rural Economic Needs Study
Review of Whittlesea Township Local Structure Plan/
Urban Growth Boundary Review
 State of Environment Report
Open Space Strategy
Local Weed Action Plan
Land Management Incentives
Manningham City Council - Sites of Biological
Significance Review 2004
The Green Wedge Land Capability Study March 2004
Development of a local government Net Gain
Implementation Plan
Pilot project of council's new financial incentive and
reward scheme called "BUSH Gain"
Delivery of Property Management Planning Courses
for landholders
Biodiversity Community Education Programs
Green Wedge Sustainable Schools Program
Increase incentives for Conservation Covenants and
Land for Wildlife properties
Mapping of priority weed species to assist in
developing weed management programs
Implementation of sites of biological significance
recommendations
 EVC mapping and condition assessment
Stream watch and Water watch program
Land Sustainability Rebate Scheme
Bushland reserves Biodiversity survey and
management plans
Land Grants program (small scale grants to private
owners for weed control, pest control, erosion control,
streamline protection, etc)
Land Protection officer contribution
 Housing Strategy
Implementation of Weed Management Strategy
36
Status
Duration
Proposed but no 6 months
funding
Proposed but
6 months
dependant upon
outcomes of
Biodiversity Study
Long term
12 months
Estimated
Cost
$20, 000
$10, 000
$40, 000
Long term
Ongoing
90 %
12 months
Ongoing
$60, 000
$1.2 million
$250, 000
90 %
90 %
-
Jun 04 – Mar 06
Jun 04 – Mar 06
May 06 – May 07
May 06 – May 07
May 06 – May 07
$10, 000
$40, 000
$25, 000
$20, 000
In preparation
Draft
In preparation
Implementation
100 %
12 months
2 years
12 months
Ongoing
Jun 02 – Nov 04
$60, 000
$40, 000
$40, 000
$150, 000
$150, 000
100
50
Oct 03 - Mar 04
Jun 04 - Jun 06
$50, 00
$46, 000
60
Jan 05 - Dec 06
$46, 000
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
50
50
Ongoing
Oct 04 - Dec 07
Jun 05 - Jul 06
50
Jul 04 - Dec 05
$22, 000
15 %
June 05
$70, 000
85 % complete
Current
Current
Current
2003 - 2006
Ongoing
Ongoing
12 months
$10, 000 per
course
$5, 000
$10, 000
$150, 000
$20, 000 p.a.
$200,000 p.a.
$60, 000
Ongoing
$50, 000
Annual
Ongoing?
$25,000
(05/06)
80%
Ongoing
Jun 04 – Dec 06
Jul 06 – Jun 07
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
2.3 Other relevant projects or programs in priority
order
Environmental and planning compliance action plan,
focussing on vegetation protection
Township Development and Community Engagement
Strategy
Community engagement and capacity building
program for the Shire’s Friends groups
Tourism Strategy
Planting program of 10,000 trees per annum in
roadside and bushland areas
Design guidelines for development in rural landscapes
and townships
Status
Duration
Jan 2006
18 months
Jul 2006
12 months
July 2006
12 months
Not commenced
Not commenced
Dec 06 – Jun 07
Jul 06 – Jun 10
Not commenced
Jun 07
Question 2.4
2.4 Relative priority – vis-à-vis other strategic planning priorities
 Green Wedge Buffer Design Provisions and Guidelines
Vegetation Protection Overlay
Werribee South Green Wedge Township Structure Plan
Little River Green Wedge Township Structure Plan
 Green Wedge Management Plan
Environmental Atlas
 Green Wedge Plans
 Very limited resources not withstanding ‘high’ priority
 Projects will be identified following the completion of the Green Wedge
Implementation Plan. (The Green Wedge is a high priority with Council thus
the preparation of the interim Green Wedge Policy which will remain in place
until the GWMP can be implemented. The introduction of the Restructure
Overlay was also commenced as a matter of urgency to prevent further
development of existing small lots in the Smith's Gully area.)
Preparing Guidelines for the preparation of Land Management Plans
Identifying and mapping additional sites of identified wildfire risk and
including in the Wildfire Management Overlay
Identifying current and potential wildlife corridors for the enhancement of
linking corridors between sites of significance
Review cat and dog controls in environmental sensitive areas
Reviewing Clause 22.02 Indigenous Flora and Fauna Policy to incorporate
issues relating to Net Gain
Green Wedge Management Plan
Boral Lysterfield Quarry Rehabilitation Plan
Green Wedge Management Plan
Kingston is willing to prioritise work within its Non Urban Area provided
support is obtained from the Minister of Planning to examine variations
where justified to the recently introduced statutory controls. Without such
support from the Minister it is considered that as with recent submissions on
this issue, the cost of expending substantial resources without clear support
for implementation, weakens the basis for prioritising further work in the non
urban area
 Activity Centres Strategy (role and function of all centres) near complete
Activity Centre Structure Plan Mornington 50% complete
Activity Centre Structure Plan Rosebud due to commence Dec 05
Activity Centre Structure Plan Hastings due to commence March 06
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
High
High
Estimated
Cost
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
High
Low
Medium
Low
High
High
High
High
37
2.4 Relative priority – vis-à-vis other strategic planning priorities
Activity Centre Structure Plans for Neighbourhood Centres 14 No.
Local Housing Strategy and review of current DDO's - pending
Regional Housing Statement
Review of Planning Scheme (specific parts require early review to manage
the number of planning applications)
Parking Precinct Plans for most Activity Centres - requires progress in
structure plans
Neighbourhood Character studies various localities - existing DDO's address
many of the concerns in key areas of the municipality
Coastal Management Plans for Hastings South, Mornington, Mt Martha and
Flinders (Submarine proposal related to Hastings S and Safe
Harbour/Marina EES in Mornington area)
High
High
Some
Camping/Caravan park
Car park
Cattle feedlot
Dependent person’s unit
Dwelling (other than B&B)
Education Centre
Function Centre
Group accommodation
Leisure and recreation
Residential Building
Residential hotel
Restaurant
38
Others
Medium
Hastings
Mornington
Question 3.1 a-c
Camping/Caravan park
a) Are objectives for Green Wedge areas clearly defined within your councils
Municipal Strategic Statement?
b) Is Councils’ role in the planning and management of Green Wedge areas clearly
articulated and understood?
- by Councillors
- by Officers
- by the community
c) Would you perceive that the dual purpose of Green Wedge areas (to contain
urban growth and protect rural land) is understood and valued by your community?
Green Wedge
Zone (GWZ)
5
3
(1 pending)
7
150
2
3
6 (1 pending)
9
9
1
6
Low
High
A range of site-specific strategic projects of varying importance such as
Tyabb Airfield environs. Cape Schanck resort area planning controls, Port
area land use planning, Developer contribution plans, ODP Mornington north
Planning scheme amendment - significant number of requests and
applications for amendments to enable site-specific developments in urban
areas for retirement villages, schools, increased dwelling density close to
facilities.
 Preparation of Green Wedge Management Plan (will be undertaken as
part of wider review of Local Planning Policy Framework)
Rural Strategic Review (wider review of a range of rural strategic issues that
will be used to inform future revision of LPPF and matrix of planning controls
for Green Wedge areas)
Question 3.1 d
d) Range of uses and zones
Section 2 – permit required use
Medium
Medium
Mt
Martha
and
Flinders
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Yes
6
No
0
In part
5
4
6
3
3
0
0
3
3
7
5
5
5
Green Wedge Zone
A (GWAZ)
0
0
0
5
35
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Overlay/ other
trigger for permit.
0
1
1
64
4
3
0
3
0
0
0
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
d) Range of uses and zones
Section 2 – permit required use
OTHER eg extractive uses etc
Green Wedge
Zone (GWZ)
27 (+ 53 building
and works)
Green Wedge Zone
A (GWAZ)
2 (+37 building and
works)
Overlay/ other
trigger for permit.
7
 Note from Yarra Ranges: The software used by Yarra Ranges for its planning register does not readily allow
the data to be collated in the manner outlined above. Furthermore, the operation of Clause 53, which is unique to
Yarra Ranges, serves to substantially alter the range and type of applications considered by the Shire compared
to other green wedge municipalities.
The Shire deals with the second largest number of applications in the State, largely due to the operation of
Clause 53 and the green wedge provisions. The vast majority of these applications relate to dwellings, dwelling
additions and buildings ancillary to dwellings and agricultural activities.
Question 3.2
Note
Hume (Refer to Hume Agribusiness Report Executive Summary)
Whittlesea (Refer to attached Council Report and letter to Minister for Planning)
3.2 Identification of Issues / threats to the objectives of the Green
Importance
Wedge areas –Please list the range of issues and threats that you
High
Med Low
experience in your council area, their relative importance and whether your
council has been active in trying to address that issue or threat.
High
 No universal guidelines for interpreting the concepts "in association with"
and "compatible with" and for making decisions Additionally many uses have
been discretionary uses provides a loophole for inappropriate development
Green Wedge is the only affordable land for many non-residential uses need
Med
alternatives if these uses are not appropriate for the Green Wedge
No clear plan for long-term buffer uses leads to ad-hoc development of
High
strategic interface areas and exposes incompatible uses to each other (eg
agriculture or animal husbandry with residential development)
Need flexibility to apply other non-urban zones if more appropriate
High
Lack of services available to rural townships
Med
Poor land management practices with inadequate incentives for landowners
Med
to retain and maintain native vegetation
High
 Weed management
Decline in the value of dryland grazing and farming
Med
Rubbish dumping and vandalism
Med
Pest Animals
Med
Access to water for rural industry
High
High set up costs and risk of failure for small farms
Med
Development pressure caused by encroaching residential areas
High
High
 Agricultural Viability
Social Sustainability
High
Weeds
High
Economic Sustainability
High
'Right to Farm'
Med
Loss of Agricultural services
Med
Urban Pressure
High
Shift in land holder type - move towards lifestyle farming / rural living
High
Lack land management skills among many land holders
High
High
 Economic viability of rural enterprises
Weeds and Land Management
High
Urban-rural interface issues
Med
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Action
Yes No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
39
3.2 Identification of Issues / threats to the objectives of the Green
Wedge areas –Please list the range of issues and threats that you
experience in your council area, their relative importance and whether your
council has been active in trying to address that issue or threat.
Protection of places of environmental significance
Sensitive development and design in areas of landscape and cultural
significance.
 Residential Development
-environmental damage created by the construction of dwellings
-residential activities inconsistent with environmental values
Inappropriate commercial/intensive farming
Vegetation clearance (legal and illegal)
Pest Plants and Animals
Poor Land Management Practices
Expectations of residents inconsistent with protecting Green Wedge
conservation values
Biodiversity Conservation
Shortcomings in the application of the ESO
Loss of native vegetation due to development and incremental loss
Impact on waterways and landscape due to earthworks
Continued functioning of schools, churches and other places of assembly
due to change in zone
Unsustainable agricultural land use
Inadequate support for businesses to become more environmentally
sustainable
Sections of the community uninterested in protecting biodiversity,
agriculture, landscape, heritage and cultural values
Inappropriate infrastructure that is contributing to the degradation of the
environment
Inadequate state and federal government financial support
Further subdivision in GWZ
Land management (particularly weeds)
Caravan Park (pre-application enquiry)
State Government change in policy
Residential Development / Golf Course Proposals
ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH - Sustainability of the Non Urban Area
based on the palette of available land uses and restrictive conditions
imposed through Green Wedge Zone and Metropolitan Core Planning
Provisions
POTENTIALLY INAPPROPRIATE INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES IN
KINGSTON'S NON URBAN AREA (ie concrete crushing proposals).
Panel/Advisory Committee currently investigating this issue
SUSTAINABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ON SMALL
ALLOTMENTS (see Figure 33 Melbourne 2030 - No High Value Agricultural
Land anywhere near Kingston) (Investigated as part of 2002 Strategic
Review)
STATE GOVERNMENT COMMITMENTS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
SANDBELT CHAIN OF PARKS (Melbourne 2030 Policy Commitment Initiative 5.7.3
RECONCILING GOVERNMENTS TOWARDS ZERO WASTE INITIATIVES
WITH ALLOWABLE LAND USE ACTIVITIES IN NON URBAN AREAS
 Use of 99 year leases to circumvent subdivision controls in GW (sought
DSE advice and action - DSE officers addressed Council - raised through
MAV - raised through Interface Councils DSE - still not resolved)
VCAT decision of Caravan Park Dromana and implications - written to DSE
40
Importance
High
Med
Low
High
Action
Yes No
Yes
Yes
Med
High
Yes
Med
Med
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Med
Med
Low
Yes
Yes
High
Yes
High
Yes
High
High
High
High
High
High
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
High
Yes
High
Yes
High
Yes
High
Yes
High
Yes
High
Yes
Med
No
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
3.2 Identification of Issues / threats to the objectives of the Green
Wedge areas –Please list the range of issues and threats that you
experience in your council area, their relative importance and whether your
council has been active in trying to address that issue or threat.
and discussed with DSE
Number and scale of non-rural uses in rural areas that some link to rural
areas - need for consistent approach to "in conjunction with" to ensure a
functional nexus between the main and supporting use. The cap on numbers
of seats rooms or dwellings in GW zone too high in many cases for the size
of the property or operation (sought assistance from DSE - reviewing policy
work in Planning Scheme to provide guidance)
Further fragmentation of rural lots (sought to increase minimum lots size interim controls supported by Minister panel supported. Minimum increased)
Salinity. Would like funding for further study
Climate change. Council is participating in regional project
Threats to indigenous flora and fauna. Council is undertaking a range of
initiatives including research, active bushland management, sustainability
rebates, community partnership grants, support of friends groups, field
officers, Shire nursery and community education, participation in
State/Federal initiatives (eg Input to Native Vegetation Management
Framework Operational Guidelines Project)
 Trend to construction of larger dwellings and expansion of existing
dwellings – site coverage, vegetation loss, visual impacts
Pressure to accommodate golf courses, major churches and other space
intensive uses displaced from urban areas
Demand for controlled growing conditions for horticulture (igloos, hail
netting)
Declining standards of rural land management where agriculture is displaced
by rural residential use
Long term decline in vegetation quality of remnant bushland areas due to
incremental clearing, weed invasions and lack of skilled land management
Tourism/major events – impact on agricultural areas
Logging of privately owned forest - in Rural Conservation areas
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Importance
High
Med
Low
Action
Yes No
High
Yes
High
Yes
High
High
High
Med
Yes
Med
Yes
Med
Yes
Med
Yes
High
Yes
High
Yes
Med
41
Question 3.3
3.3 Exploring the issues – For those issues / threats of high importance (3 or 4) above please elaborate on
the nature of the issue, possible solutions and action, if any, to date. Please list in order of decreasing importance
to your council – i.e. most important first; Please keep information brief and attach more detail if required.
Issue description Why this is an Issue
Suggested solutions
Action to date
Policy/Zone Concerns
State Government Supersedes existing
Recognize existing policy
Letter to Minister
change in policy
local strategic policy
Impact on the
A number of schools,
Council has prepared a
Council has requested
operation and
churches and commercial proposed Planning Scheme
consent to prepare the
ongoing function of facilities have been
Amendment for the Donvale
amendment on December
schools, churches
rezoned as part of the
Christian College rezone the
2004. No advice has yet
and
implementation of the
land to Special Use. We are
been received
restaurants/function Green Wedge. These
currently awaiting Ministerial
centres within the
premises are now
consent to prepare this
Manningham
prohibited and it is difficult amendment, which was
Green Wedge
to know whether they will
requested in December 2004.
be retained in the long
2. It is hoped that this form of
term
amendment could serve as a
model for other acceptable
uses within the Manningham
Green Wedge
It is inevitable that the
Where the UGB cannot be
(a) Submission on
 Failure to
Melbourne 2030, (b)
provide an effective UGB will sometimes follow located along a legible,
a
local
road,
or
property
effective
barrier
like
a
freeway,
positive reactions from
strategy to create
boundary, or even cross a wetland, grassland, woodland, some DSE personnel; (c)
green wedge
property.
or major park, etc, a buffer
support in principle from
buffers
This:
needs to be created if at all
Committee for Smart
(a) typically places
possible. The simplest method Growth; (d) application via
incompatible uses
is to define a buffer belt,
placement of wetlands to
opposite or adjacent to
immediately outside the UGB,
the south of Point Cook,
each other;
within which the normal green
inside the UGB, but not
(b) commonly undermines wedge controls apply, except if where wetlands are not
the viability of the rural
a proposal constitutes a
practical, (e) favourable
use, especially if it
defined GW Buffer Project
initial reaction from one or
generates off-site odours, (GWBP). This may be a golf
two members of the Green
sprays, noises, etc that
course, habitat restoration
Wedge Coalition, on a brief
become severely
area, major park, or land
verbal introduction; but
regulated, or it suffers
extensive private school, etc.
now at a point where we
from dust, litter, run-off,
Most of these, (except the
need to take the idea
weeds, marauding dogs,
school) could locate in a GW
further, with a case where
people (or cats), etc; and
anyway. However, to get them there is little chance of
(c) fosters and facilitates
to locate in the buffer, they
success except outside the
calls to move the UGB or
would be able to extend the
UGB.
allow other incompatible
urban use from inside the
uses, and provides a
UGB, to [say] 20-25% of the
foundation for compelling
land area, providing that (a) the
cases in some instances.
buffer use physically separates
the urban and rural activities by
[say] 200m, (b) the buffer use
itself is designed to minimise
any impacts that may affect
either adjacent use, (c) the
urban activities are accessed
off the urban side and
42
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
3.3 Exploring the issues – For those issues / threats of high importance (3 or 4) above please elaborate on
the nature of the issue, possible solutions and action, if any, to date. Please list in order of decreasing importance
to your council – i.e. most important first; Please keep information brief and attach more detail if required.
Issue description Why this is an Issue
Suggested solutions
Action to date
integrated into that area, with
no access into the farming
side, etc. Rural uses like
vineyards may be acceptable if
they can get over their own
conflicts with housing - eg in
use of sprays, etc. Minimum
areas would probably be
required. Schools would need
wide, effective buffers, so very
large sites. [If the buffer is
proposed within the UGB,
there will be enormous duress
on the RA to effectively waive
it, as it eats precious urban
land, etc, etc.]
One Size Fits All
1. Insufficient consultation Provide Councils like Kingston Correspondence with the
Approach to
or strategic rigour has
with a confidence that the
Minister for Planning is
Planning Controls
been put into developing
statutory system is sufficiently
outlined below:
tailored controls that are
flexible to accommodate local
1. Original Melbourne 2030
responsive to each green circumstance. If tailored
Submission - Feb 2003.
wedge. The Green Wedge controls are necessary for
2. Submission to Minister
Management Planning
some Council, they should be
on Proposed New Rural
process cannot for
instituted.
Zones - February 2004.
Kingston achieve a
3. Standard letter from
sustainable outcome if the
Minister on 14 May in
untested statutory
response to February
provisions are
Submission - Limited if any
predetermined prior to the
real consideration of
strategic planning work.
relevant local issues.
2. Kingston is unable to
4. Letter to Minister 26
state confidently that the
May 2004 seeking
limited palette of land uses
agreement from State
is sufficient to improve its
Government to 'policy
non urban area.
neutral' approach in
Attachment A provides a
seeking to development
comprehensive analysis of
sustainable planning
this.
framework for Non Urban
Area (No Written Reply)
5. Meeting with Senior
Departmental and
Ministerial Staff (October
2004)
6. Letter to Minister 26
October, 2004 seeking
agreement and funding for
further strategic work. (No
written reply)
State Government
1. Initiative 5.7.3 of
1. Continual commitment by
1. Council reinforced this
Commitment to
Melbourne 2030 highlights the State Government through issue as part of the
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
43
3.3 Exploring the issues – For those issues / threats of high importance (3 or 4) above please elaborate on
the nature of the issue, possible solutions and action, if any, to date. Please list in order of decreasing importance
to your council – i.e. most important first; Please keep information brief and attach more detail if required.
Issue description Why this is an Issue
Suggested solutions
Action to date
Chain of Parks
the importance of the
its budget process to
consultation process for
Sandbelt Chain of Parks.
purchasing and implementing
the State Governments
2. The delivery of this
this project over future
'Linking Melbourne'
project in totality is seen
decades. 2. Council with State Strategy. 2. Recent
as a key component of
Government (Parks Victoria)
correspondence with Parks
strengthening the
support continuing the process Victoria reinforced the
community interaction and of ensuring the chain is
importance of this project.
aesthetic appearance of
reinforced through Public
Kingston's Non Urban
Acquisition Overlays
Area
The definition of
Opportunity for review of
The need for local policies
 There is
accommodation types and definitions and for conditions or being investigated in
opportunity for
associated provisions are particular provisions to be
context of Green Wedge
accommodation
not always a good fit with
introduced for particular forms Management Plan.
proposals to be
contemporary residential
of accommodation in the
pursued within the
use and development and Green Wedge (eg Host farm).
green wedge (eg
Green Wedge objectives
as host farms,
caravan parks,
group
accommodation,
very large dwellings
with detached
buildings) that may
invite later
permanent living
conversion and
enforcement
problems
Development Concerns and Community Sustainability
At what point does a use
Need clear guidelines to assist Matter challenged at VCAT
 Permit for
become "associated with" decisions on discretionary
by residents and
function centre,
agriculture? Is a token
uses, and determine when
environmental group on
accommodation
area
of
agriculture
prohibited
ones
can
become
grounds including validity
and restaurant, with
in the area.
small area of olives sufficient to enable use of discretionary. Also need a
this provision to introduce universal definition/trigger of
approved by
otherwise prohibited
"in association with" agriculture
Council
uses? If a use is then
(eg. Agriculture use must be
demonstrated to be linked established prior to other use;
to with agriculture, why
agriculture must be a viable
place limits on the
use in its own right,
capacity? This applies to
discretionary use must offer
education uses as well.
clear synergies to be an
'associated' use or agriculture
use must comprise 80% (or
more) of land area, or of
projected gross revenue, etc)
44
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
3.3 Exploring the issues – For those issues / threats of high importance (3 or 4) above please elaborate on
the nature of the issue, possible solutions and action, if any, to date. Please list in order of decreasing importance
to your council – i.e. most important first; Please keep information brief and attach more detail if required.
Issue description Why this is an Issue
Suggested solutions
Action to date
Green Wedge Zone
Change GWZ to provide a
Permit for development
 Local school
requires that educational
more realistic scope for church, refused. Advocacy for
owns land outside
education, function and
changes to the zone
of the UGB, but can land uses be for
through the Interface
no longer develop it agricultural/rural education recreational uses. (see first
only and limits the number item above)
Councils Forum.
as a standard
of
students.
Suitable
land
campus.
is often simply not
available within the UGB,
yet the school offers
needed services.
Nillumbik has a large
Ability to guide/control use via
1. Council resolution to
 Residential
number
of
vacant
lots
in
policy/decision
guidelines.
draft policy
Development
the Green Wedge where
2. Letter to DSE Staff
there is poor access to
services, transport and
less efficient use of
existing infrastructure.
Many of these lots are
existing lots under the
minimum lot size
prescribed by the
Schedule. The existing
zones are quite clear on
subdivision requirements
but are not as clear when
it comes to residential
development on existing
small (under the Schedule
size) lots even though it is
a discretionary use.
2. Use and development
of land for rural-residential
living has been identified
as a key threat. Council's
NEROC report identified
urban/human disturbance
as a key threat to
biodiversity.
Potentially
Proximity of much of
Greater clarity in relation to
Planning Permit
Inappropriate
Kingston's Non Urban
buffer distances for such uses Applications recently
Industrial Activities Area to well established
in non urban areas is required considered by Advisory
Urban Areas creates
Committee established by
tension when land uses
the Minister - Awaiting
like 'concrete recycling
Determinations
facilities' are proposed.
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
45
3.3 Exploring the issues – For those issues / threats of high importance (3 or 4) above please elaborate on
the nature of the issue, possible solutions and action, if any, to date. Please list in order of decreasing importance
to your council – i.e. most important first; Please keep information brief and attach more detail if required.
Issue description Why this is an Issue
Suggested solutions
Action to date
The UGB has never been UGB to be reviewed as part of Council has prepared a
 Development
strategically planned as a the Smart Growth planning
draft Melton Township
Pressure
buffer between urban and process.
Strategy which sets clear
rural areas. As a result,
boundaries aimed at
some of the properties
preserving the green
that are now outside the
wedge.
UGB would originally have
been subdivided and a
softer edge than the
current property
boundaries provided
through the use of
landscape features such
as ridgelines and water
courses.
Further Subdivision Unstable interface impacts Further landscape assessment Landscape assessment of
on Green wedge area still Greater emphasis on land
some areas.
in rural zone.
management
Caravan Park
Impact similar to or
Recognition of constraints to
Advice to potential
greater than residential
development in MSS
applicants.
development where larger (Landscape/ Heritage)
numbers of substantial
dwellings.
Residential
Defacto residential
Refuse applications
Letter to Minister
Development / Golf subdivision
Course Proposals
Change GWZ to prohibit sites
Letter to Minister - See
 Dromana Tourist Permanent residents in
non-urban
areas
lead
to
for
permanent
occupancy
attached Council report
Park - extension of
poor access to services
Caravan Park for
and transport and less
additional sites for
efficient use of existing
permanent
infrastructure
occupants
Increased site coverage,
Review of current local
Review of LPPs
 Trend to
vegetation loss, visual
planning policies and
construction of
impacts especially in
development of design and
larger dwellings
sensitive landscapes.
siting guidelines
and expansion of
existing dwellings –
Several high profile
Revision of Green Wedge land Proposal for Ministerial
 Pressure to
accommodate golf applications have created use controls to tighten land use Advisory Committee to
some concern about
provisions
review ongoing role of RSP
courses, major
and techniques for
churches and other transformation of green
wedge
areas
by
urban
implementing it through the
space intensive
related land uses.
VPPs
uses displaced
Upward pressure on land
from urban areas
values making it more
difficult for agriculture to
compete.
Contrived proposals such
as walnuts with golf
course undermine
credibility of planning
controls
46
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
3.3 Exploring the issues – For those issues / threats of high importance (3 or 4) above please elaborate on
the nature of the issue, possible solutions and action, if any, to date. Please list in order of decreasing importance
to your council – i.e. most important first; Please keep information brief and attach more detail if required.
Issue description Why this is an Issue
Suggested solutions
Action to date
Successful horticultural
Planning controls (Clause 53)
Review of LPP
 Demand for
enterprises are more
and local policy was prepared
controlled growing
highly capitalised. Major
in consultation with growers
conditions for
horticulture (igloos, impacts of rural landscape but compliance has been
where concentrations of
difficult to enforce.
hail netting)
horticultural structures
proliferate
There is potential for uses Clarify core provisions for
Council has raised concern
 Tourism/major
Green Wedge areas to reduce with DSE
events – impact on such as hotels,
conference centres,
scope for token agricultural
agricultural areas
restaurants to be
ventures being used as basis
established on the basis of for major developments
being in conjunction with a
token agricultural activity
Natural Resource Management and Environmental Concerns
1. Shortage of funding for More guidance from Federal,
Being pursued as relevant
 Environmental
further flora and fauna
State and regional levels.
opportunities arise (eg
issues
research, management
2. Better State implementation input to regional catchment
and education.
of action statements and
strategy)
2. Opportunities for better preparation of new action plans
implementation of policies in relation to species in need of
with improved
protection.
coordination, information
3. Release of native vegetation
systems and leadership.
management framework
operational guidelines.
4. Improved integration of
environmental research,
monitoring an data release (eg
What progress on initial
concept of Native Vegetation
Tracking System linked to
research)
Incremental loss of As dwellings are
Community awareness and
Permit conditions, property
native vegetation
developed there is some
education through the
management courses,
loss of native vegetation in requirement of Land
education and incentive
most cases. As people
Management Plans through
programs
then live on the property
permit conditions and the
Council sees an
continued running of Council's
incremental further loss
Property Management Courses
over time
and education programs
Impact on
Continued pressure is
Community awareness and
Permit conditions, property
waterways,
applied to Council on
education through the
management courses,
vegetation and
larger lots to approve
requirement of Land
education and incentive
landscape due to
ancillary developments
Management Plans through
programs
excessive
around dwellings such as permit conditions and the
earthworks
tennis courts and
continued running of Council's
swimming pools. These
Property Management Course
often result in excessive
earthworks that have a
significant impact on the
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
47
3.3 Exploring the issues – For those issues / threats of high importance (3 or 4) above please elaborate on
the nature of the issue, possible solutions and action, if any, to date. Please list in order of decreasing importance
to your council – i.e. most important first; Please keep information brief and attach more detail if required.
Issue description Why this is an Issue
Suggested solutions
Action to date
environment
Unsustainable
Unsustainable land use is Community awareness and
Provide relevant
agricultural land
an issue as it leads to the education through the
sustainability information
use
long term degradation of
requirement of Land
for businesses through
land, which reduces it's
Management Plans through
existing council business
future agricultural,
permit conditions and the
networks. Support the
environmental, landscape continued running of Council's Sustainable Rotary
and economic value
Property Management Course Program. Support and
promote sustainable
businesses.
Inadequate support For businesses to be
Provide relevant sustainability
Provide relevant
for businesses to
sustainable in long term
information for businesses
sustainability information
become more
they need to consider
through existing council
for businesses through
environmentally
environmental, social and business networks. Support
existing council business
sustainable
economic factors
the Sustainable Rotary
networks. Support the
especially in the Green
Program. Support and promote Sustainable Rotary
Wedge, where many
sustainable businesses
Program. Support and
businesses are directly
promote sustainable
dependent on the land or
businesses.
surrounding landscape
values (ie Tourism)
The impact of residential
Long term ongoing funding
1. Biodiversity
 Biodiversity
activities can often be
opportunities at both a local
Enhancement Program
Conservation
inconsistent with the
and state level.
2. Environmental
environmental values of a 2. Resolve issues in relation to Significance Overlay
site. Some properties
implementation of the Native
ideally would not have
Vegetation Framework
residential living as they
contain significant
vegetation and habitat
Pest plants and animals
Long term ongoing funding
1. Land care support
 Pest Plant and
are a major threat to both opportunities at both a local
2. Community Weed
Animals
the conservation and
and state level
Control Program
agricultural values of the
3.Community Rabbit
Green Wedge
Control Program
4. Sustainable Agricultural
Rebate
5. Property Management
Planning Course
Sustainability of
1. Melbourne 2030
1.Substantial State
See submissions in the
Agricultural
highlights no 'high value
Government subsidies in
attachments which have
Production
agricultural' land in
relation to infrastructure and
reinforced the concern
Kingston.
utility projects (ie recycled
Kingston hold regarding
2.Non Urban review
water from ETP).
sustainability of agricultural
showed decline in
2. State Government land
production.
agricultural production.
subsidies to guarantee the
3.Emerging forms of
economic sustainability of
agriculture (hydroponics)
Agriculture.
are costly to establish and 3.If the above two solutions are
are aesthetically
not deliverable by the State
displeasing
Government explore alternate
4.Constraints including
land uses that may move
48
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
3.3 Exploring the issues – For those issues / threats of high importance (3 or 4) above please elaborate on
the nature of the issue, possible solutions and action, if any, to date. Please list in order of decreasing importance
to your council – i.e. most important first; Please keep information brief and attach more detail if required.
Issue description Why this is an Issue
Suggested solutions
Action to date
water costs, land
beyond those permitted in the
fragmentation and size,
Green Wedge Zone.
incompatible adjacent
uses, and the ability to
attract sufficiently sizeable
contracts all threaten
sustainability of
agricultural production.
Reconciling
1. The State Government 1. Modifications to the VPP's
Submissions to the State
Governments
through agencies like
particularly in relation to
Government on Towards
Towards Zero
EcoRecycle have
Clause 52.10 with respect to
Zero Waste objectives and
Waste with land
stipulated key policy
acceptable buffer distances.
the related planning
uses in Non Urban positions regarding
2. A policy recognition within
considerations.
Areas
minimising waste to
Melbourne 2030 as to whether
landfill. These objectives
non urban areas and if so
have the potential to in
'which ones' will play a role in
some parts of Kingston
accommodating recycling
run at odds with where
activities (ie concrete
recycling activities should crushing).
be located (see Industrial
3. Potential consideration
Uses comments above).
given to creating a zone within
2. State Government need strategically selected non
to provide direction as to
urban areas in Melbourne
what degree they are
where 'recycling activities' with
willing to support recycling appropriate buffers can be
initiatives within non urban actively encouraged.
areas proximate to
established urban areas
Weed management
Ongoing education and
Will be further reviewed as
 Weed
requires
ongoing
time
and
financial
incentives
for
part of the preparation of
Management
financial commitment on
landholders to encourage
council’s Green Wedge
the part of rural
weed eradication
Management Plan.
landholders. Often
Currently being addressed
landholders, particularly
as part of the
owners of smaller
implementation of
landholdings, do not
Council’s Environmental
understand or have the
Enhancement Rebate
capacity to undertake the
Scheme.
weed eradication required
on their property.
Continued and targeted
Western Water has
 Access to water Western Water has
introduced
a
recycled
education
on
the
benefits
of
facilitated a number of
for rural industry
water pipeline into the
access to recycled water is
workshops with
shire of Melton via
required.
landowners regarding the
Sunbury. Financial
benefits of connection.
commitment on the part of
landholders and a lack of
understanding of the
benefits of connection to
the recycled water supply
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
49
3.3 Exploring the issues – For those issues / threats of high importance (3 or 4) above please elaborate on
the nature of the issue, possible solutions and action, if any, to date. Please list in order of decreasing importance
to your council – i.e. most important first; Please keep information brief and attach more detail if required.
Issue description Why this is an Issue
Suggested solutions
Action to date
have hampered the further
extension of the pipeline
to date
Land Management
 Declining
standards of rural
land management
where agriculture is
displaced by rural
residential use
 Long term
decline in
vegetation quality
of remnant
bushland areas due
to weed invasions
and lack of skilled
land management
 Logging of
privately owned
forest - in Rural
Conservation areas
50
Property owners with
native vegetation perceive
the value of their farming
land as ‘useless’ and do
not see any benefit in
connecting to the scheme.
Sites acquired with
expectation of rezoning
subdivision poorly
managed
Lack of skill by non
farming landowners has
resulted in declining
pasture and weed
management regimes.
Assistance on land
management
Local law with
environmental weeds
Planning policies and controls
that promote retention of
agricultural activities and limit
intrusion incompatible uses.
Education /prospective land
owner awareness programs.
Review of LPP although
will require strong
educational and advocacy
role in conjunction with the
State Government.
Shire has produced an
information kit for new rural
landowners
A key issue for the
Environment Strategy but
will also require strong
educational and advocacy
role in conjunction with the
State Government
Lack of awareness of
need for active
management of bushland
remnants especially where
some land disturbance
has occurred
Largely beyond the scope of
planning scheme
implementation. Landowner
education, technical/funding
assistance and incentive
programs all offer some
potential to address the issue
Although uncommon,
several recent logging
proposals have potential
to degrade extensive
areas of privately owned
high quality habitat
Consideration will need to be
given to whether logging on
private land should remain a
permissible activity in Green
Wedge areas due to policy
priorities of landscape and
environmental protection.
Council currently involved
in an expensive VCAT
hearing defending refusal
of a permit application.
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
Question 4
Additional Comments
 See attached Council Submission to Introduction of Green Wedge Zones.
 Please refer to attached council report and letter to Minister for planning.
 It is anticipated that further strategic work will be identified on the completion of the Green Wedge
Implementation Strategy. Ongoing funding opportunities for the implementation of the Green wedge management
plans should be considered at a State Government level.
Local Government requires financial support for the protection of Green Wedges.
Local Government requires support for the implementation of the State Government Net Gain Policy.
VCAT Decisions – Decision giving limited weight to some aspects of the Planning Policy Framework eg.
Objectives/ Strategies re. Landscape/ Significant natural features.
Kingston wishes to thank the MAV for its recognition of the importance of advocating for Local Government in
relation to the broad implementation of Melbourne 2030. Specifically the future constraints imposed on Council in
relation to the flexibility in which it is able to investigate alternate land uses within its Non Urban Area looms as
potentially the largest challenge Kingston has with implementing the broad range of 2030 initiatives. For this
reason we encourage the MAV to impress upon the State Government that by essentially introducing a singular
suite of statutory controls for Green Wedges across Melbourne, the opportunities for municipalities like Kingston
to create a planning framework which are in fact sustainable and equally owned by a significant diversity of local
stakeholders, is most difficult. Some of the quite obvious concerns regarding the statutory controls are reflected in
the documentation attached.
 Mornington Peninsula is fortunate in having a lot of data and information about its rural environment and
significant early strategic planning through the Conservation Plan of the early/mid 1970's. At present there are
significant limitation preventing the production of accurate data about the types of planning permit applications in
the Green Wedge Zone. System improvements are planned to overcome these limitations
 A robust strategic framework for management of the Shire’s Green Wedge areas was established through the
Upper Yarra & Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Plan. The RSP was underpinned by a substantial body of
strategic research that addressed a wide spectrum of rural land use, development and land management issues.
The Shire’s current priorities for strategic work are focussed on the completion of the Housing Strategy,
implementation of Major Activity Centre structure plans, completion of landslip review, and completion of
Industrial areas review
MAV Green Wedge Research Report - November 2006
51