Municipal Association of Victoria
MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of
an agricultural overlay
December 2013
© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2013.
The Municipal Association of Victoria is the owner of the copyright in the publication MAV Rural
and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural
overlay .
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means
without the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of Victoria.
All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should be
addressed to Gareth Hately on 9667 5596.
MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural overlay :
December 2013
Contents
1
Agricultural Overlay............................................................................................................. 1
2
Councils and the concept of an Agricultural Overlay ........................................................... 2
2.1
Question 1 – “Is an overlay the appropriate Victoria Planning Provision (VPP) tool?” .. 2
2.2
Question 2 – “What will be the outcome if an Agricultural Overlay for High-quality
Agricultural Land is available in the Victoria Planning Provision tools?” .................................. 3
2.3
Question 3 - What is/are the essential issues(s) relating to high-quality productive
agricultural land that need to be addressed or resolved through the planning scheme? ......... 5
2.4
3
Written Comments ....................................................................................................... 6
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................10
Attachment 1: Forum Survey Sheet
Attachment 2: Forum Presentation – Trevor Budge, La Trobe University
MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural overlay :
December 2013
Introduction
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), with support from the Department of Transport,
Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) hosted its quarterly Rural and Regional Land Use
Planning Forum on 8 November 2013. These events provide a forum for councils to discuss
land use planning issues and for the State to engage with the sector.
A total of 90 participants attended the forum including councillors and planners from rural and
regional councils, and representatives from a number of State government departments.
The forum featured presentations from state government and private sector representatives on
a number of topics relevant to regional and rural planning departments, including the revised
rural zones, native vegetation clearance regulations, modelling the financial costs of different
settlement patterns in regional areas, and developing schedules to the Bushfire Management
Overlay. The forum also hosted a presentation and workshop discussion on the concept of an
Agricultural Overlay.
The purpose of this report is to document councils initial views on the Agricultural Overlay
concept to assist the State Government. A draft copy of this report was circulated to planning
directors for comment. Further consultation with the sector is encouraged.
1
Agricultural Overlay
Discussion concerning the importance of agricultural land use and the need to protect highquality agricultural land from residential development have recently resurfaced on the Victoria
planning agenda.
Comments from the Minister for Planning relating to the concept of an agricultural overlay was
first mentioned after the release of the Government’s draft Regional Growth Plans and revised
rural zones. These comments indicated that the government was interested in spatially defining
highly productive agricultural land within the planning system and suggested the use of an
overlay to define this land.
Additionally, the recently released “Plan Melbourne” metropolitan planning strategy makes
reference to agricultural land use on page 122:
Protect high-quality agricultural land in Melbourne’s non-urban areas for food
production
There are areas around Melbourne that have very fertile soil, essential for highly productive
agricultural land uses. Some of these areas are under threat from competing land uses
(such as urban encroachment and rural residential development).
We must carefully consider the long-term value and environmental sensitivity of high-quality
land for food production in Melbourne’s non-urban areas and the economic value of these
areas for Victoria’s food industries into the future. Important areas need to be protected to
ensure strategically significant agricultural land is not permanently lost.
1 MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural overlay :
December 2013
In the short term
2

Investigate a high-value agricultural food overlay for particular use in protecting highvalue agricultural land in peri-urban areas.

Prepare and implement planning provisions to better identify and protect strategically
significant agricultural land.

Ensure localised planning statements for Mornington Peninsula, Bellarine Peninsula,
Macedon Ranges and Yarra Ranges acknowledge areas that are important for food
production.
Councils and the concept of an Agricultural Overlay
Trevor Budge AM of La Trobe University provided a presentation (see attachment 2) to
participants at the MAV’s Rural and Regional Planning Forum which broadly discussed the
changing nature of agricultural land use in Victoria and what qualities define ‘high-quality’
agricultural land. Associate Professor Budge cited a number of factors such as access to water,
climate, labour supply and infrastructure as factors contributing to the transient nature of highly
productive agricultural land.
This presentation was used as a starting point for a sector conversation on the issue, which
culminated in participants providing their responses to a survey sheet (see attachment 1)
prepared by Professor Budge. The survey contained three questions each with five predefined
response options and an additional invitation for further written comments.
A total of 67 surveys were returned from forum participants. The below summarises survey
respondents’ initial views on each of the questions posed during the session:
2.1
Question 1 – “Is an overlay the appropriate Victoria Planning Provision (VPP)
tool?”
Question 1 sought to explore forum participants’ initial views on the appropriateness of using a
planning overlay to identify high-quality agricultural land. Survey respondents were asked to
nominate one of five responses, as described below:
RESPONSE OPTION
Yes
Probably
Maybe
Probably Not
No
TOTAL
TALLY
3
7
15
28
13
66
%
5
11
23
42
20
100
Table 1: Question 1 results
2 MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural overlay :
December 2013
Yes
4%
20%
11%
Probably
Maybe
23%
Probably Not
42%
No
Figure 1: Question 1 Responses as Percentages
Question 1 Results
Response option four “Probably Not” was the most frequent response for Question 1 and
comprised forty two per cent of responses. When combined with response option 5 “No” (twenty
per cent) these negative response options comprise sixty two per cent of responses. Twenty
three per cent of respondents were undecided and chose option 3 “Maybe”. There was a total
combined positive response of fifteen per cent, which is comprised of option 1 “Yes” (four per
cent) and option 2 “probably” (eleven per cent).
Question 1 Findings
The results of Question 1 indicate that participants are generally not in favour of using an
Overlay tool to address the management of agricultural land. If we examine just the “Yes” and
“No” responses we can see that respondents were in fact five times more likely to disapprove of
an overlay being the nominated VPP tool to define high-quality productive agricultural areas
than to approve of such an approach.
2.2
Question 2 – “What will be the outcome if an Agricultural Overlay for High-quality
Agricultural Land is available in the Victoria Planning Provision tools?”
Question 2 sought to explore forum participants’ initial views on the likely outcomes of providing
for a planning overlay to identify high-quality agricultural land within the VPPs. Respondents
were asked to nominate up to five responses, as described below:
3 MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural overlay :
December 2013
RESPONSE OPTION
1. greater protection of high-quality agricultural land if applied
2. no significant change in the loss of high-quality agricultural land if
applied
3. more confusion, disputes and VCAT cases
4. most councils will not apply it
5. it will require a major piece of work to determine where it will be
applied
TOTAL
TALLY
25
%
17
15
35
15
10
24
10
53
143
37
100
Table 2: Question 2 Responses
1
17%
2
37%
11%
3
4
11%
24%
5
Figure 2: Question 2 Responses as Percentages
Question 2 Results
The survey results show that response option 5 “it will require a major piece of work to
determine where it will be applied” has the highest frequency of response at thirty seven per
cent. Response option 3 “more confusion, disputes and VCAT cases” was the second most
frequent response at twenty four per cent. Response option 1 “greater protection of high-quality
agricultural land if applied” received seventeen per cent of responses, while response options 2
“no significant change in the loss of high-quality agricultural land if applied” and 4 “most councils
will not apply it” received eleven per cent each.
Question 2 Findings
When comparing the results for options 1 and 2 we can say that these findings indicate that a
greater proportion of respondents felt that an agricultural overlay would provide some degree of
4 MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural overlay :
December 2013
increased protection for high-quality agricultural land than not. However, these results also
indicate that respondents feel most strongly that the application of such an overlay will require a
large amount of strategic work to be completed by councils, and will also result in an increase in
conflicts and disputes between council and land owners.
2.3
Question 3 - What is/are the essential issues(s) relating to high-quality productive
agricultural land that need to be addressed or resolved through the planning
scheme?
Question 3 sought to gauge participants’ views on the most important issues relating to the
management of high-quality productive agricultural land by planners and the planning scheme.
Respondents were asked to nominate up to five responses, as described below.
RESPONSE OPTION
1. preventing / limiting the removal / loss of such land from the
local regional economy
2. subdivision of such land - fragmenting it and increasing
residential uses
3. preventing / limiting incompatible land uses / development in
such areas
4.
having a tool / method by which such land can be shown on
the planning scheme
5. having a tool / method by which the quality / asset value of such
land can be considered and have substantive influence in
determining a planning permit application by council and or
VCAT
TOTAL
TALLY
%
41
28
39
26
30
20
15
10
24
149
16
100
Table 3: Question 3 Responses
16%
28%
1
2
10%
3
4
20%
5
26%
5 MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural overlay :
December 2013
Figure 3: Question 3 Responses as Percentages
Question 3 Results
The survey results show that response option 1 “preventing / limiting the removal / loss of such
land from the local regional economy” was the most frequently chosen response at twenty eight
per cent of all responses, with option 2 “subdivision of such land - fragmenting it and increasing
residential uses” following closely with twenty six per cent.
The third most frequent response was option 3 “preventing / limiting incompatible land uses /
development in such areas” at twenty per cent with options 5 “having a tool / method by which
the quality / asset value of such land can be considered and have substantive influence in
determining a planning permit application by council and or VCAT” and 4 “having a tool /
method by which such land can be shown on the planning scheme” receiving sixteen and ten
per cent of responses respectively.
Question 3 Findings
Response options 1, 2 and 3 are all very closely linked in terms of their themes and it is not
surprising that they attracted similar response rates. The frequency of responses for these
options indicates that respondents felt that subdivision and residential development of
agricultural land is a significant factor in declining productivity and potential loss to local
economies. The ability to determine the asset value of such land was also considered important
and attracted only a slightly smaller response than the first three options.
2.4
Written Comments
Several key themes emerged from the written feedback provided by survey respondents.
Selected examples of this feedback are provided below and grouped under thematic headings:
The Difficulty Defining High-quality Agricultural Land
Various respondents indicated that the task of accurately defining what land is required to be
protected under the proposed overlay will be difficult:

Agriculture is not the same – all agriculture cannot be pigeon holed.

What are we trying to protect? Good land, infrastructure, water, permanent cropping or its
economic and social effects? What is it that makes a good agricultural area?

Measurement of productivity is transient e.g. land holders and their farming activates
change over time.

High-quality land is not necessarily the issue, as what affects land quality is purely
subjective and locally driven. All land can be productive given appropriate scale, provision
of infrastructure and type of product being produced.
6 MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural overlay :
December 2013

Soil quality is not a true measure of productivity.

How do we define ‘high-quality agricultural land’?

Some land provides for amenity and character also - some land may not seem ‘high-quality’
as currently not being used for agriculture - but has the potential to be productive.

Does it mean if not ‘high-quality’ this may mean the land is more appropriate for housing /
development?

Every council has different quality land – where do you draw the line on what is considered
‘high-quality productive agricultural land’?

Good land in one area may be considered the best quality in another.

Technology, climate and economic changes will change some of these factors

We don’t need more regulation - regional rural landscape planning is a guide and has
already been done at our council.

We need flexibility and diversity to survive in agricultural industry.

Primary industry is too diverse to (use an Agricultural Overlay) in Victoria.

Should be addressed on a case by case basis.
The Use of an Overlay as opposed to other VPP tools
Many respondents also indicated that other VPP tools or statutory approaches were preferable
to the use of an overlay to map significant agricultural land:

A better approach is to have SPPF vision for Victoria that nominates specific places that
should not be available for rezoning to urban uses for food security.

Improve Farming Zone with more exclusion of urban uses.

Does this mean the FZ is inadequate to assess the agricultural quality of land?

Restricting non-agricultural uses as was originally proposed in the FZ (prior to the recent
changes) supports this. Farming is evolving, the overlay may not allow for that flexibility in
the industry.

With councillor intervention specifically – any land that fell outside of such an overlay may
be under appreciated and lost to residential subdivision.

Perhaps scheduling to the Farming Zone that identifies desirable agricultural activities for
each schedule could be a better option.

Strengthening of local policy and state policy?

A zone, as distinct from the Farming Zone, that reflects high-quality agricultural land across
the state is required. But will this also constrain innovation over time?
7 MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural overlay :
December 2013

This is the role of the Farming Zone. The rural zones need to be applied appropriately,
coupled with local policy to protect agricultural land. This is obviously more difficult given
the recent changes.

Need RAZ and FZ to be different then could use these as the tool.

Could already achieve this through use of a schedule to the FZ.

Protecting agricultural land is more about use than subdivision and development.

Zones and local polices probably are sufficient.

Maybe have a ‘Farming Zone A’ – rather than an overlay.

Or schedule to the Farming Zone for – broadacre farming – standard farming – intensive
farming.

A strong Victorian and local policy would be a better approach as agricultural uses need
change over time as well.

Farming Zone should be reviewed and used to full effect.

Farming Zone is now just the rural zone again.

It is a use issue not a development issue.

With Farming / RAZ / RCZ / RLZ etc. isn’t there already a clear hierarchy of zones for the
protection of high-quality agricultural land?

Subdivision limitations should be used to prevent further fragmentation of highly productive
agricultural land.

Introducing more overlays adds to the complexity of the planning process and officer tools.
Overlays may create many / more problems for officers as solve them.

An overlay may be ineffective to land parcels considered too small to protect their
agricultural productivity.
Implementation Issues
Respondents also provided a number of comments relating to the logistics or difficulties of
councils applying such an overlay tool to identify land and also comments indicating that a state
or regional level approach needs to be taken:

Strategic Justification: any new policy or overlay will require substantial new work that will
be subject to councillor / department and consultants views – no consistent helpful
approach or streamlining of processes has been identified to assist councils.

Any new tool must identify (set parameters) as to what qualifies as high-quality agricultural
land - must have State identify this initially.

It may be better to identify high-quality agricultural land (soil, water, intensive farming,
infrastructure provided) on a regional basis.

SPPF should be amended to include this in relevant Clause, there would then be a
standard assessment and approach to decision making by an RA and also VCAT.
8 MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural overlay :
December 2013

This requires a regional approach – need to think through all the unintended policy
consequences.

The answer is simple – the State needs to review existing farming zone land and determine
whether it’s in or out.

There have been a number of (council) working groups that are too scared to make a
decision.

Good in theory – a lot of work to determine where this is applied

Significant level of work to establish the level of significance.

Need for benchmarks to determining high-quality agricultural land.

Very dependent on political will in first instance- at both local and state levels

Given that part of the planning system is about stewardship of finite resources - the reality
is that high-quality agricultural land is a finite resource.

We need to map it in a consistent way at the state, regional and local level so better
decisions can be made to protect, manage one of the state’s major economic resources.

A lot of work / research is required to implement such a control which is likely to be beyond
resourcing requirements of council.

Councils need a state wide database of land in the FZ, RCZ etc. listed by size, ownership
and predominant use for officer discretion to determine compatible development application
permits.

Need quality data

Also need to identify that land use only one part of issues facing agriculture and not the
magic solution - we need a greater focus on the economics.
9 MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural overlay :
December 2013
3
Conclusion
A number of key viewpoints emerge from the feedback provided by forum attendees who
completed the survey.
It is quite clear from the feedback provided by survey respondents that councils are both
concerned about the future viability of highly productive agricultural land in rural and regional
Victoria, and concerned that the existing VPP tools may not adequately equip them to safeguard
its continued operation.
With regard to how a potential new VPP tool could address this issue, one of the most
consistently prevailing views in this feedback relates to the validity of using an overlay to protect
productive agricultural land. Through this survey, councils have indicated that an overlay is not
necessarily the most appropriate VPP tool for managing the issue, which is borne out by both
the findings of Question 1 and suggestions provided in the written feedback. Much of this
viewpoint rests on an understanding of the function of the differing VPP tools, with land use
being covered via zones, and buildings and works issues being primarily modified via the
application of an overlay.
Instead of the proposed overlay, many respondents have nominated some combination of
strengthened State and Local Planning Policies plus either a revised Farming Zone or a new
Agricultural Production Zone, with potentially multiple schedules, as being a more flexible and
appropriate response to guiding permissible use of significant agricultural land.
Another issue identified through this feedback is the potential difficulty of accurately and
equitably defining and mapping highly productive agricultural land across the state. The majority
of land in Victoria is already under the Farming Zone. However the quality, value, use and
productivity of farming land vary significantly and councils value this land differently based on its
context. Accordingly, councils have raised concerns over the broad range of factors that could
potentially contribute to the definition of this land - such as soil type, access to water, irrigation
and transport infrastructure and labor force availability - and have highlighted the need for
consistency in approach.
A rigid policy approach based on specific quantifiable criteria will result in the most consistency
in the mapping process. However, this level of consistency could prove difficult to achieve given
that environmental and economic conditions vary between regions and municipalities, making
perceptions over the quality of agricultural land subjective and resistant to easy categorisation.
Based on the feedback presented here, councils are concerned that this approach will disregard
the differing qualities of agricultural land that exist across the state and the potential for these
conditions to change over time.
Another important point raised through this feedback is that land considered productive at the
local scale may not fit the definition of ‘highly productive’ agricultural land and may be excluded
from the mapping for any new planning tool used to address this issue. As a result, this land
may then potentially be marked, by default, for further residential development. This ‘devaluing’
of land that does not fit into the definition is a potential side effect of mapping productive
agricultural land that needs to be kept in mind during the policy development process.
10MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural overlay :
December 2013
Attachment 1: Forum Survey Sheet
Rural and Regional Planning Forum – 8 November 2013
Does Victoria Need an Agricultural Overlay?
Assumption – An Agricultural Overlay will be a map of ‘high quality productive agricultural areas’
and that applications for development incl. subdivision will need to ‘consider’ the ‘quality’ of the
resource and the impact of the proposed development on the future capacity of the resource.
1. Is an Overlay the appropriate VPP tool? – Please circle ONE RESPONSE:
YES
PROBABLY
MAYBE
PROBABLY NOT
NO
2. What will be the Outcome if an Agricultural Overlay for High Quality Agricultural Land
is available in the VPP tools? Please circle any statements you agree with:
• GREATER ‘PROTECTION’ OF HIGH QUALITY AGRICULTURAL LAND IF APPLIED
• NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE ‘LOSS’ OF HIGH QUALITY AGRICULTURAL LAND IF APPLIED
• MORE CONFUSION, DISPUTES and VCAT CASES
• MOST COUNCILS WILL NOT APPLY IT
• IT WILL REQUIRE A MAJOR PIECE OF WORK TO DETERMINE WHERE IT WILL BE APPLIED
3. What is/are the essential issue(s) relating to high quality productive agricultural land
that needs to be addressed or resolved through the planning scheme? Please circle any
statements you agree with:
• PREVENTING / LIMITING THE REMOVAL / LOSS OF SUCH LAND FROM THE LOCAL REGIONAL
ECONOMY
• SUBDIVISION OF SUCH LAND - FRAGMENTING IT AND INCREASING RESIDENTIAL USES
• PREVENTING / LIMITING INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES / DEVELOPMENTS IN SUCH AREAS
• HAVING A TOOL / METHOD BY WHICH SUCH LAND CAN BE SHOWN ON THE PLANNING
SCHEME
• HAVING A TOOL / METHOD BY WHICH THE QUALITY / ASSET VALUE OF SUCH LAND CAN BE
CONSIDERED AND HAVE SUBSTANTIVE INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING A PLANNING PERMIT
APPLICATION BY COUNCIL AND OR VCAT?
Please add any other comments you wish to make below:
11MAV Rural and Regional Land Use Planning Forum - sector feedback on the concept of an agricultural overlay :
December 2013