the independent panel's report
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
1/62
Planning and Environment Act 1987
Panel Report
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 – Significant Landscape Overlays
1 April 2016
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
2/62
Planning and Environment Act 1987
Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217
Significant Landscape Overlays
1 April 2016
Brett Davis, Chair Lisa Kendal, Member
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
3/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Contents Page
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4
1.1 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 4
1.2 The Panel process .................................................................................................... 4
1.3 The subject area ...................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Background .............................................................................................................. 7
1.5 Issues dealt with in this report ................................................................................ 8
2 Planning context ......................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................. 10
2.3 Ministerial
Directions
and
Practice
Notes
.............................................................
10
2.4 Discussion and conclusion ..................................................................................... 11
3 Bendigo Landscape Assessment Study methodology ................................................ 12
3.1 The issues .............................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 12
3.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 21
3.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 24
3.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 25
4 Application of the Significant Landscape Overlay ...................................................... 26
4.1
The
issue
................................................................................................................
26
4.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 26
4.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 43
4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 48
4.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 49
5 Other matters ........................................................................................................... 50
5.1 Protection of environmental values in the study area ......................................... 50
5.2 Protection of the study area from development .................................................. 52
5.3 Fee Simple ............................................................................................................. 54
Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment
Appendix B Document list
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
4/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
List of Tables Page
Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing .................................................................................... 5
List of Figures Page
Figure 1 Landscape Assessment area .................................................................................... 6
Figure 2 Amendment area ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3 Landscape Character areas ................................................................................... 18
Figure 4 Values Summary table ........................................................................................... 19
Figure 5
Proposed
revised
Significant
Landscape
Overlay,
Schedule
3
curtilage ................................................................................................................. 34
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
5/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
List of Abbreviations
CFA
Country
Fire
Authority
CSLAS Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study 2006
DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (former)
EIIA Extractive Industry Interest Area
EPA Environment Protection Authority
EVC Ecological Vegetation Class
GRZ General Residential Zone
LAS Landscape Assessment Study
LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework
MSS Municipal Strategic Statement
SLO Significant Landscape Overlay
SPPF State Planning Policy Framework
the Study Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final
Report (2013)
UGB
Urban Growth
Boundary
VPP Victoria Planning Provisions
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
6/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Overview
Amendment Summary
The Amendment Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 – Significant Landscape Overlays
Common Name Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Landscape Assessment
Planning Authority City of Greater Bendigo
Authorisation Conditional 25 March 2014
Exhibition 18 June to 30 July 2015
Submissions Number of Submissions: 53
‐ 27
supported
the
Amendment,
or
supported
with
changes
‐ 22 objected to the Amendment; and
‐ 4 submissions raised a number of issues.
Panel Process
The Panel Brett Davis and Lisa Kendal
Directions Hearing City of Greater Bendigo offices, 16 November 2015
Panel Hearing City of Greater Bendigo offices, 27‐29 January 2016
Site Inspections Unaccompanied 16 November 2015 and 27 January 2016, accompanied 28 January 2016
Date of this Report 1 April 2016
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
7/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 1 of 56
Executive Summary
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme (the Amendment) was prepared by the City of Greater
Bendigo (Council)
as
Planning
Authority.
As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to:
Introduce updates to the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clauses 21.08 and 21.10 to
reflect the strategic recommendations of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill
and Mandurang Valley Final Report (2013) (The Study) and to include the Study as a
reference document
Introduce two new schedules to the Significant Landscape Overlay (Schedule 3 and 4) to
the Big Hill and Mandurang areas.
The Panel has considered all written submissions as well as submissions and evidence
presented and
tested
during
the
Hearing.
Key issues raised in submissions included:
study purpose and methodology
extent and application of the proposed Significant Landscape Overlay
environmental protection and values
bushfire risk
protection of the study area from development
fee simple and compensation rights.
The Panel has reviewed the structure and content of the Schedules and the Study in detail.
It is
concerned
that
the
Study
is
hard
to
read,
the
justification
of
conclusions
is
unclear,
and
this has the potential to cause some confusion to all stakeholders. This was reflected in the
diverse submissions and opinions received.
The Panel has carefully considered the submissions and evidence presented to it in relation
to the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay and has identified that it has a
number of deficiencies. The Panel accepts that there is complexity in undertaking a
landscape assessment to determine landscape significance; however in this instance the
Panel considers it reasonable that the landscape must predominately be visible.
The Panel is of the view that the current extent of the Significant Landscape Overlay
mapping is far too broad, determination of the overlay curtilage is inconsistent and further
work is required to give confidence that the Significant Landscape Overlay is acceptable. The Panel found that while the Study did reference visibility, contours and elevation in relation
to the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, this was not translated into its
recommendations for the extent of the curtilage.
The Panel concurs with other Panel findings that any revision of the Significant Landscape
Overlay in the future should consider the inclusion of public land.
There was confusion by some submitters that the Significant Landscape Overlay was a tool
to restrict development. Development potential, particularly of Ravenswood Run was not a
matter for the Panel to consider at this Hearing. The Panel’s task is to decide whether or not
the application
of
a Significant
Landscape
Overlay
is
strategically
justified.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
8/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 2 of 56
The only expert evidence was called by representatives for Ravenswood Run and the Panel
placed significant weight on the observations of its expert Mr Haack.
Whilst the Council has demonstrated a substantial amount of work in relation to the
preparation of the Amendment, the lack of clarity of stated purpose, and translation of
findings into overlay controls has led the Panel to not support the Amendment in its current
form. The Panel found that the link or “nexus” between the Study and its translation into
the implementation of a Significant Landscape Overlay as exhibited was not justified.
The Panel has recommended deferment rather than abandonment. It does so
acknowledging the time, effort and ultimate cost in undertaking this type of Amendment.
The need to re‐exhibit the Amendment will be a judgement call based on the course of
action that the Council takes.
In relation to the Study, the Panel concludes:
There is no nexus between the Study, extent of the Overlay proposed and the Schedules.
The Study
process
would
be
more
reliable
and
convincing
if
the
study
team
had
undertaken a site inspection of the largest parcel of land in the study area
A landscape assessment study relying on secondary sources of information to
complement visual analysis and consultation should demonstrate evidence of this
throughout the document through, for example, a literature review, source references
and a bibliography.
It would be beneficial to have a greater understanding of comparative significance of the
landscape assessed, to help understand the relative importance of protection and
appropriate tools to achieve this.
The Study recommendations would be more robust if the report and study process
demonstrated more
clearly
how
the
findings
from
community
engagement
were
considered and integrated into the final recommendations.
The Study should be revised in line with the conclusions and an Executive Summary
prepared. The Executive Summary should then be used as a Reference Document.
In relation to the Significant Landscape Overlay the Panel concludes:
The application of the Overlay has been inconsistent – in some cases broadly applied and
in other cases irregular.
The Overlay should not be used as a tool to “lock out” development potential.
The Overlay controls do not increase the risk of bushfire as the planning scheme needs to
be read
in
its
entirety.
The comments provided by the CFA and Public Transport Victoria are appropriate once
revisions to the Amendment occur ‐ relevant permit exemptions for public land
managers should be included in any revised schedule
The Planning Scheme adequately provides for applications for stone extraction in the
study area.
In relation to the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3 – Big Hill, the Panel concludes:
Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3 as exhibited is not supported.
The application of Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 3 should be reviewed with
consideration of all landscape visibility and use of natural features to determine
boundaries and
a reduction
in
its
size.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
9/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 3 of 56
The Overlay should include the ridgeline and escarpment.
Consideration of the area to the south east of the exhibited area of Big Hill should be
considered for a future Amendment.
In
relation
to
the
Significant
Landscape
Overlay
Schedule
4
–
Mandurang,
the
Panel
concludes:
Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 as exhibited is not supported.
Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4 should only be applied to the forest interface
to protect the landscape values of Mandurang.
Based on the reasons set out in this report, the Panel recommends:
The adoption of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 should be 1.
deferred pending further work.
The adoption of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang 2.
Valley
Final
Report
(2013)
(the
Study) as
a Reference
Document
is
not
supported
in its current form. The Study should be revised to include:
a) an Executive Summary with details of the Study findings and
recommendations.
b) clearly numbered subheadings, numbered tables, figures and maps, with
listing of all elements in an associated list of tables, figure or maps
c) clear definitions relating to landscape significance
d) a bibliography referencing all source material
e) a clear nexus should be demonstrated between the Study, the extent of
any Overlay and wording to the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedules.
The Significant
Landscape
Overlay
Schedules
as
exhibited
are
not
supported.
3.
Council should re‐examine the areas covered by the Significant Landscape
Overlay. The areas should be more carefully and logically defined so that land is
not unnecessarily included. This review should:
a) include significant landscape areas zoned Rural Conservation Zone and
Public Conservation and Resource Zone
b) include the ridgeline and escarpment at Big Hill and substantially reduce
the application to the remainder of the site at Ravenswood Run
c) use landscape features to determine the overlay curtilage
d) provide a logical boundary around the Box Ironbark forest and interface
properties
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
10/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 4 of 56
1
Introduction
1.1 The Amendment
Greater Bendigo
Planning
Scheme
Amendment
C217
(the
Amendment)
was
prepared
by
Council as Planning Authority.
As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to:
introduce updates to the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clauses 21.08 and 21.10 to
reflect the strategic recommendations of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill
and Mandurang Valley Final Report (2013) (the Study) It also introduces two new
schedules to the Significant Landscape Overlay.
In particular the Amendment proposes to:
amend Clause 21.08 to be titled ‘Environment and landscape’.
amend Clause
21.08
‐1 ‘Overview’
to
include
reference
to
landscape
values
of
Big
Hill,
Mandurang Valley and Box Ironbark region.
amend Clause 21.08‐2 ‘Objectives’ to include an objective relating to the protection and
management of areas with significant landscape character and value.
amend Clause 21.08‐3 ‘Strategies’ to include a strategy relating to sensitive design and
development within areas of identified landscape value.
amend Clause 21.08‐4 ‘Implementation’ to update under ‘Zone and Overlay’, and under
‘Further strategic work’ removes reference to ‘completing a landscape assessment of
rural areas such as Big Hill and replaces with a reference to encourage further strategic
work to identify and investigate other areas of potentially significant landscape
character.
amend Clause 21.10 to include the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and
Mandurang Valley Final Report (2013) as a reference document.
insert the following new Schedules to the Significant Landscape Overlay at Clause 42.03:
SLO3 applies to Big Hill Significant Landscape Area, and
SLO4 applies to Mandurang Valley Significant Landscape Area.
Amend the Schedule to Clause 61.03 to insert reference to new planning scheme maps
for SLO3 on map nos 26SLO, 29SLO, 31SLO and 39SLO, and SLO4 on map nos 24SLO,
26SLO, 27SLO, 28SLO, 29SLO, 31SLO & 39SLO.
1.2
The
Panel
process
The Panel met in Council’s Bendigo offices on 27 ‐ 29 January 2016 to hear submissions
about the Amendment.
Those in attendance at the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
11/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 5 of 56
Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing
Submitter Represented by
City of Greater Bendigo Andrew Cockerall (Senior Strategic Planner) assisted by
Helen Knight
of
Planisphere
DEDJTR Richard Hancock
Big Hill Action Group Bruce Carpenter and Gill Rosier
Steve Lottkowitz
Ravenswood Run1 Paul Connor of Counsel instructed by Stephen Pole
(Spiire), who called the following expert witnesses:
‐ Peter Haack, Landscape Architect, Urbis Pty Ltd
Wendy Radford
Dr Jenny
Parrat
and
Dr
John
Togno
Sharon Munro Dr John Togno
Jarrod Taylor
Stanislaw Pelczynski and Barbara Pelczynska
Bendigo and District Environment
Council
Stuart Fraser and Gill Rosier
The Panel conducted an unaccompanied site inspection on 16 and 27 January 2016 and an
accompanied inspection (with Council, Mr Connor and community representatives) of the
Ravenswood Run
property
on
28
January
2016.
1.3 The subject area
Figure 1 depicts the subject area as outlined in red.
1
Ravenswood
Run
made
two
written
submissions
to
the
Amendment
through
different
consultants
Spiire
(submitter
16)
and through Tract (submitter 43).
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
12/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 6 of 56
Figure 1 Landscape Assessment area
Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final Report,
2013, p15
The Amendment applies to land as shown in Figure 2.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
13/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 7 of 56
Figure 2 Amendment Area
Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley Final Report,
2013, p131
1.4 Background
Planisphere was engaged by Council to prepare the Study. The Study was undertaken over a
13 month period from January 2012 to February 2013.
The project brief from Council required a review of best practice landscape assessment to
inform its methodology. The Study was required to include a landscape management
framework which included statutory and non‐statutory approaches and management
actions.
It involved community engagement, a period of community exhibition to provide feedback
on the draft report, and regular meetings with a Project Reference Group and Steering
Committee.
Council intended the Study to act as a pilot study to develop a methodology for use in other
parts of the municipality
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
14/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 8 of 56
1.5 Issues dealt with in this report
The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during
the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been
assisted by
the
information
provided
to
it
as
well
as
its
observations
from
inspections
of
specific sites.
The Panel has carefully considered the submissions and evidence presented to it in relation
to the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay and has identified that it has a
number of deficiencies. The Panel recommends that further work be carried out on the
Study and on the extent of the proposed overlay.
This report deals with the issues under the following headings:
Planning context
Bendigo Landscape Assessment Study methodology
Application of the Significant Landscape Overlay
Other matters.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
15/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 9 of 56
2
Planning context
Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the
Explanatory
Report.
The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of
the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies.
2.1 Policy framework
(i) State Planning Policy Framework
Council submitted that the Amendment is supported by the following clauses in the SPPF:
Clause 11 – Settlement
- Clause 11.12 – Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth
Clause 12
–
Environmental
and
Landscape
Values
- Clause 12.01‐1 Protection of Biodiversity
- Clause 12.04 Significant Environments and Landscapes
- Clause 12.04‐2 Landscapes
Clause 13 – Environmental Risks
Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage
Clause 16 – Housing.
(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework
Council submitted that the Amendment supports the following local planning objectives:
Clause 21.02
‐1 –
Urban
Forest
Interface
is
supported
because
the
Amendment
seeks
to
further protect land within or adjoining these landscapes
Clause 21.05 – Settlement is supported because the Amendment seeks to protect and
maintain forested areas surrounding Bendigo
Clause 21.08 – Environment is supported because the Amendment will enhance and
complement existing strategies to protect the environmental assets of Greater Bendigo,
in particular the Box Ironbark region
Clause 22.01 – Development at the Urban – Forest Interface Policy is supported because
the Amendment will enhance protection for land which interfaces with Box Ironbark
forests
Clause 22.02
–
Rural
Dwellings
Policy
is
supported
because
the
Amendment
will
complement the objectives of this clause by ensuring that ‘any future development is
sensitively designed to minimise impacts on natural and landscape values’
Clause 22.08 – Highway Entrances and Boulevards Policy is supported because the
Amendment will specify design requirements for any development around Big Hill, as the
primary southern gateway to the City of Greater Bendigo
Clause 22.09 – Calder Freeway and Calder Highway Environs Policy is supported because
the Amendment will implement objectives to protect key viewing corridors including
views to and views from the Highway.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
16/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 10 of 56
(iii) Other planning strategies or policies used in formulating the Amendment
Council Plan
Theme 5: Sustainability
1. The
built
and
natural
qualities
that
make
Greater
Bendigo
an
attractive
and appealing place are valued and conserved
5.1 Protect and conserve Greater Bendigo’s natural environment and settings
for the future
Rural Areas Strategy (2009)
Future Strategic Work: Significant Landscape Overlay – A study for the Big Hill
escarpment, parts of the Mandurang Valley and areas of the Campaspe / Axe
Creek.
Loddon Mallee
South
Regional
Growth
Plan
Reference
12. Environment
Future Direction – Protect identified visually important landscapes and cultural
and built heritage places
2.2 Planning scheme provisions
(i) Zones and Overlays
The Amendment proposes to introduce two new schedules to the Significant Landscape
Overlay:
Schedule 3 ‐Big
Hill
Significant
Landscape
Area
Schedule 4 – Mandurang Valley Significant Landscape Area.
The purpose of the Significant Landscape Overlay is:
To identify significant landscapes
To conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes.
The schedules are proposed to be applied to land currently subject to the Farming Zone,
Rural Living Zone or Low Density Residential Zone.
The land may also be subject to other overlay controls, including the Bushfire Management
Overlay,
Design
and
Development
Overlay,
Environmental
Significance
Overlay,
Erosion
Management Overlay, Heritage Overlay, Restructure Overlay, Salinity Management Overlay
and Vegetation Protection Overlay.
2.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes
Council submitted that the Amendment meets the relevant requirements of the following
Ministerial Directions and Planning Practice Notes:
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
17/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 11 of 56
(i) Ministerial Directions
Ministerial Direction 11 ‐ Strategic Assessment of Amendments
The Amendment is consistent with Ministerial Direction 11 (Strategic Assessment of
Amendments)
The Form and Content of Planning Schemes (s7(5))
The Amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of
Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Act
The Panel has also identified as relevant:
(ii) Planning Practice Notes
PPN2 – Public Land Zones
The
Amendment
considers
application
of
an
overlay
on
public
land.
The
Practice
Note
states
that “in deciding whether to apply an overlay to land, the public land zones should be treated
in the same manner as other zones”.
2.4 Discussion and conclusion
While the Amendment generally meets the requirements specified in the Local and State
Planning Policy Frameworks, for reasons outlined in this report, the Panel concludes it does
not implement the objectives effectively and requires further work. This is discussed in
Chapter 3 and 4.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
18/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 12 of 56
3
Bendigo Landscape Assessment Study
methodology
3.1
The issues
The Panel Hearing and submission process raised issues about whether the methodology for
the Study was suitable for:
achieving the purpose of the study
determining landscape significance of the study area
justifying the conclusions and recommendations of the study, in particular application of
the Significant Landscape Overlay to parts of the study area.
The application of the Significant Landscape Overlay is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
3.2
Evidence and
submissions
Council submitted the Study divides the study area into different landscape character areas,
and uses a values framework to assess the significance of each of these character areas. It
submitted that the purpose of the Study was to:
gain a detailed understanding of the character and values of the Big Hill and
Mandurang Valley landscapes, and to develop a framework for their future
management as they continue to change over time.
The intent from the outset was for the Study to act as a ’pilot study‘, testing the
methodology for use elsewhere in the municipality.
Council submitted
that
the
Study
methodology
was
based
on
a process
developed
by
Planisphere over the last decade, and had been accepted by the “State government, multiple
Councils and Planning Panels, and underpins many successful planning scheme
amendments”. Council submitted that Planisphere has received State and national awards
from the Planning Institute of Australia and the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects
for their landscape assessment studies. Most recently the methodology has been used in
the six draft regional Landscape Assessment Studies (LAS’s) being undertaken by the State
government.
Council submitted that the Study is different to the regional Landscape Assessment Studies
in
that
it
is
a
local,
not
regional
scale,
study
and
it
“‘drills
down’
to
locally
Significant
Landscape Overlays, through a deeper and more localised exploration of values and
community sentiment ”.
The Study states that “this work stems from the City of Greater Bendigo Rural Areas Strategy
(2009), which identified these two areas as being the most at ‐risk from development
pressure” (p.10).
The Study methodology comprised the following steps:
Step 1: Identification of landscape character and landscape values
Step 2: Assessment of landscape significance and setting future character
directions
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
19/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 13 of 56
Step 3: Understanding anticipated change in the landscape and
management issues
Step 4: Analysis of current planning control and policy gaps
Step 5: Preparation of a landscape management framework.
Council submitted that it refined the study area during the Study process:
The study area boundary was defined through desktop analysis and site
surveys undertaken by Planisphere, and confirmed through discussion with the
Project Reference Group and Steering Committee. The study area adopted
was based upon broad areas around Big Hill and Mandurang Valley identified
in the project brief, but modified to include key topographic features, areas of
public land and viewing corridors (refer to Final Report, p14). The study area
boundary reflects cadastral boundaries in all locations and adopts logical
edges such as roads and zone boundaries where possible.
Several submissions
commended
the
Study
as
a high
level
and
holistic
study
and
supported
the range of planning and non‐planning related management recommendations in the
report.
Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30) supported the Amendment and stated that:
The Council is to be congratulated on formulating a comprehensive landscape
management plan that acknowledges the significance of the landscape prior
to decision‐making about its land use.
Mr Lottkowitz (submitter 44) submitted that the landscape assessment study was a ’cutting
edge‘ process by Council, but noted that overall he felt that the report dealt inadequately
with the aspirations of the project.
A large number of submissions called for scientific studies and land management actions to
fill perceived gaps in the Study and proposed planning controls. This is discussed further in
Chapter 5 of this report.
There were a number of submissions supporting the Amendment as a tool for preventing or
restricting development in the Study area. This is discussed further in Chapter 5 of this
report.
Council submitted that three sources of information were used to inform the Study:
Field surveys
and
a visual
assessment
was
conducted
by
the
Study
team
to
identify
aesthetic and visual values of the study area
Secondary sources of information were reviewed, including historic, environmental,
scientific, cultural and social information or research material; and
Community consultation was undertaken to identify and understand how the
community values the landscape.
Each of these inputs into the Study process is discussed below.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
20/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 14 of 56
(i) Field surveys and visual assessment
Council submitted that the visual assessment was based upon site surveys undertaken by
the study team, through “driving all of the study area roads, walking a selection of
recreational access trails, stopping at viewing points and accessing a number of private
properties through arrangement with landowners”. The important viewing locations,
viewing corridors and scenic routes are identified in the Study (p. 56 – 64). The Study also
documented patterns of viewing, or “way in which all parts of the landscape is experienced ”.
Documentation of this assessment was presented in the Study through photos taken by
Planisphere, and those provided by the community.
(ii) Secondary sources / Scientific and expert evidence
A number of submitters were of the opinion that the methodology and study process did not
adequately consider scientific studies or specialist reports, and therefore that the Study did
not
provide
a
sound
basis
to
underpin
the
conclusions
and
recommendations
of
the
report.
The Bendigo and District Environment Council (submitter 9) noted that the assessment was
“happening at a very high level ” and there was lack of consideration within the Amendment
and supporting documentation of a number of significant matters including wildfire, salinity,
erosion, flora and fauna and geomorphology.
The Bendigo and District Environment Council (submitter 9), Bendigo Field Naturalists Club
Inc. (submitter 29), Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30), Gill and Mick Rosier
(submitter 42) and Dr John Bardsley and Ms Radford (submitter 49) submitted that the
report prepared by Phil Dyson (2004) Landscapes, Groundwater Systems and Salinity
Management in the Northern Sector of the Harcourt Granodiorite – Metamorphic Aureole
Complex, which
was
not
referenced
in
the
Study,
provided
valuable
information
and
recommendations relating to soil issues and management considerations for the study area.
Mr Connor of Counsel, on behalf of Ravenswood Run, objected to the Amendment in its
current form on the basis that the Study provided insufficient evidence to support its
recommendations.
Mr Connor also questioned the accuracy and currency of the information and data that the
Study relied on in drawing its conclusions, stating that “it is our understanding that Council’s
position has been largely formulated based upon the results of the Assessment and no other
specialist reports” and “…the information and data relied on in the preparation of the
Assessment appears
to
be
outdated
and
inconclusive”.
In response, Council submitted a reference to two specialist studies underpinning the
geological significance of Big Hill:
The geological significance of the Big Hill range is described in a number of
references.
Geology of Victoria, Geological Society of Victoria, 2003
Geological Survey Report 99, D.P. Cherry and H.E.Wilkinson, 1994.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
21/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 15 of 56
(iii) Community consultation
Council submitted that the community engagement process was implemented in accordance
with the Community Engagement Plan that was developed by Planisphere with guidance
from the Project Reference Group and Steering Committee. The approach to community
consultation and findings are documented in Chapter 3 of the Study.
Focussed engagement was undertaken through the Project Steering Committee and Project
Reference Group:
The Project Reference Group and Steering Committee were established at the
project commencement to provide focussed input at each project milestone.
The Project Reference Group included people with a specialist knowledge of
the area including representatives from Parks Victoria, Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Landcare groups, heritage organisations,
Farming Consultative Committee, Field Naturalists Club and Aboriginal Affairs
Victoria. The
Steering
Committee
included
representatives
of
relevant
City
of
Greater Bendigo departments, Councillors and DTPLI (now DELWP).
Broader community consultation was undertaken through various engagement tools and
methods, including Council’s website, a project blog, four community bulletins a survey,
community photographic exercise, media releases, two community workshops in both Big
Hill and Mandurang (ie a total of four workshops) and a public display of the draft Final
Report and media releases.
Council submitted that one of the Study team members, “also met individually with local
property owners, public land managers and heritage groups to research the cultural values of
the study
area.”
Big Hill Action Group (submitter 17), Gill and Mick Rosier (submitter 42) and Dr John
Bardsley and Wendy Radford (submitter 49) indicated strong support for the community
consultation process. Dr Bardsley and Ms Radford state that “thorough and broad
consultation was a hallmark of the Landscape Assessment Report ”.
Geoff and Beth Hosking (submitter 23) and Tom Harper (submitter 35) questioned the
effectiveness of the consultation process. In relation to the Mandurang area they submitted
that “they were not aware of many local people who had any knowledge of the Assessment
and how it would affect them.”
In response
to
questions
raised
by
Mr
Harper
about
the
number
of
participants
in
the
consultation process, Council clarified that 70 people attended workshops and 19 people
responded to a short survey.
Dr John Togno (submitter 25), representing Sharon Munro (submitter 21), submitted that
the town planning documents provided by the Council to community throughout the Study
and the Amendment process were not easy to understand and could be “threatening” to
those not familiar with the professional language. He suggested that the City of Greater
Bendigo could improve its communication with residents in relation to planning matters.
Mr Harper submitted that he doubted that many people would have “read the Assessment in
its
entirety
due
to
the
vast
amount
of
information
contained
within
its
200+
pages”.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
22/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 16 of 56
Mr Connor questioned the extent and level of influence that the Project Control Group and
the Steering Committee provided. Mr Connor suggested that the Steering Committee may
have unduly influenced the outcomes of the project.
In response to Mr Connor’s assertions, Council submitted that the establishment of a
Steering Committee and the Reference Group is part of the City’s standard approach to the
governance of such projects. Council stated that the process was designed to ensure that
there is ownership of the project across units within Council and external stakeholders.
(iv) Ravenswood Run
Ravenswood Run is the largest land holding in the study area, representing approximately
2,080 hectares and “constitutes between and one half of the proposed Significant Landscape
Overlay, Schedule 3 area”. Mr Connor, submitted that his client was:
not aware of any visit to the site by Council and its appointed consultant that
may have
informed
the
appropriate
preparation
and
finalisation
of
the
Assessment.
Mr Connor submitted that the visual assessment process was not adequate, as more detail
was required in relation to landscape and viewshed analysis.
Mr Connor submitted that the study process does not justify the conclusion that the “Big Hill
ridge line, the low lands and rolling hills to the south of the Big Hill Range” is a single
landscape character unit on the basis that more detail is required in relation to viewshed
mapping and landscape character profile before appropriate recommendations can be
determined.
Mr Connor
called
Mr
Haack,
a Landscape
Architect
from
Urbis
to
provide
expert
evidence
on
landscape significance. It was Mr Haack’s evidence that the mapping and overlay analysis
was overdone, and that the process was “light on ground assessment .”
Mr Connor submitted:
We do not believe that the characterisation of the Big Hill ridge line, the low
lands and rolling hills to the south of the Big Hill Range as a single landscape
character unit is justified by the process.
Council submitted that a visual assessment methodology based on detailed viewshed
mapping was not considered suitable for this type of landscape assessment study, as it
focused on
single
viewpoints.
Viewshed
mapping
was
not
required
by
the
study
brief:
It is a methodology appropriate for a Visual Impact Assessment and
determining the appropriate siting and design of new development within the
landscape…While useful in understanding the impact of development upon a
specific part of a landscape, it is not a holistic analysis approach.
Council submitted that it was not possible to visit all private land in the Study area. It
confirmed:
the study team made a brief visit to the Ravenswood Homestead. Otherwise,
the Ravenswood site has been viewed from publicly accessible locations and
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
23/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 17 of 56
nearby sites. Aerial photography was also used to gain an understanding of
the site.
The Panel accepted an invitation to visit the Ravenswood Run property as part of the
Hearing process, and this site visit was undertaken by representatives of interested parties
on Thursday 28 January 2016.
During the site visit the Panel observed that the large property contained a number of
significant landscape features, including waterways, remnant vegetation, in particular River
Red Gums, areas of revegetation, heritage buildings, rocky outcrops, steep escarpments and
the Big Hill ridgeline.
The Panel observed that due to the large size of the property and undulating topography,
many of the features are not visible from publically accessible viewing points. During the
site visit it was confirmed by Ms Knight that the Study team had not undertaken a field
survey of the Ravenswood Run property.
(v) Determination of Landscape Significance
The Study mapped six landscape character areas (see Figure 3), and assessed their
significance with consideration of five values (p.80 – 93):
Visual
- Landscape features
- Edges or contrasts
- Views
Historical and Cultural
- Documented pre‐ and post‐contact heritage value
- Documented
in
heritage
registers
and
lists,
photographs
and
early
maps
Environmental / Scientific
- Documented environmental or scientific value
- Archaeological, flora and fauna habitats and geological values
Social
- Lifestyle, tourism, recreational or artistic
Economic
- Generation of income through agriculture or attracting visitors to the area.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
24/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 18 of 56
Figure 3 Landscape Character Areas
Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley, 2013, p. 43
Council submitted that:
Planisphere’s landscape assessment studies are discriminating – while the
character analysis covers large areas (often a whole municipality), the
identification of significant landscapes is generally confined to discrete
locations. This was a particularly important consideration in this Study
because it is intended as the first of several studies to cover other parts of the
city’s rural landscape.
(vi) Landscape values
Council submitted that landscape significance was determined in the Study through a
process of
developing
an
understanding
of
landscape
character
and
landscape
values.
Landscape significance was defined as “the designation of a particular landscape as special
or important arising from its landscape values, including aesthetic values and other
documented values such as historic, environmental, scientific, social or other values”.
The Study included a Values Summary table (Figure 4) which ranks the landscape values of
each landscape character area as higher, moderate and lower. The Study stated that “all
values are considered to have equal weight in determining the future management
objectives for a particular area” (p. 80), however in response to a question from the Panel
about the weighting of values, Ms Knight clarified that visual significance was the primary
driver.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
25/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 19 of 56
Figure 4 Values Summary table
Source: Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang Valley, 2013, p. 95
The Values Summary table concludes that:
Big Hill has higher visual, historic and cultural and environmental and scientific values,
with moderate to lower social values and economic values
Mandurang Valley is shown to have lower values for all apart from moderate historical
and cultural
values
the Bendigo Box Ironbark character area is rated as higher and moderate for all values.
Council submitted that it considered the landscape setting of the study area within the
context of the municipality to provide context and an indication of comparative significance
of the Study area. The Study includes a section on “General Character of the Greater
Bendigo Landscape” (p. 24 – 27) but does not, however, include a statement of comparative
significance of the Study area with other landscapes across the City.
Council submitted that the Central Victoria Landscape Assessment Study, which was
schedule to be completed in 2015 but which has not yet been finalised, would define which
“ places, features and views are most significant ” across the region.
The Study explains that “while it is possible to infer a ranking of significance” from the Values
Summary table, “(e.g. Higher could be taken to mean State, Moderate to mean Regional,
Lower to mean Local), it may be wiser to defer a definitive ranking until a landscape
assessment of the whole of Greater Bendigo has been undertaken (p. 94)”.
Numerous submitters identified a wide range values of the study area, predominately
relating to:
Managing development ‐ Reducing potential for negative impact of development,
maintaining a compact city, keeping development within the city/urban growth
boundaries
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
26/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 20 of 56
Environmental values ‐ biodiversity, ecological, wildlife corridors, protection of remnant
vegetation, National/State Parks, reducing potential for fragmentation of remnants
Visual amenity ‐ aesthetic values, natural beauty, high visibility rural character, City in the
Forest, soften the urban edge boundaries, protection of pleasing outlooks
Heritage and
Social
values
–
health
and
wellbeing.
In relation to visual appreciation of the study area, a number of submitters stated that they
considered the landscape to have visual significance:
Rosemary Glaisher (submitter 8) submitted that “taking the broad view, there is what the
approaches to our beautiful city look like … there is a sense of passing through a relatively
unspoilt forest and blue timbered hills as you drive into Bendigo …”.
Bendigo Sustainability Group (submitter 30) submitted that the Amendment will
complement and retain the magnificent entry to Bendigo, and that South Mandurang
“this is a unique forested area of Bendigo, valued by locals and visitors alike for its rural
amenity
and
pleasing
visual
outlook
afforded
by
the
Box
Ironbark
forests
and
the
flora
and fauna that they contain.
Gill and Mick Rosier (submitter 42) submitted that “… the Big Hill / Ravenswood
landscape is viewed as significant as the southern gateway to Bendigo, with its distinctive
landforms, heritage and cultural values, and for the retention of Farming Zone within this
area”.
Ms Parrat and Mr Togno (submitter 25), who are residents of Mandurang, stated that while
they appreciate that there are some in the community who would consider their property
visually appealing, “that appears to integrate with the local indigenous landscape. However,
this visual heritage landscape is only around 20 years old ” and the result of revegetation and
planting for
a personal
firewood
supply.
The National Trust of Victoria (submitter 40), supported the Amendment. The National Trust
maintains a register of significant places, and stated that “while the National Trust has not
classified the Big Hill and Mandurang Valley as a significant landscape, we appreciate the
work of Greater Bendigo City Council in redressing this knowledge gap and seeking planning
controls for this important landscape”.
In relation to visibility of a landscape in determining landscape significance, Council
submitted:
The Study methodology acknowledges the visibility of a landscape as a
contributing factor
to
determining
its
sensitivity
to
change
and
appropriate
management mechanisms. However, the visibility of a landscape is not a
factor in determining its significance (Final Report, p80). If a landscape is not
easily viewed, it is not considered that it is less significant as a result. The
ability to view a landscape does not negate its visual and other values.
A landscape which is not currently visible may be visible or visited in the future.
This might include additional walking trails, internal roads through the site or
viewing points.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
27/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 21 of 56
(vii) Community values
A number of submitters indicated that they understood the intention of the process was to
represent community values as a key determinant of landscape significance.
Dr Bardsley
and
Ms
Radford
(submitter
49)
submitted
that
they
understood
the
process
“is
about a subjective valuation of the landscape as a whole by the community as a whole”.
They concluded that the final Study reflected the community’s valuation of the landscape.
The Bendigo and District Environment Group (submitter 9) indicated that the assessment of
landscape significance is considered to be a subjective process, and the “opinions,
preferences, values, feelings and judgements of those who participated in the Big Hill
Mandurang Valley Final Report 2013 cannot be ignored as not being relevant to what
constitutes significance. The people find the landscapes significant ”.
In response to a question from the Panel about the relative weighting of community views of
the
landscape
significance,
Ms
Knight
on
behalf
of
Council
clarified
that
the
determination
of
landscape significance was “ultimately a professional opinion supported by data and
consultation.”
Under cross examination, Mr Haack gave evidence that, in his opinion, whilst Planisphere
has pioneered community engagement methods in landscape assessment; these can be
given too much weight.
In response to submissions and evidence Council stated that:
The value of community input has been clearly demonstrated during this Panel
hearing. We have heard submissions from the people who live in this area and
know it
intimately.
This
has
provided
the
Panel
with
information
that
would
not otherwise be evident or available.
We disagree with the Ravenswood submission that a study should be done by
experts in an objective fashion and without input from the community.
Many comments from the community do not reflect the study brief or scope,
but have been reported in the document nonetheless to record the community
views.
The assessment of landscape values undertaken in the Study in Chapter 4 is
based upon evaluation of criteria set out in the study method. Information
provided by
the
community
has
been
included
in
this
assessment
as
it
relates
to these criteria, where it is directly relevant to the Study assessment
methodology.
3.3 Discussion
In support of the Study methodology, Council explained that the landscape assessment
methodology was based on international best practice and has been accepted by the State
government, multiple Councils and Planning Panels. Council cited a number of panel reports
to support this position.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
28/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 22 of 56
In reviewing a number of these panel reports, the Panel identified that while the panel
reports accepted the landscape assessment methodology as “a credible methodology 2”, the
studies are not directly comparable as they were regional, as opposed to local, landscape
assessment studies.
Council also cited as relevant the six Landscape Assessment Studies that are currently being
undertaken by the State Government using the Planisphere methodology. Again it is noted
by the Panel that these studies are not directly comparable as they are being undertaken at
a regional scale.
The Panel notes that the Study is a local landscape study, not state or regional, that Council’s
intention was to run this as a pilot project for possible application in other parts of the
Municipality. As a local pilot study, an adjustment was made to the previously used
methodology to allow for “deeper and more localised exploration of values and community
sentiment ”. Council did not, however, explain any changes to the methodology in relation to
determination of
appropriate
management
recommendations.
On the basis that this is a pilot study for local landscape assessment studies, it is important
that effectiveness of the Study methodology for achieving the Study purpose be carefully
assessed, and modified as required for future application.
A review of the cited panel reports identified a number of issues relevant to this
Amendment, in particular appropriate application of the Significant Landscape Overlay.
These are discussed further in Chapter 4 of this report.
In preparation of the Study, the Panel notes that the consultant team undertook field
surveys and viewed the study area from a number of publically accessible viewing points,
and from
some
properties
within
the
Study
area.
Planisphere
explained
that
given
the
size
of the study area that it was not possible to visit all properties.
Given the significance Ravenswood Run, representing a large proportion of the study area
(over 2,000 hectares), much of which cannot be seen from publicly accessible viewpoints,
the Panel was surprised that there was no attempt by the Study team to undertake a site
inspection of this land.
Whilst the study team used aerial photography and assessed the property from publicly
accessible viewpoints, this would not have provided a full appreciation of the landscape
values of the Ravenswood Run. In doing so, it was apparent to the Panel on the
accompanied
site
inspection
that
vast
tracts
of
land
earmarked
for
the
Overlay
were
not
appropriate.
Mr Connor suggested that more detailed visual analysis was required, including viewshed
mapping. Council argued that viewshed mapping was not suitable for the Study, as it was
more suited to visual impact assessment. The Panel understands that viewshed analysis can
provide a detailed visual assessment, and there may be value in using this method in
conjunction with assessment of other landscape values.
2 Greater Geelong C177 Panel Report, June 2010, p50
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
29/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 23 of 56
In relation to secondary source material:
The Study identified a number of source documents in Background Documents and
Policy Context (p17). The majority of these are Council strategic plans and the list does
not include any scientific studies or expert sources of information.
The Study
includes
a number
of
maps
and
information
about
landscape
characteristics
in
the Study area. For example Chapter 2 of the Study, Landscape Character, includes
figures and plans showing bioregions, topography and water form, geology, elevation,
slope, ecological vegetation classes and heritage assets. This section does not, however,
include reference to the significance of these assets or reference to any particular
sources of scientific data or research underpinning the information.
Chapter four of the Study includes Landscape Values tables for each of the Landscape
Character areas, and identifies the source of information for each of the identified
values. The sources of information identified include [field] survey, community, planning
controls, and in relation to heritage values it makes reference the heritage overlay or
Victorian Heritage
Register.
There
is
one
reference
to
DSE
in
the
table,
which
the
Panel
assumes refers to the State Department of Sustainability and Environment. Referenced
sources of information are generally not included. The tables do not clearly identify the
significance of values, such as heritage assets or ecological vegetation classes.
Appendix C of the Study includes detailed Character Area Analysis Papers for each of the
landscape character areas. Only occasional reference is made in the text to source
documents. Information relating to vegetation identifies the remnant ecological
vegetation classes, but with only occasional reference to status or significance. The
analysis of vegetation significance relates primarily to the character and visual impact of
the vegetation, rather than its scientific importance. Planning controls for each of the
landscape character
areas
are
presented
in
some
detail.
The
two
Big
Hill
Character
areas
include reference to two source documents in footnotes, one unspecified North Central
CMA document from 2005 and another titled “To Big Hill and Back ”.
The Study does not include a bibliography documenting secondary sources, so it is not
obvious to the reader that what these sources are and how they have been considered in
the Study.
Due to the lack of information in the Study about the source documents and data used it is
not possible for the Panel to form a judgement about the extent to which this material was
used in formulation of the Study. Nor whether the information used is accurate, outdated or
inconclusive.
The Panel agrees that the community engagement process undertaken by Planisphere was
comprehensive and appreciated by many members of the community. The community
consultation process provided the community with many opportunities to contribute to the
project, with a reasonable number attending workshops and a small number responding to
the survey.
However, the Panel understands that a number of submitters suggested that the
consultation process was not adequate and that many in the community were not aware of
the Study. Submitters also raised the issue that the town planning information provided by
Council was difficult to understand and could be ‘threatening’, and that the Study report was
too large
and
may
not
have
been
read
by
many
in
the
community.
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
30/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 24 of 56
The question of over emphasis on community opinion was raised. Whilst it is stated by
Council that the Study is ultimately an expression of professional opinion informed by data
and consultation, there are a number of aspects of the Study process, submissions and
hearing which raise questions in the Panel’s view about whether this was achieved:
limited field
assessment
lack of reference secondary sources
several submitters indicating that they understood that the Study recommendations
would be subjective and based on community opinion
Landscape Significance and Values Assessment (Chapter 4 of the Study) identifies
‘community’ as a source of the majority of identified values
Inclusion of community submissions that do not relate to the study purpose (rather than
documented in an appendix or separate document) which can appear to give them
undue weight or significance
Mr Haack’s evidence that the process provided too much weight to community input.
Whilst the Study stated that in the determination of landscape significance all values are
considered equally, Ms Knight clarified that visual significance was the key determinant. The
Panel found it would be helpful if the Study clearly explained how the weighting of values
was applied.
This was illustrated in the time it took for Council to clearly articulate how the Values
Summary (Figure 4) worked. For example, in response to a question from the Panel about
the meaning of the ranking, in particular given Mandurang Valley which is ranked primarily
as ‘lower’, Ms Knight stated whilst Mandurang was listed as ‘lower’, this did not mean that
the landscape significance was ‘low’. This is an indication of relative significance, and was
still at
a level
warranting
inclusion
in
the
Significant
Landscape
Overlay.
The Panel found this logic hard to interpret. How the general public could interpret it is
another matter again. The purpose of ranking the character areas in the Study is not clear.
In fact, the Study concludes that “it may be wiser to defer a definitive ranking until a
landscape assessment of the whole of Greater Bendigo has been undertaken” (p. 94).
Council’s submission stated that the Study identified landscape significance with respect to
landscape context and comparative significance across the Municipality, yet the Panel found
no evidence of this in the Study.
It would have been valuable if the Study had explained the comparative significance of
landscapes in
the
study
area,
to
assist
with
understanding
how
the
subject
landscape
compares with other areas within the Municipality or beyond. This has implications for
application of the Significant Landscape Overlay, and this is discussed in greater detail in
Chapter 4 of this report.
3.4 Conclusions
Whilst the Planisphere methodology has been developed and tested over some time, and
references international best practice, this has previously been applied to regional and State
projects. As this Study was undertaken as a pilot to test the methodology for future local
landscape assessment studies, the Panel concludes that there are opportunities to refine the
process to
better
suit
local
application
of
landscape
significance
assessments.
The
Study
-
8/17/2019 The independent panel's report
31/62
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 Panel Report 1 April 2016
Page 25 of 56
does not clearly explain how community values were integrated with other inputs and
prioritised.
The Study requires revisiting to ensure that it is clearly understood and referenced
appropriately. The Panel is of the view that an Executive Summary is is required.
The Panel concludes the following in relation to the Study methodology:
There is no nexus between the Study, extent of the Overlay proposed and the Schedules.
The Study process would be more reliable and convincing if the study team had
undertaken a site inspection of the largest parcel of land in the study area.
A landscape assessment study relying on secondary sources of information to
complement visual analysis and consultation should demonstrate evidence of this
throughout the document through, for example, a literature review, source references
and a bibliography.
It would be beneficial to have a greater understanding of comparative significance of the
landscape assessed,
to
help
understand
the
relative
importance
of
protection
and
appropriate tools to achieve this.
The Study recommendations would be more robust if the report and study process
demonstrated more clearly how the findings from community engagement were
considered and integrated into the final recommendations.
The Study should be revised in line with the conclusions and an Executive Summary
prepared.
3.5 Recommendations
The adoption of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C217 should be 1.
deferred pending
further
work.
The adoption of the Bendigo Landscape Assessment, Big Hill and Mandurang 2.
Valley Final Report (2013) (the Study) as a Reference Document is not supported
in its current form. The Study should be revised to include:
a) an Executive Summary with details of the Study findings and
recommendations
b) clearly numbered subheadings, numbered tables, figures and maps, with
listing of all elements in an associated list of tables, figure or maps
c) clear definitions relating to landscape significance
d) a bibliography referencing all source material
e)
a clear
nexus
should
be
demonstrated
between
the
Study,
the
extent
of