The State and Local Planning Schemes specify the minimum lot size allowed in subdivisions in the Green Wedge. This minimum size is dependent upon zone, and in Nillumbik the predominant zone is Rural Conservation Zone, either RCZ3, minimum size 8 ha, or RCZ4 or RCZ5, minimum size 40 ha. Small lots, or ‘undersized lots’, are lots smaller than these sizes, created prior to the institution of the Planning Scheme. In Nillumbik, according to the Green Wedge Management Plan (GWMP), it is estimated that some 3,300 lots are undersized, or 81% of all lots in the Wedge, and that about 710 of these currently vacant, ie no dwelling has been constructed on them.
The granting of a permit to build a dwelling in the Green Wedge, on any sized lot, is subject to the application satisfying the conditions imposed by the Planning Scheme, which essentially include protecting the environment and landscape values. The purposes of the Rural Conservation Zone include, in addition, to provide for ‘agricultural use consistent with the conservation of environmental and landscape values’.
Although these conditions apply to all Green Wedge lots, because small lots imply a higher residential density than is consistent with the Green Wedge, applications to build on them face an additional challenge. Both Nillumbik’s Municipal Strategic Statement and the current GWMP contain reference to small lots, discouraging development on them and encouraging consolidation with other titles. You can read an information paper about the small lots issue here.
VCAT rejected an appeal against Council’s refusal to grant a permit to build on a Cottles Bridge property earlier this year, and a part of the Tribunal’s argument was that the area to be cleared represented 50% of the 0.76 ha total area of the property.
Local lobby group ProActive Landowners, or PALS, take the position that property owners should be able to do what they want on their own land. While on the face of it this position has merit, a moment’s thought makes it obvious that this position is inconsistent with Melbourne having Green Wedges at all. The Wedges are an asset of the whole of Melbourne and the State, and their existence depends upon the maintenance of restrictions on development in the interests of the whole community, not just the owners of Green Wedge land. The Green Wedge does not exist at the discretion of the landowners, but at the discretion of the State Government on behalf of the community.
Nillumbik’s GWMP, prepared in 2011, listed as a high priority action for Council to ‘Prepare a concise paper on small lot development to recommend actions to discourage the further rural residential development of small lots’. That GWMP was prepared under a previous Council, and if any work has been done against that ‘Action’ it has not been made public.
But last August the Council approved the expenditure of $115,000 on a fresh review. That review is in progress at the moment, and although its terms of reference have not been made public, we understand it aims to provide guidance to landowners as to the suitability of under-sized lots for a dwelling. This is a worthy objective, but how might it be met? Will this review assess every one of the undersized lots in the Shire with a view to publishing some kind of score for each one, indicating the likelihood that an application to build a dwelling would be approved? Given the number of lots and the expertise required to evaluate each one, this is unlikely. It would be surprising if this new review could do much more than register and map the lots.
In any case, we should wish the project well. But since it is being paid for with ratepayers’ money we hope the Council will be more forthcoming with progress reports than has been the case to date. Without being cynical about it, we should also be alert for subversion of the project in the interests of relaxing the Planning Scheme at the expense of the Green Wedge. After all, this Council has recent runs on the board in that area: remember their role in relation to the 2 Pigeon Bank Road, North Warrandyte application, in which they overturned their own officers’ recommendation to reject it, only for the applicant to finally withdraw the application after his attempt to have objections from the WCA and others disallowed was rejected by the Supreme Court.