title: Significant Landscape Overlay Review council: mitchell state: vic category: constraint classification: MINOR status: in-progress last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt
- web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt
Significant Landscape Overlay Review
The Significant Landscape Overlay Review is best understood as a mechanism for turning identified landscape values into permit assessment triggers, rather than a control that stops existing land uses. The SLO can require permits for buildings, works, fencing and specified vegetation removal, but the Engaging Mitchell material states that it cannot prohibit development, cannot change existing land use, and cannot retrospectively require approval for existing buildings. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
The main planning consequence is procedural: more proposals in mapped significant landscapes would move from ordinary zone-based assessment into landscape-character assessment against SLO objectives, siting, materials, visual impact, vegetation and earthworks considerations. Clause 42.03 requires schedules to state the landscape’s key elements and objectives, and directs decision-makers to consider landscape values, significant views, vegetation removal, building height, bulk, colour and general appearance. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.537; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.540)
Background
Mitchell’s Municipal Planning Strategy identifies significant growth pressure, with substantial urban growth planned in the southern Urban Growth Boundary over the next 50 years and eleven precinct structure plan areas guiding population growth and infrastructure. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.9) The same strategy also identifies rural landscape amenity, high-amenity townships, hilltops, volcanic cones and ridgelines as features requiring protection from inappropriate development. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.9; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.10)
The current planning scheme describes Mitchell’s landscapes as including steep to gently undulating sedimentary hills, dissected granite plateaus, volcanic plains and flat alluvial floodplains associated with the Goulburn River and major creeks. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.10) It also states that inappropriate development on hilltops, volcanic cones and ridgelines can affect landscape attractiveness and environmental quality, and that buildings can be intrusive where materials do not blend with the surrounding environment. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.10)
Council’s FAQ says the Landscape Assessment Study was prepared because community feedback identified landscape amenity as important, because municipal growth would increase pressure on that amenity, and because existing planning policy provided limited protection for significant landscapes. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt) The FAQ states that the study sought to identify significant landscapes across Mitchell requiring planning policy, with possible SLO application over the most valued areas through a planning scheme amendment. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
Analysis
Existing SLO Mechanism
Clause 42.03 has three core purposes: to implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and Planning Policy Framework, identify significant landscapes, and conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.537) The overlay works through schedules: each schedule must identify the nature and key elements of the landscape and the character objectives to be achieved. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.537)
The base SLO permit trigger is broad because a permit is required to construct a building or carry out works unless a schedule provides an exemption. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.537) Agricultural activities, including ploughing and fencing but excluding dam construction, are not captured unless a schedule specifically requires them. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.537) Vegetation removal is controlled only where a schedule specifies vegetation, and state-wide exemptions continue to apply through the SLO exemption table. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.537; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.538)
In practical terms, the review is not simply about drawing boundaries. It is about deciding which landscape attributes should become permit-relevant matters, which buildings and works should be exempt, and how tightly farming, fire management, fencing, vegetation regrowth and small rural structures should be treated. Council’s FAQ confirms that the draft provisions were intended to exempt water tanks, open-sided agricultural buildings, smaller agricultural sheds and post-and-wire fences, while requiring permits for dwellings, larger sheds and solid fences. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
Current SLO Coverage and Scheme Tension
The current extracted planning scheme contains six SLO schedules: Kilmore Historic Outdoor Recreation Precinct, Tallarook Ranges, Kilmore Creek Environs, Government Quarry at The Dene, Deep Creek, and Merri Creek Reach 1 from Heathcote Junction to Craigieburn. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.540; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.543; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.545; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.548; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.549; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.553) This differs from the FAQ text, which says Mitchell Shire currently had two SLO areas: the south side of Trawool Valley and Kilmore’s Monument Hill and Kilmore Creek corridor. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
That discrepancy matters because the FAQ appears to describe the review at an earlier stage, while the current scheme extract includes later SLO schedules for Deep Creek and Merri Creek dated January 2026. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.549; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.553) The planning scheme’s application schedule also lists the SLO as applying to the Kilmore Historic Outdoor Recreation Precinct, Tallarook Ranges, Mount Disappointment and Kilmore Creek environs, while the detailed SLO schedules in the same extract list Government Quarry, Deep Creek and Merri Creek instead of an SLO schedule titled Mount Disappointment. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.1304; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.548; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.549; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.553)
The analytical implication is that the SLO review cannot be treated as a closed statutory change from the available documents alone. The current scheme proves that SLO controls already operate across several mapped landscapes, but the source set does not include the adopted Landscape Assessment Study volumes, proposed maps, amendment documents, panel material or final ordinance showing how the review was implemented. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.540; Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
Permit Effect on Rural Land Management
The FAQ makes a clear distinction between land use and development control: the SLO does not require a planning permit for grazing, cropping or ongoing agricultural land uses that are allowed as of right under the Farming Zone. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt) It also states that proposed provisions were drafted in response to submissions and drop-in-session concerns to minimise impacts on farming operations. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
The practical effect is that the review would not directly regulate the act of farming, but it could regulate physical changes associated with farming where they fall outside exemptions. The FAQ identifies proposed exemptions for agricultural buildings up to 200 square metres, farm access tracks, post-and-wire fences, solid fencing below 1 metre, livestock yard fencing, water tanks and open-sided agricultural structures. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt) It also states that new dwellings and larger sheds would require a planning permit under the proposed SLO. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
Vegetation regrowth is treated through the native vegetation framework rather than duplicated in the SLO. The FAQ states that native vegetation regrowth less than 10 years old is exempt under Clause 52.17, and that Clause 52.17 also provides exemptions for vegetation removal affecting fences, safety and fire protection. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt) This means the review’s vegetation effect depends on the interaction between SLO schedule wording and existing native vegetation exemptions, not on the SLO alone. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.538)
Comparison With Existing SLO Schedules
Existing SLO schedules show different levels of control depending on the landscape value being protected. SLO1 for the Kilmore Historic Outdoor Recreation Precinct protects a cultural landscape used for public outdoor recreation since 1853 and includes the Kilmore Reservoir remnants, the 1924 Hume and Hovell Tower, Monument Hill, historic views, mature exotic plantings and remnant native vegetation. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.540; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.541) Its permit triggers include removing native vegetation, removing historic exotic vegetation and constructing a fence. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.542)
SLO2 for the Tallarook Ranges protects the natural landscape, rural amenity and environmental significance of the ranges, while also encouraging tourism-oriented activities that complement the special nature of the ranges. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.543) Its exemptions are materially broader than SLO1 because they include agricultural development or activity, cultivation, dams, fencing, water tanks, bores, public authority works, conservation works, small outbuildings under defined conditions, dwelling alterations under defined conditions, swimming pools, timber production works and some vegetation removal associated with regrowth, fences or grazing. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.543; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.544)
SLO3 for Kilmore Creek Environs protects a continuous linear open-space landscape within Kilmore Town Centre, with minimal built form, continuous interior views, permeability, planted exotic vegetation, remnant native vegetation and varying slopes. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.545) Its permit triggers include removing native vegetation, removing mature exotic vegetation and constructing a fence. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.546)
SLO5 and SLO6 show a newer waterway-corridor model. Deep Creek is described as a significant natural system with cultural, ecological and recreational values, and the schedule includes biodiversity values, riparian vegetation, escarpments, bushfire-prone areas and confluence points with cultural significance. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.549) Merri Creek Reach 1 is described as a 76 kilometre major tributary system with ecological, cultural, recreational and heritage value, and the Mitchell reach includes the Urban Growth Boundary at Wallan East, Hernes Swamp, tributaries, rare and threatened flora and fauna, sodic and dispersive subsoils, and the proposed 2,778 hectare marram baba Merri Creek Parklands expansion. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.553; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.554)
The waterway schedules use measurable thresholds: some buildings and works are exempt only if they are more than 50 metres from the top of bank, use muted and low-reflective materials, and limit ground-level change to 600 millimetres. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.550; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.555) For non-urban zones or land outside certain built-form controls, additional exemptions require buildings to be less than 6 metres high and add no more than 50 square metres of gross floor area. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.550; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.555) These thresholds illustrate the likely direction of modern SLO drafting: not a blanket refusal tool, but a calibrated permit filter based on distance from waterways, height, floor area, earthworks, visual recessiveness and vegetation size. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.550; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.555)
Consultation and Amendment Pathway
The Landscape Assessment Study had three consultation stages between February 2021 and April 2024. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt) Across those stages Council received 112 submissions, directly notified 1,388 affected properties, conducted 16 community drop-in sessions with approximately 140 attendees, advertised in the McIvor Times, North Central Review and Seymour Telegraph, and made material available online and at Council customer and library service centres. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
Those consultation numbers indicate the review was locally material even though the manifest classifies the initiative as minor. The likely contested issues are not available in detail, but the FAQ identifies recurring concerns about farming operations, vegetation regrowth, sheds, dwellings and whether the overlay would prohibit development. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
The FAQ stated that an officer report recommending endorsement of the Landscape Assessment Study was scheduled for the Ordinary Council Meeting on 19 August 2024. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt) The page metadata states that Council resolved at its Ordinary Meeting on 19 August 2024 to endorse the Landscape Assessment Study and proceed with preparing documentation to implement it into the Mitchell Planning Scheme, but the extracted page does not include the full officer report or implementation changes. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt) The FAQ also states that implementation would require a planning scheme amendment and that the amendment process includes independent review and a panel hearing for submissions received. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
Current Status
The available sources show the review had moved at least to Council endorsement and amendment-document preparation by 19 August 2024, based on the Engaging Mitchell page metadata. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt) The available sources do not identify an amendment number, exhibition dates, panel dates, adopted ordinance, final maps or gazettal notice for the Landscape Assessment Study implementation. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
The current planning scheme extract confirms that SLO5 Deep Creek and SLO6 Merri Creek were inserted or updated through state amendment activity dated January 2026, but the source set does not establish whether those schedules are an outcome of the Landscape Assessment Study or a separate waterway-corridor reform. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.549; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.553)
Dependencies
- Blocks: Final landscape-protection controls cannot be assessed from the available sources without the amendment documentation, proposed SLO maps and final schedule wording for the Landscape Assessment Study implementation. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
- Blocked by: Implementation requires a planning scheme amendment, and the FAQ states that submissions may lead to independent review and a panel hearing. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
- Informed by: The review is informed by the Landscape Assessment Study Volumes 1, 2 and 3, which were consulted on between February 2021 and April 2024, but those volumes are not included in this manifest. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
- Implements: The review aligns with Mitchell’s strategic directions to protect distinctive sense of place, cultural identity, landscape, hilltops, volcanic cones and ridgelines. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.10)
- Conflicts with: The main tension is between landscape protection and rural land management, because the FAQ specifically addresses concerns about farming, regrowth, grazing, cropping, sheds, dwellings and fencing. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
Deep Creek and Merri Creek are cross-boundary waterway landscapes, not purely local visual assets. Deep Creek forms part of the connected Maribyrnong catchment and runs approximately 150 kilometres to its confluence with the Maribyrnong River. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.549) Merri Creek is a major tributary of Birrarung/Yarra River and Reach 1 extends from Heathcote Junction to Craigieburn. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.553)
The Merri Creek schedule links Mitchell’s landscape controls to the northern growth corridor because it identifies the Urban Growth Boundary at Wallan East, emerging residential neighbourhoods around corridor parkland, the brickworks site to the east, and the proposed 2,778 hectare marram baba Merri Creek Parklands expansion from Beveridge to Campbellfield. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.554) This means waterway landscape controls interact with growth-area planning, open-space delivery, biodiversity corridors and downstream water quality beyond a single property or township. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.554)
Gaps in This Analysis
The core gap is the absence of the Landscape Assessment Study Volumes 1, 2 and 3, even though the FAQ states that all three volumes were consulted on between February 2021 and April 2024. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt) Without those volumes, this page cannot identify the proposed landscape units, boundary logic, significance thresholds, field assessment method, affected property count by landscape area, or recommended schedule wording. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
The second gap is the absence of the Consultation Summary Report, even though the FAQ states that a report summarising consultation activities and submissions was available on the project website. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt) Without that report, this page cannot quantify submission themes beyond the headline count of 112 submissions or separate concerns by landowner, township, farming use, vegetation management, built-form control or boundary objection. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt)
The third gap is the absence of formal amendment material. The FAQ states that implementation would require a planning scheme amendment, but the manifest does not include an amendment number, explanatory report, instruction sheet, exhibited ordinance, map sheets, panel report or gazettal notice. (Source: web-research-L1-significant-landscape-overlay-faq-engaging-mitchell.txt) This prevents a definitive finding on whether the review is still awaiting amendment, has been partly implemented, or has been superseded by the January 2026 SLO5 and SLO6 waterway schedules. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.549; Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt, p.553)