Let’s get this show on the road!

Often, our clients' projects require the temporary or permanent use and occupation of land to construct improvements, or to support nearby construction.

If some or all of that land is a road at law, it can only be used for the project if it is temporarily closed, which is not always possible, or discontinued.  The danger of not properly discontinuing the land's status as a road is that the use or occupation of the land may amount to public nuisance, with legal consequences. 

What is a road?

In Victoria, a road includes any area of land that is a highway at common law.  More specifically, a highway is an area of land, at soil level or in stratum, over which the public may pass on or over at all times.

It is not necessary that land is physically a road for it to be a highway at common law.  The land may be suitable only for pedestrian access or for use by bicycles or horse-riders, rather than cars or other vehicles.  Even where land is only capable of passage by ferry, the ferry route itself may be a highway.  As long as the land meets the legal requirements, it will be a highway, and therefore a road.

Roads also include areas of land (at soil level or in strata) regulated under statutes, such as the Road Management Act 2004 (RM Act).  Under the RM Act, roads are generally categorised as freeways, arterial roads, non-arterial State roads and municipal roads.

Who owns roads?

If you wish to temporarily or permanently access or occupy land which has the status of a road, you will probably need to negotiate with the land owner on the scope of the required rights and changes to the road's status.

As a general principle, the Crown owns land over which there is a freeway or arterial road, regardless of whether the road is at surface level or in stratum, as well as certain land declared as road under general legislation governing Crown land.  Otherwise, roads are generally owned by the municipal council of the municipal district in which the road is located.

Acquiring and dealing with land which is a road

If land is a road, it is generally not possible to exclusively access or occupy the land unless its status as a road is temporarily paused (where this option is available under legislation) or permanently discontinued.  First, it is necessary to identify the relevant legislative power to temporarily close or discontinue the road, and then to do so in accordance with the power.  

These powers exist in a wide range of statutes, such as the RM Act in relation to roads generally, and  the Project Development and Construction Management Act 1994 and the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 in relation to roads over land which is required for a particular project.

A number of formalities may be required before a road can be discontinued, for example:

• bringing the land within a declared project area;

• public notification and/or consultation;

• obtaining the consent of other parts of Government; and 

• amending a planning scheme.

Depending on the applicable legislative power and exemptions, discontinuation of a road can be achieved in as little as 28 days or take as long as 18 months.  

Once the road has been formally discontinued in accordance with the relevant power, the owner of the land can deal with that land as it pleases.  As a general rule, where roads on Crown land are discontinued, the underlying land normally returns to unreserved Crown land status.

Need some help?

Victoria's roads are governed by a complex legal framework.  Our Property Team has expertise in advising Government clients on a broad range of issues that arise when accessing and acquiring rights to land comprising a road.

For further advice, please contact: 

Anthony Leggiero

Managing Principal Solicitor

03 9947 1430

Margaret Marotti

Managing Principal Solicitor

03 9947 1410

Eloise Connelly

Principal Solicitor

03 9947 1493

Elizabeth Wortley

Senior Solicitor

03 9947 1433

What is in the Environment Protection Amendment Bill 2018?

The Environment Protection Amendment Bill 2018 (the Bill) is the second tranche of reforms following the Ministerial Advisory Committee's Final Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

The first major reform, the Environment Protection Act 2017 created a new statutory objective for the EPA and clarified its focus; to protect human health and the environment from the harmful impact of waste and pollution.

The Bill, if passed, will repeal and replace the current Environment Protection Act 1970 (the old Act), and create a prevention-focussed regulatory regime that gives the EPA a wider array sanctions and controls to manage high-risk activity.

The Bill has a forced commencement date of 1 December 2020, but is intended to take effect from 1 July 2020.

General environmental duty

The cornerstone of the Bill is a general environmental duty modelled after the duty on employers in the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004.  It creates a positive obligation on duty-holders to proactively minimise the risk of harm to health and the environment from pollution and waste.  Both individuals and people conducting a business or undertaking (duty-holders) breach the duty if they fail to take steps that are reasonably practicable to minimise the risk of harm.

The type of actions required of duty-holders are laid out in the Bill and include:

• using and maintaining plant, equipment, processes and systems in a manner that minimises risks of harm to human health or the environment from pollution and waste; 
• using and maintaining adequate systems to ensure that if a risk of harm to human health or the environment from pollution or waste were to eventuate, its harmful effects would be minimised; and
• ensuring that all substances are handled, stored, used or transported in a manner that minimises risks of harm to human health or the environment from pollution and waste.

Those who breach the duty while conducting a business or an undertaking commit an indictable offence, and face a fine.

This duty will impact businesses, bodies and departments who engage in activities that pose a risk of harm to health or the environment from pollution and waste.

Permissions

There are three main tiers of permissions within the Bill: Licences (which are divided into operating, development and pilot project licences), permits and registrations.

In the old Act, licences and other types of approvals only applied to 'premises', whereas the Bill's permissions structure will apply to 'activities'.  The regulations will prescribe the types of activities that can be approved for each permission type.

The most easily granted permission, registrations, are meant for low to medium risk activity.  Permits are for less complex activities with a medium to high risk, and will include a standardised assessment process within the regulations.

The most onerous permission, in terms of application process and possible conditions is a licence.  It is designed for complex and high-risk activities and allows the EPA to customise conditions to suit the project.

Bodies that hold old permissions immediately prior to the Bill's commencement date will hold new permissions from the day the Bill commences.

Contaminated land

The Bill will create a duty to notify the EPA and an obligation to manage land contaminated by waste, a chemical substance or any other prescribed substance.  For the duty to apply, the contamination must be on or under the surface of the land, be present in a concentration above the background level and create a risk to human health or the environment.

If the land is contaminated, the Bill makes it clear that the person with management or control of the land is under the general duty to minimise risks of harm to human health and the environment from the contaminated land, which may include cleaning up the land.

The person with management or control must notify the EPA that the land is contaminated as soon as reasonably practicable.  Failure to do so results in a civil penalty.

Third party rights

The Bill will enable third parties to enforce breaches of the law and seek civil remedies where the EPA has not taken action.  The third party must be a person whose interests are affect by the contravention or non-compliance with the law, or anyone else with leave of the court where it is in the public interest.

If eligible, the third party has the same rights as the EPA to seek orders remedying or restraining breaches of the law, its regulations, or to licences and other permissions.

The right to enforce the law and seek remedies creates a new accountability mechanism on the EPA, where the regulator has failed or chose not to take action.

The Bill passed the Legislative Council on 9 August 2018.

For further information on the Bill and its implications, please contact:

Annette Jones
Principal Solicitor
8684 0444

Natasha Maugueret 

Managing Principal Solicitor 

8684 0223

This blog was produced with the assistance of Emma Buckley Lennox, Graduate Lawyer.

Court of Appeal considers parallel regulation under the Water Act 1989 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987

A recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal has provided authority on the interrelationship between parallel frameworks under the Water Act 1989 (Water Act) and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act). In Stanley Rural Community Inc v Stanley Pastoral Pty Ltd, it was ultimately found that licences conferred under the Water Act cannot be limited by the PE Act without an express provision.

What is this case about? 

In 2013, Stanley Pastoral Pty Ltd purchased land which included a licence under s 51 of the Water Act to ‘take and use’ water on its property.  Stanley Pastoral applied to Goulburn Murray Water to split the entitlement to extract 19ML from groundwater and 31ML from surface water.

After the entitlement split was granted, Stanley Pastoral applied to Indigo Shire Council (Council) for a planning permit for the use and development of the land for a 'utility installation', which is defined as land used to collect, treat, transmit, store or distribute water.  Specifically, the permit application was for a change of use from an existing bore to the development of a water transfer station to include a shed, water silos, and associated equipment.

This case commenced after Council refused to grant the permit on the basis that the groundwater extraction would adversely affect the aquifer, diminish the potential for the land for agriculture and horticulture, and prejudice the land served by nearby bores.

VCAT grants permit

At first instance, VCAT granted the permit, finding that the means by which groundwater is extracted was not subject to controls under the PE Act or the planning scheme.  VCAT found that the Water Act provides the necessary controls for the flow, use and management of water (including groundwater).

Objectors appeal the decision

Objectors from Stanley Rural Community Inc appealed VCAT's decision to the Supreme Court.  McDonald J upheld the grant of the permit but for different reasons.

Intention to limit a conferred right should be expressly demonstrated

His Honour centred on the use of term 'expressly' in s 8(6) of the Water Act, which deals with continuation of private rights to water:

A right conferred by this section is limited only to the extent to which an intention to limit it is expressly (and not merely impliedly) provided in…any other Act or in any permission or authority granted under any other Act.

Stanley Pastoral's right was conferred under s 8(4)(a), which grants a person the right to use water taken or received by that person in accordance with a licence or other authority issued to that person under the Water Act.

His Honour found that because there were no words in the PE Act or in the planning scheme expressly qualifying the rights of a water licence under the Water Act, then rights created under the Water Act to take and use groundwater cannot be the subject of objection or control pursuant to a planning scheme.

Final outcome

In a decision dated 20 December 2017, the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. 

The Court found that powers to regulate or prohibit use or development of any land under s 6(2) of the PE Act do not expressly demonstrate an intention to limit the rights conferred under s 8 of the Water Act.  Therefore, the PE Act did not limit the right under s 8(4)(a) of the Water Act.  Their Honours further held that the words in parentheses 'and not merely impliedly' within s 8(6) of the Water Act make this clear.

The Court also found that the right conferred by s 8(4)(a) of the Water Act to use water 'taken or received…in accordance with a licence…under this Act' is:

one upon which the permit applicant can rely in respect of water taken and used under the s 51 take and use licence, by virtue of s 8(6) as 'limited only to the extent to which an intention to limit is expressly (and not merely implied) provided in…' statutory instruments of the various types specified.

Separately, their Honours overruled VCAT's finding at first instance that the planning scheme might have made express provision to limit water rights.  The Court cast doubt on the prospect that a planning scheme meets the description found in s 8(6) of the Water Act of 'any permission or authority granted under any other Act'.

Finally, the Court rejected the applicant's argument that the 'real and substantial purpose' of the proposed land use was an innominate 'groundwater extraction' use.  Instead, their Honours confirmed VCAT's finding that the 'real and substantial purpose' of the proposed land use fit within the broad definition of 'utility installation' in the planning scheme - therefore requiring a planning permit for 'utility installation'.

Key take-away

The case demonstrates that licences conferred under the Water Act cannot be limited by the PE Act as it does not currently make express provision in relation to the extraction of groundwater.

Further information

VGSO regularly advises in planning, water and related areas including development approvals, planning scheme amendments, drainage and sewerage projects and land management. For a discussion of the services VGSO can provide in this area, please contact Annette Jones, Principal Solicitor or Natasha Maugueret, Managing Principal Solicitor.

Annette Jones
Principal Solicitor
03 8684 0431

Natasha Maugueret
Managing Principal Solicitor
03 8684 0223

Progress on National water reform and future reform priorities

VSGO has a dedicated Land, Planning and Environment Practice Group.  Recently the Group heard Jane Doolan of the Productivity Commission speak about the Commission's inquiry into National Water Reform.

If you haven't had the chance to look at the draft report, we've summarised the key points in this blog.

National Water Reform 

Earlier this year the Productivity Commission launched a major review of Australian water reform and on 15 September 2017 the Commission released its draft inquiry report into National Water Reform. The purposes of the national inquiry report canvass an assessment on Australia's progress on national water reform such as how past water policy decisions have been made and how effective those decisions have been. In particular the report highlights Australia's water reform achievements and progress over the last 20 to 30 years. The inquiry has also developed draft future reform priorities in water resource management and rural and urban water services. The aim is to ensure the water sector's effectiveness and efficiency through 'consistent and coordinated regulatory and management arrangements that are aligned with the National Water Initiative' (NWI). An aim of the report is to ensure that future policies will reflect significant challenges facing the water sector such as population growth, climate change and community expectations and dependence on water environments. 

Australian Water Reform 

The Commission report identifies Australia's water sector as an international world leader in water management. It goes on to highlight the importance of a coordinated and thoughtful approach to water management, particularly given Australia's arid environment and reliance on our water economy. 

Australia's national approach to water reform began in 1994 through the COAG water reform framework and has continued through subsequent initiatives such as the introduction of the Water Act 2007 (Cth) and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in November 2012; however the cornerstone of Australia's water reform efforts has been the 2004 NWI. 

Progress and achievements 

The report identifies that National water reforms have significantly improved Australia's approach to water management. The report endorses the continued national relevance of the NWI and its principles, emphasising that the NWI's objectives and outcomes have largely been met however notes that progress has slowed in recent years. Examples of such progress include the development of key foundations of water management such as the:

• creation of legislative and policy frameworks which provide for clear and long-term water entitlements for consumptive uses
• establishment of water planning arrangements for the majority of areas of intensive water use across Australia
• establishment of water markets which allow water to be traded to higher value uses 
• implementation of water resource accounting such as water metering
• provision of integrated management of water for environmental sustainability purposes in most jurisdictions.

The report also identifies the improvement of urban water and irrigation infrastructure services as a consequence of improved institutional and pricing reforms.

The Commission further identifies that overall water reform has delivered significant benefits to irrigators, other water users and the broader community.

Why is reform required? 

Along with identifying progress made to date the Commission report identifies further work required by the Government such as:

• actioning unmet NWI objectives and outcomes; 
• addressing gaps and limitations in existing NWI policy settings highlighted by the Millennium Drought; and 
• responding to the challenges which have emerged in the 13 years since the NWI was signed. The challenges are posed by population growth, climate change and changing community expectations and need to be addressed in policy frameworks. 

It is these gaps in current water policy that form the rationale for the recommended reform priorities. 

Future reform priorities

The report identified the following reform priorities: 

• maintaining the key foundations of water management; and 
• improving and enhancing national policy settings in areas such as entitlement and planning arrangements for extractive industries, and the water requirements of Indigenous people. 

Of importance are recommendations to revise existing policies such as the current arrangements for extractive industries and incorporating alternative water sources. 

Final Report 

The final report was handed to the Australian Government on 19 December 2017. The release of the final report by the Government is the final step in the process. 

Resource

National Water Reform Report: https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/water-reform/draft

VGSO frequently assists regulators and authorities with advice on policy implementation and legislative developments.  VGSO also assists with intergovernmental agreements, memoranda of understanding, and responses to inquiries.  For a discussion of the services VGSO can provide in this area, please contact Annette Jones, Acting Managing Principal Solicitor, or Natasha Maugueret, Managing Principal Solicitor. 

Natasha Maugueret

Managing Principal Solicitor

natasha.maugueret@vgso.vic.gov.au

8684 0223

Annette Jones

Acting Managing Principal Solicitor

annette.jones@vgso.vic.gov.au

8684 0431

Heritage Update: Increased protection and reduced regulation

On the 1 November 2017, the Heritage Act 2017 (the Act) came into operation.  The new Act replaced the Heritage Act 1995, with alterations designed to increase the level of protection provided for places and objects of cultural heritage significance, while reducing regulatory processes.

Some of the most significant changes are described below.

Improved process for heritage registration

The Act has introduced changes to the heritage registration process, including:

• The Executive Director, Heritage Victoria may now refuse a nomination that has 'no reasonable prospect of inclusion in the Heritage Register' (s 29(1)).  However, such a refusal may be reviewed by the nominator (s 30).   
• There are further procedural variations, including a new 90 day time limit for Heritage Council hearing determinations (s 49(2)). 

Simplified process for permits

The Act has introduced changes to the process for obtaining permits, including:

• There is a greater role for local heritage issues, by requiring consideration of local government submissions in determining applications (s 101(2)(c)) and in review (s 108(5)).  
• The Executive Director is no longer required to consider 'undue financial hardship' of refusal, however the requirement to consider reasonable and economic use of the place remains (s 101(2)(b)).    
• The Heritage Council has broader powers on review, and is now able to set aside a determination and make a substituted determination (108(7)(c)). 
• There is a streamlined process for subdivision, with an exemption for works which comply with a permit of subdivision under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, where the Executive Director was a referral authority (s 91).

Strengthened enforcement and compliance

The Act has also introduced stronger enforcement and compliance provisions, including:

• There has been a significant increase in penalties, including for works 'knowingly and recklessly' undertaken without a permit (s 87), as well as for negligently doing so (s 88) and a strict liability offence (s 89), which carries lesser penalties. 
• The Executive Director has broader tools to protect heritage in addition to repair orders (s 155), by issuing rectification orders (s 160) and stop orders (s 165). 

Other changes in the Act include changes to the composition and operation of the Heritage Council and to protection of archaeological heritage.  Overall, the changes provide a stronger and clearer framework for protecting Victoria's heritage.

Where can I go for more information?

For more information about the changes in the Act and the review process that lead to these changes, please click here to be directed to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning website.

If you would like advice about the changes and their implications for your practice, please contact:

Natasha Maugueret
Managing Principal Solicitor
8684 0402

Annette Jones
Acting Managing Principal Solicitor
8684 0431

Mark Egan
Principal Solicitor
8684 0489

Its raining cats and dogs!

What is the issue?

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal identifies seven factors to be considered and assessed in determining whether an overflow of water onto land is reasonable.[1]  These factors may have relevance to statutory agencies, Departments, Ministers and authorities responsible for public land or public infrastructure in particular, at times of heavy rainfall.

What was decided?

The Court of Appeal in Hazelwood Power Partnership v Latrobe City Council[2] held that the Morwell Main Drain was not a public drain for the purposes of the Water Act 1989.  Following that conclusion, the Court of Appeal considered whether the flow of water from the Morwell Industrial Estate and from the township of Morwell into the Morwell Main Drain was unreasonable.

Historically, the test of lawfulness for flow of water related to whether the landowner was uphill or downhill.  Called the 'free flow principle', it was considered that an owner of lower land was obliged to receive all flows of surface water onto his or her land that occurred naturally from the higher land.  The Water Act 1989 replaced the 'free flow principle' with a 'reasonableness' test.  That is, the question is no longer whether a flow of water is 'natural' but whether it is 'reasonable'.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial Judge's finding that the flow onto the Hazelwood land of waters generated in substantial part by the municipal drains on higher ground was reasonable.  The seven key factors considered in concluding that the flow of water was 'reasonable' were:

1. the contours of the land;
2. the use of the lands concerned and the lands in the vicinity;
3. the limited sense in which the water flow complained of from the Council drains could be said to be something other than a natural flow (ie, the 'free flow' principle);
4. the purpose for which and degree of care with which the Morwell Main Drain was originally constructed by the SECV in 1949;
5. there was no evidence of a lack of appropriate regard to the cumulative impact of the subsequent drainage works which occurred over time;
6. the fact that all drainage works were assumed to have appropriate statutory authority;
7. the fact of prior consent or acquiescence to the flows of water for more than 60 years, since the Morwell Main Drain was first constructed by the SECV for the purpose of diverting flows of storm and rain water run-off from entering the open cut mine. 

The Court of Appeal noted that the flow of water carries an ongoing risk of serious damage to the Hazelwood land and the northern batters in particular.  However in this case, the flow was considered to be reasonable.

What does it mean for me?

The Court of Appeal has provided decision-makers (and those who advise them) guidance in assessing the question of reasonableness of flow of water from public land or infrastructure into private drains or onto privately held land, identifying seven relevant considerations.

Alison O'Brien
Acting Victorian Government Solicitor

Eliza Bergin
Principal Solicitor

---

[1] Hazelwood Power Partnership v Latrobe City Council [2015] VSCA 129 (Warren CJ, Osborn and Beach JJ).  See further, section 20 of the Water Act 1989

[2] [2015] VSCA 129

Shifting expectations - implications for the EPA and government agencies

The Government recently released the Ministerial Advisory Committee's Final Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

The inquiry says its 48 recommendations are aimed at making the 'EPA of the future the strong protector of public health and the environment that Victorians expect - and need - it to be.'  The far reaching recommendations would modernise EPA's governing legislation and clarify its objective to protect human health and the environment.  The recommendations seek to clarify the EPA's role and strengthen the EPA's scientific base, functions and tools, as well as its governance structure and funding.

The impact of the report stretches beyond the EPA. The EPA's functions are shared with other agencies within the broader environment protection regime.  The recommendations are aimed at improving coordination mechanisms across this regime, clarifying EPA's role in emergency management, and better managing environmental risks in the land use planning system.

There are issues and themes of relevance for all public authorities contained in the report.  This is particularly so in relation to what the community expects from government services, the importance of government agencies sharing data and mechanisms for whole-of-government approaches to strategy, planning, problem solving and the delivery of services.  

EPA's role

The Report recommends several changes to the way the EPA interacts with other departments and agencies, including:

• Land use planning: The EPA should take on a more strategic role.  This would be achieved via statutory triggers requesting EPA advice and early involvement, for example in planning scheme amendment and rezoning processes.
• Emergency management: EPA's role should focus on providing expert advice to control agencies and aiding with prevention.
• Mining: EPA's role in mining regulation should be strengthened, akin to the role of WorkSafe.

Whole-of-government approach

The report recommends the introduction of a high level Environment Protection (Integration and Coordination) Act to improve coordination across government.  It suggests that effective institutional arrangements will require clearly defined objectives, appropriately allocated roles and responsibilities, and effective mechanisms to promote coordination.

Environmental protection is not the responsibility of just one agency.  The report identifies several situations in which the whole-of-government approach is necessary, including:

• development of policy around climate change, which will significantly impact the EPA, as well as other agencies involved in emergency management;
• development of policy around environmental justice and the relevant health and wellbeing concerns, through the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; and
• a closer working relationship with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Chief Health Officer in relation to protecting human health.

This strategic and coordinated approach to problem solving and the delivery of government services was identified as something the community expected of the EPA, and of government generally.

Data sharing

Data sharing is an important issue closely tied to the need for a coordinated whole-of-government approach to environment protection more broadly.  An evidence base for decision making requires consistent and robust data, as well as having all parties 'at the table'.  There are data sharing initiatives already underway. However, the report recommends that the EPA and other agencies work toward improved systems for State-wide environmental monitoring, a spatial data system and reporting of health, environmental and liveability outcomes.

The Report recommends that the EPA develop a digital data, technology and analytics strategy to guide decision making.  Such improvements could aid data sharing across government as well as with stakeholders.  

Community expectations

It is clear that the changing landscape of stakeholder and community expectations of government have had a significant impact on the report.  The report envisages that the changing context of Victoria's environment, population and economy will lead to changes in stakeholder and community expectations of their environment, their local areas and the delivery of government services in the future.

The Government's response to the report is expected later in 2016.  For the Government's initial response please see here.  There may be significant changes underway for the EPA and the broader environment protection regime.  In the meantime, the report is a useful resource for all government agencies.

For further information on the outcomes of the Independent Inquiry into the EPA and its implications, please contact:

Natasha Maugueret
Managing Principal Solicitor
8684 0402
natasha.maugueret@vgso.vic.gov.au

Mark Egan
Acting Managing Principal Solicitor
8684 0489
mark.egan@vgso.vic.gov.au

Annette Jones
Principal Solicitor
03 8684 0431
annette.jones@vgso.vic.gov.au

8 things you need to know now about changes to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006

The regime which regulates and protects Aboriginal heritage in Victoria is about to undergo a significant change. The Aboriginal Heritage Amendment Bill 2015, which was passed by parliament on 22 March 2016, introduces a suite of substantive and administrative changes to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

The general scheme of the Act remains in place. The Act will continue to provide a regime by which Aboriginal heritage may not be harmed, other than in accordance with cultural heritage management plans, particular types of agreements or permits granted under the Act (or other exception). The key bodies created or appointed under the Act, being the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council and Registered Aboriginal Parties (or RAPs), remain (albeit subject to some new rules and altered roles). The Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register also remains, but is given some new work to do.

Within that same general scheme, the Amending Act makes significant changes to existing features and introduces some wholly new ones. We highlight just some of these changes, which may be of particular relevance to Victorian Government departments and agencies.
Who to apply to for a cultural heritage permit

The Bill provides that where there is a RAP for an area, applications for cultural heritage permits must be made to the RAP for the RAP to consider and determine. The Secretary to DPC remains responsible where there is no RAP for an area.

New agreements for managing public land

Public land managers will be able to use a new mechanism for managing Aboriginal cultural heritage, called Aboriginal cultural heritage land management agreements. The new agreements are intended to remove the need for public land managers to apply for a cultural heritage permit each time they wish to undertake low impact works which are likely to affect Aboriginal cultural heritage.
The agreements may be made between RAPs and public land managers. Public land managers include a committee of management, the Secretary of DELWP, Parks Victoria, VicRoads, VicTrack, a water authority or a local council. The agreements are only available where a cultural heritage management plan is not required.

When to execute a cultural heritage management plan

The Amending Act allows a person proposing an activity to prepare a preliminary Aboriginal heritage test to determine whether the activity requires a cultural heritage management plan. The test can be submitted to the Secretary, who must then certify the test or refuse to do so.

New rules for access to the Register

The Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register is the repository of all known Aboriginal places and objects, as well as the repository of details of agreements made and other matters. Access to the Register is restricted to specified persons for specified purposes.
The Amending Act specifies that additional people may access the Register, including public servants responsible for planning permits and planning scheme amendments. At the same time, access to sensitive information will be more closely held, and it will be an offence to use information obtained from the Register for an unauthorised purpose. Finally, Traditional Owners, through RAPs and the Council, will be able to nominate particular information held on the Register to be classed as sensitive and subject to extra protection.

New regime for protecting cultural knowledge 

The Amending Act creates a new category of heritage called 'Aboriginal intangible heritage'. 'Aboriginal intangible heritage' includes any knowledge of Aboriginal tradition, other than cultural heritage or knowledge which is already widely known to the public. Aboriginal intangible heritage needs to be recorded on the Register to be protected.
In simplified terms, it will be an offence for Aboriginal intangible heritage to be used for commercial purposes without the agreement of the appropriate registered Aboriginal party. It will also be an offence to fail to adhere to any intangible heritage agreement once made (but intangible heritage will generally be excluded from the other offence provisions).

New Enforcement Powers

The Amending Act empowers authorised officers, previously known as inspectors, and Aboriginal heritage officers, who are employees of RAPs appointed by the Minister, to issue a 24-hour stop order to protect Aboriginal heritage from acts that harm it, or are likely to. It is an indictable offence to not comply with the stop order. Authorised officers will also be empowered to issue improvement orders, which require the person to remedy a contravention of the Act.

Altered offences

The Amending Act clarifies and alters the existing offences. It will be an offence to act, or omit to act, in a way that knowingly, recklessly or negligently harms Aboriginal heritage. The Bill also introduces a strict liability offence of harming Aboriginal heritage (which carries a lesser penalty than the offences with a mental element).
It also provides that officers of bodies corporate may be personally liable for acts by the body in prescribed circumstances.  With some exceptions, the new provisions may apply to officers of statutory bodies corporate, so it is important to be aware of these changes.

Aboriginal Ancestral Remains

The Amending Act establishes a new system for managing Aboriginal Ancestral Remains (Aboriginal skeletal material). First, it requires all institutions to report on any remains in their collections to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council within two years of commencement of the Act. This requirement applies to all museums, hospitals and other state agencies and institutions.

Second, the Amending Act requires all remains to be returned to the Council for its management. If the Council, or relevant Traditional Owner, is not able to care for the remains, they are to be deposited at Museum Victoria for safe keeping.

For further information please contact:

Mark Egan
Principal Solicitor
8644 0489

Mary Scalzo
Managing Principal Solicitor
9947 1419

Renewed commitment to energy efficiency targets

What's new?

Victoria has renewed its commitment to energy efficiency targets with the introduction of updated targets for the next five years.  As a large energy consumer, government plays an important role in achieving these abatement targets - 5.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2016, steadily increasing each year to 6.5 million tonnes in 2020.  The Energy Saver Incentive, a scheme created by the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act (VEET Act) to facilitate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, also provides an opportunity for government to save money when undertaking certain energy efficiency activities.

How does the VEET scheme work, in a nutshell? 

1. The VEET Act:

1. Sets abatement targets; 
2. Imposes liabilities on energy retailers ('relevant entities'); and
3. Creates a scheme for the generation and sale of certificates as evidence of abatement.

2. An energy consumer (such as government) engages an accredited business ('accredited person') to do a 'prescribed activity'.  Prescribed activities are energy saving activities specified in the VEET Regulations,  including:

• incandescent lighting replacement;
• commercial lighting upgrades;
• installation of energy efficient heating or cooling; and
• purchase of energy efficient appliances.

3. For every 1 tonne of greenhouse gas abated as a result of a prescribed activity, the accredited business can generate 1 certificate representing this abatement.

  

4. The accredited business can then sell the certificates to energy retailers to enable the retailer to meet their VEET liability.

5. In anticipation of this sale, the accredited business may provide the energy consumer with a discount because the business can sell the certificates generated as a result of the energy saving activity undertaken on behalf of the consumer.  The discount is provided at the time the accredited business is engaged. 

How can the VEET scheme benefit government? 

The main benefit to government, as a large energy consumer, lies in the savings able to be made by engaging accredited businesses who offer discounts for energy saving activities, such as the installation of energy efficient lighting.    

Here are three practical tips that may help you take advantage of the scheme: 

• Check whether an activity is prescribed under the Regulations before developing a scope of work and engaging a contractor.
• Check whether a contractor is an accredited person before engaging them to undertake a prescribed activity. 
• Make accreditation under the VEET scheme a condition of any procurement process involving a prescribed activity. 

For more information visit: 

• Essential Services Commission's website: http://www.esc.vic.gov.au/Home; or
• Victorian Government's Energy Saver Incentive website: http://www.energyandresources.vic.gov.au/energy/about/legislation-and-regulation/energy-saver-incentive.

If you would like further advice in this area, please contact:

Eliza Bergin

Principal Solicitor

8684 0267

eliza.bergin@vgso.vic.gov.au 

Plan Melbourne 2016

What are the issues of relevance to me?

The Victorian Government has released a discussion paper on the refresh of Plan Melbourne.

Plan Melbourne 2016 will be published in the first half of next year, and will build on Plan Melbourne 2014.  On 18 June 2014, we reported on the adoption of Plan Melbourne which was subsequently incorporated into the Victoria Planning Provisions.  The Ministerial Advisory Committee that advised on Plan Melbourne has been reappointed to advise on the refresh.

The discussion paper reflects the Government's commitments and priorities and canvasses options for changes in planning policy and strategy.  It covers a range of key issues including housing and investment.  Of particular relevance to our clients is the discussion of improved environmental sustainability and planning for transport.

Environmental sustainability and climate change

The discussion paper emphasises sustainability as a key concept in the Plan Melbourne refresh.  Driving this part of the commentary are the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology[1] projections of increases in temperature and changing patterns of rainfall and more extreme weather events such as drought and bushfires, heatwaves, flooding and increased coastal inundation. 

The discussion paper suggests that a 'more sustainable polycentric city model' is preferable to contain urban growth within a permanent urban growth boundary.  It is also suggested that Plan Melbourne 2016 might support the 'greening' of the city, by structuring planning, local policies and overlays to promote more vegetation cover and cool hard surfaces.  Clarification of the limits to the 20-minute neighbourhood is also expected in Plan Melbourne 2016.

Once finalised, Plan Melbourne 2016 will sit alongside other key components of current and existing legislation, policy and plans in Victoria on the topic of climate change and environmental sustainability, many of which are under review:

·         Climate Change Act 2010, under review by an Independent Panel;

·         Climate Change Adaptation Plan, for which consultation is planned in early 2016;

·         Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007, recently amended;

·         Renewable Energy Action Plan, currently being developed;

·         Energy Efficiency and Productivity Strategy, to be released later this year;

·         revised Draft Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy, released in June 2015 and expected to be finalised by the end of 2015;

·         State Water Plan, to be released in 2016.

Transport Planning

Plan Melbourne 2016 will reflect the Government's transport priorities and commitments, including:

·         the Melbourne Metro Rail Project;

·         the removal of 50 metropolitan level crossings;

·         the Mernda Rail Extension; and

·         commitments to expand the bus network.

The discussion paper recognises that potential road initiatives such as connecting the Eastern Freeway and the Metropolitan Ring Road require further assessment.

Although Plan Melbourne 2014 committed to a second container port at Hastings, Plan Melbourne 2016 will leave open different options for the most appropriate site for a second container port, including locations at Bay West and Hastings.  Infrastructure Victoria will independently advise the government on this.

What are the next steps?

We will continue to update clients on this process.  Comments and submissions on the refresh of Plan Melbourne are invited until Friday 18 December 2015.  Please contact us if you would like assistance with preparing your submission.

Natasha Maugueret

Managing Principal Solicitor

8684 0402

natasha.maugueret@vgso.vic.gov.au

Eliza Bergin

Principal Solicitor

8684 0267

eliza.bergin@vgso.vic.gov.au

---

[1] Bureau of Meteorology (2014) 'State of the Climate 2014'.

Reform to the development contributions system

In 2012, the (then) Minister for Planning announced a preferred framework for the development contributions system in Victoria in A New Victorian Local Development Contribution System - A Preferred Way Forward. Issues such as the cost and time taken to prepare a development contributions plan and the level of detail required to justify a contributions levy were identified as reasons that the existing development contributions system in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 should be changed.

The Standard Development Contributions Advisory Committee was appointed by the Minister for Planning in 2012 to review and report on the new system. It did this in two reports: Report 1; Setting the Framework (2012) and Report 2: Setting the Levies (2013). The Advisory Committee examined the existing development contributions system and recommended reforms to it. These included using standard levies that could be applied in all Victorian municipalities in various development settings, to make the process for producing development contributions plans less costly and more efficient.

Recently, the Planning and Environment Amendment (Infrastructure Contributions) Act 2015 (Amending Act) was passed. It is expected to commence early 2016 and will implement some of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, including setting a standard levy to raise revenue to pay for infrastructure which is needed because of the development of land for residential and other purposes.

What is an Infrastructure Contributions Plan?

The new Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) system will operate in a similar way to the existing development contributions plan (DCP) scheme, with some significant differences. Similar to DCPs, ICPs are a mechanism to raise and distribute money required to pay for certain infrastructure.

Like DCPs, an ICP can be included in a planning scheme to levy financial contributions (an infrastructure levy) to fund the construction of infrastructure (works, services and facilities), the need for which is generated by the development of land. The levy is payable when a person seeks to develop land.

ICPs cannot be used to levy contributions for State infrastructure in areas where the growth areas infrastructure contribution (GAIC) applies.

What levies can be required under an ICP?

Unlike DCPs, the infrastructure levy imposed under an ICP can consist of a standard levy or a supplementary levy.

Although not explicit in the Amending Act, it is proposed that the Minister for Planning will make directions which will state that the standard levy is to be used to fund 'basic and essential' infrastructure items selected from a pre-set list of 'allowable' items for residential, retail and commercial development. The allowable items are to be defined in the Ministerial directions and are likely to include items such as transport, community and recreation facilities, and a public land component. The standard levy can be picked 'off the shelf' from the allowable items list for certain areas.

The supplementary levy can be imposed to fund infrastructure that cannot be funded from the standard levy. The use of the supplementary levy (and the rate at which it will be set) will need to be justified each time it is used, unlike for the standard levy.

Where do ICPs apply?

Although it is not explicit in the Amending Act, it is expected that the Minister's directions will initially permit ICPs to be used in greenfield growth areas and strategic development areas in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. Greenfield growth areas will accommodate Melbourne's urban growth and are usually located on the periphery of urban areas. Strategic development areas are generally identified in Plan Melbourne and are located on sites that provide development opportunities close to public transport and other infrastructure.

Who are the levies paid to?

The levies are paid to local councils, and relevant State agencies who will be responsible for constructing the infrastructure specified in the ICP (such as VicRoads for certain roads and intersections). With the agreement of the State agency or council, land can be set aside on which infrastructure such as roads, community facilities and parks can be constructed.

How is this relevant?

Once the ICP system is operating, State agencies who have a role in providing works, services and facilities to meet the infrastructure needs of new development in greenfields growth areas and strategic development areas will need to be aware of the differences between the existing DCP system and the new ICP system.

This will include familiarity with the types of State infrastructure that can be funded under ICPs (such as public transport improvements). Funding for State infrastructure is expected to be raised via the supplementary levy (and only for areas where the GAIC does not apply).

State agencies can be expected to have a role to play when a supplementary levy is required to fund the cost of providing State infrastructure, including having input into the justification for a supplementary levy for these purposes.

Victorian Government clients seeking advice on land, planning and environment issues can contact:

Juliette Halliday

Managing Principal Solicitor

8684 0299

Mark Egan

Principal Solicitor

8684 0489

Native Title Round Up

With NAIDOC Week fresh in our minds, VGSO's Land, Planning and Environment Team thought it timely to provide a round up of recent developments in Native Title in Victoria.

1. ALRC recommends significant Native Title Act reforms 

The Australian Law Reform Commission's report on the Native Title Act 1993 includes recommendations that could create significant change in the jurisdiction if the Federal Government passes laws to implement them. The report, 'Connection to Country', was tabled in Parliament on 4 June 2015. Its key recommendations include amending the Act so that claimants would not have to prove that traditional laws and customs have been observed by each and every generation since sovereignty, nor that the society defined by the laws and customs has continued in existence since before sovereignty. The report also recommends that the Act explicitly acknowledge that traditional laws and customs may adapt, evolve or otherwise develop, and that native title rights be capable of including commercial trading rights. The Report contains 30 recommendations overall. The Native Title Act applies nationally.

2. Northern Victorian Claim Ends After 15 Years

The Wadi Wadi, Barapa Barapa, Wamba Wamba native title claim was struck out by the Federal Court on 15 June 2015. It was struck out on the basis that the claim had not progressed for some time, and in the present circumstances the three claimant groups were not in a position to move the claim forward in an efficient way. The Court noted that the strike out was procedural, and did not reflect on whether or not native title rights exist in the area. The groups are still able to file a new native title claim, or pursue rights and recognition under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 or Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010. The claim covered areas along the Murray River and extended south of Swan Hill.

3. Gunaikurnai People: New Wilson's Promontory claim registered

The Gunaikurnai People have made a new native title claim over Wilson's Promontory, which has now been entered on the National Register of Native Title Claims. This triggers certain procedural entitlements under the Native Title Act in respect of any projects over Crown land in the claim area that would affect native title (a 'future act'). The claim includes Corner Inlet, extends north inland towards Berry's Creek, and west to Point Smythe. It also includes islands off Wilson's Promontory. The Gunaikurnai People lodged the claim in the Federal Court on 9 December 2014. The Native Title Registrar's delegate was satisfied that the claim met criteria under the Native Title Act, and accepted the claim on the Register of Native Title Claims on 20 April 2015.

4. Victorian alternative to future act regime commences for Dja Dja Warrung

The Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation had the first ever 'Land Use Activity Agreement' commence in late 2014. This triggers procedural entitlements and requirements under Part 4 of the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2014 that particular persons need to follow when carrying out certain activities in the agreement area. The agreement covers a defined area in the vicinity of Bendigo, Central Victoria. Examples of activities range from clearing Crown land, to the grant of mineral tenements, to the sale of Crown land. Agencies involved with activities covered by the agreement in that area should familiarise themselves with the relevant requirements. The agreement is publicly available on the Department of Justice and Regulation website. 

For enquiries regarding Native Title and related matters, please contact:

Mary Scalzo

Managing Principal Solicitor

9947 1419

James Stephens

Principal Solicitor

9947 1422

UPDATED: Have you read the forecast? Changes ahead in the Land, Planning and Environment scene

UPDATE: Since this blog was first published on 19 June 2015, the Planning and Environment Amendment (Recognising Objectors) Act 2015 was given royal assent on 11 August 2015.
At this stage the Act has not come into operation. Unless it is proclaimed by 14 April 2016 it will become operative on that date.  The bill and the Act as assented to are in identical terms.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There are changes afoot in the Land, Planning and Environment scene, including amendments to both the Act and the Regulations and a new levy for metropolitan developments valued over $1 million.

CHANGES TO THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987

A new bill has been introduced into Parliament that will permit VCAT and responsible authorities to consider the number of objectors to a permit application when deciding whether a proposed use or development may have a significant social effect.

Decision-makers must already consider whether a use or development may have a significant social effect, however the number of objectors to a permit application was previously not specifically identified as a relevant consideration.  The proposed amendments clarify that the two key decision-makers in the planning permit process, the responsible authority or VCAT on review, may take the number of objectors into consideration before a decision is made, if the circumstances require.

The Minister for Planning, Richard Wynne, stated that the new requirement 'is likely to be particularly relevant in circumstances where a proposal may reduce access to or enjoyment of community facilities or services or adversely affect public health and safety.'  He stated that the number of objectors and the consistency of their views may demonstrate a section of the scale of a social effect on the community.

As is the case now, an objector will need to put their concerns in writing and state how they would be affected by the grant of a permit.

The Minister  also clarified that "social effects" may include matters such as the demand for use of community facilities and services, access to social and community facilities, choice in housing, shopping and recreational leisure services, community safety and amenity and the needs of particular groups in the community.

METROPOLITAN PLANNING LEVY

A new levy on planning permit applications for projects valued at over $1 million within Melbourne metropolitan areas takes effect from 1 July 2015.  Relevantly no exemptions apply for State Government Agencies.

The levy will be payable to a relevant responsible authority or planning authority and will be administered by the State Revenue Office (SRO).  Applicants must first apply for a Metropolitan Planning Levy (MPL) Certificate from the SRO and pay the MPL before making a planning permit application.  The rate for the MPL has been set in essence, at $1.30 per $1000 for affected projects.

The levy is payable where the estimated cost of  the development exceeds the threshold amount, which is currently $1 million for the 2015-2016 financial year.  Moving forward, this threshold amount will be indexed by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The SRO is to publish the CPI adjusted threshold amount annually.

NEW PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGULATIONS

Rounding up a sweep of recent changes and drawing seven months of public consultation to a close, new Planning and Environment Regulations 2015 came into operation on 16 May 2015.

Of relevance to State agencies that own, develop or manage land, three new forms have been inserted for giving notice of a proposal and decision to amend or end a section 173 Agreement.  As such, all users of Victoria's planning system will need to update their systems and review the new forms.  To consider the effect of these changes on your Department or agency, contact:

Eliza Bergin
Principal Solicitor
8684 0267
eliza.bergin@vgso.vic.gov.au

Juliette Halliday
Managing Principal Solicitor
t 8684 0299
juliette.halliday@vgso.vic.gov.au

Changes to the operation of the VCAT Planning & Environment List are imminent!

What is the issue?

At the end of 2014, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal  announced changes proposed to be implemented to its Planning and Environment List from
2 February 2015 which will affect the way this List operates for all applicants, respondents and responsible authorities.

What does it mean for me?

All clients with exposure to the jurisdiction of VCAT, including as proponents, objectors, referral authorities and responsible authorities will be impacted by these changes which we consider will streamline this List to follow a similar mode of operation to the Major Cases List, a subset of the Planning and Environment List.

VCAT advised of the following four key changes in a recent media release.

1. Initiating orders will be sent out for all matters in the Planning and Environment List.  These orders will specify hearing dates and any compulsory conference or mediation dates.  This changes from the current position where parties are not advised of a hearing date until later in the process.
2. Alternative dispute resolution using the expert services of the mediators at VCAT will be further encouraged by notification of the date for attendance at a compulsory conference or mediation at the outset of proceedings.  The current position relies on solicitors advising their clients of the method and process of mediation at VCAT in order to attempt to resolve the dispute by mutually acceptable terms for all parties.
3. Email is proposed to be the 'preferred method' of communication with parties and their advisors, rather than posting orders and hearing dates out in hard copy by ordinary post.
4. New application forms will facilitate the early provision of required documentation and additional details. This includes a copy of the planning permit application, plans and supporting material lodged by the applicant for permit,  detail regarding objectors and whether a cultural heritage management plan has been prepared.

These changes are reflective of the new Major Cases List process, whereby applicants are provided with standard initiating directions setting out all relevant hearing dates together with a timetable for other procedural steps.  In our experience, this new method significantly expedites the hearing and determination of a matters, and if possible the early resolution of a dispute without jeopardising the allocated hearing date. 

These changes will predominantly affect applications for review of the decision to grant (or not to grant) a permit, failure to decide appeals and applications for review of conditions of permit.  Enforcement matters will instead be referred to an initial practice day hearing.

What are the next steps?

Until 2 February 2015, VCAT advise that the old methods and procedures will be applied to applications for review.  At that time, finer details regarding the new procedures will be clarified.  Parties should seek legal advice regarding the impact of the announcement on any future matters proposed to be filed in VCAT. The following staff can assist you:

Eliza Bergin

Principal Solicitor

eliza.bergin@vgso.vic.gov.au

Juliette Halliday

Acting Managing Principal Solicitor

juliette.halliday@vgso.vic.gov.au

Unlicensed to chill - why an esky was deemed a motor vehicle

A man was recently fined almost $1,500 for apparently operating an unregistered vehicle, without a licence.

So, why did that become a story, in The Age, the Herald Sun and the ABC?
Answer: the vehicle was an esky, and the man was riding it along a footpath.

But there is no need to panic - it is still possible to safely and lawfully transport cold beverages, whether by esky, 'chilly bin', or other preferred type of beverage conveyance.

Under the Road Safety Act 1986, it is an offence to use an unregistered motor vehicle on a highway (s 7) and to drive a motor vehicle on a highway (s 18) (unless there is an applicable exemption).  Conventional use of an esky will not contravene either provision, but as this recent news shows, the Road Safety Act can apply more broadly than the public might expect.

First, a footpath can be a highway under the Road Safety Act. A highway includes both 'roads' and 'road related areas'. A footpath or nature strip, which is adjacent to a road, is a road related area (as is, for example, an area that is open to the public and is designated for use by cyclists or animals).

Secondly, any vehicle with a motor may be a motor vehicle, should it be used on a road or road related area. A motor vehicle is any 'vehicle that is used or intended to be used on a highway and that is built to be propelled by a motor that forms part of the vehicle'.  So even if  you attach a motor to your esky, it will still only be a motor vehicle if it is used, or intended to be used, on a highway. That needs to be considered in relation to each particular vehicle or esky (rather than motorised eskies as a class). While it is doubtful that any motorised esky is intended to be used on a highway, it will generally be sufficient if it is actually used on one.

There are also exemptions which could be useful for prospective operators of motorised eskies (and like vehicles) to know about. For example, if one walks with one's motorised esky, rather than rides it, and it has a maximum speed of less than 7 km/h, it would be exempt by an order that has been made under s 3(2) of Road Safety Act. The same order also exempts certain scooters and bicycles. Motorised wheelchairs are exempt under the Act itself.

This case is (hopefully) somewhat unusual. That said, public authorities often have other issues arising under the Road Safety Act (such as in relation to land under their control), or under the Road Management Act 2004, Transport Integration Act 2010, or about roads generally, with which we can assist.

For such road related queries, please contact:

Mark Egan
Principal Solicitor
mark.egan@vgso.vic.gov.au

Anthony Leggiero
Acting Managing Principal Solicitor
anthony.leggiero@vgso.vic.gov.au